The Houyhnhnm as Menippean Horse (1966)

Abstract

Book iv of Gulliver’s Travels has become a battleground for two opposing armies of critics in this century. On one side are the critics who take the traditional view of the Houyhnhnms (a view which flourished almost unquestioned in the nineteenth century), solemnly seeing them as ideal creatures, and on the other side are the critics who see the Houyhnhnms as ironic. Among others, George Sherburn, W. A. Eddy, J. Middleton Murry, A. E. Case, Charles Peake, and Ricardo Quintana have written in terms of, or in direct defense of, the traditional view. The battle line is not always clearly drawn; Martin Price and W. B. Ewald seem to hold the traditional view, but they tend to see some irony in Swift’s portrayal of the Houylmlmms. And Quintana’s later discussion ofthe Houyhnhnms in Swift: an introduction (1954) differs in a vital way from his earlier discussion in The Mind and Art of Jonathan Swift (1936; reprinted 1953). In the later book Quintana wonders whether he should be quite so solemn about the Houyhnhnms: ‘there are moments when we have to ask ourselves whether our imaginary voyage is not becoming a parody of itself — whether, for instance, the Utopian elements are not slyly humorous’.