A Modest Proposal

A Modest Proposal For preventing the Children of Poor People From being a Burthen to Their Parents or Country, and For making them Beneficial to the Publick is a satirical essay published anonymously in 1729 by Irish author Jonathan Swift. Using irony and hyperbole, the essay mocks heartless attitudes toward the poor among English and Irish elites by proposing that impoverished families sell their infant children to be killed and eaten by the rich. One of the earliest and most influential examples of satire in the English language, A Modest Proposal continues to serve as a reference point in political debates over issues as varied as climate change, abortion, and health care. The book also helped birth the term “Swiftian,” which is used to describe similarly hyperbolic political parodies.

This guide refers to the Dover Thrift edition first published in 1996.

Swift’s narrator begins his essay in apparent earnest, bemoaning the abject poverty that afflicts families in Dublin, Ireland, and the surrounding countryside. Of particular concern to the narrator are impoverished infants, for whom he sees no future aside from a life of thievery. He therefore resolves to put forward a “fair, cheap, and easy method of making these children sound useful members of the commonwealth” (52).

The narrator goes on to make a diligent accounting of the number of infants born annually in Ireland to indigent mothers, concluding that out of the country’s 200,000 wives of reproductive age, 170,000 are unable to care for their children. From this sum, he subtracts 50,000 to account for miscarriages and infants who die within a year. Here, the narrator’s analysis takes a startling turn, as he offers his thoughts on how best to handle the majority of these 120,000 infants. He writes:

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout (53).

Having established that Ireland would be best served by cannibalizing its poor infants, the narrator supports his argument using the same measured tone as before, despite the barbarity of his proposal. He even puts forth cooking, seasoning, and serving methods to make the most out of an infant carcass. In the interest of thrift, the narrator proposes that buyers also flay the infants and use their hides to make ladies’ gloves and men’s boots.

Concerning why older children should not also be consumed—an idea attributed here to George Psalmanazar, a noted French imposter and contemporary of Swift’s—the narrator cites his aforementioned “American acquaintance” who assures him that schoolboys are too tough to serve as suitable sources of meat, and schoolgirls are too valuable as “breeders” (55). As for the old and infirm, the narrator is satisfied to report that they are presently dying of starvation and cold as quickly as one can expect.

In summary, the narrator lists six major advantages of his proposal: First, it would thin out the number of Catholics in Ireland, given that Catholic infants outnumber Protestant infants three to one. Second, it would give poor tenants something of value to use to pay their landlords. Third, the money normally spent raising children past age two would instead circulate in the local economy. Fourth, each mother would earn a salary of eight shillings a year, should she be in a state of constant breeding. Fifth, infant meat would be a boon to chefs who stand to earn great renown for their unique preparation techniques. Finally, given the profit potential of newborns, men would become as fond of their pregnant wives “as they are now of their mares in foal” (57).

With these benefits in mind, the narrator can see no legitimate objection to his proposal. He is quick to dismiss a series of alternatives, including a tax on absentee landlords, a reliance on goods manufactured in Ireland, abandoning factionalism in favor of unity, and a series of other more sensible reforms and attitudes. Here, the narrator hits on one more advantage of his proposal: It in no way inconveniences England. Finally, the narrator assures the reader that he has nothing to gain financially from such a proposal, given that his youngest child is nine years old and his wife is past her reproductive age.