Hetereoglossia and Mock-Epic in Henry Fielding’s Joseph Andrews

Mikhail Bakhtin discusses novels in terms of “heteroglossia,” or different/layering voices.  Unlike poetry, novels are not monological utterances. They contain various voices; Henry Fielding is doing something different to his novel than what came before him. There are many examples of heteroglossia in Fielding’s Joseph Andrews.

Fielding juxtaposes high and low language, the classical and vulgar, and draws upon the satirical and comical.  When Adams runs to rescue the “shrieking” woman, he gets into a physical quarrel with the man on scene. Fielding compares Adam to a “Game-Cock” (160). This fight scene is supposed to appear like a classical epic simile, meant to glorify the heroic character, yet Fielding juxtaposes high/low language and compares Adam to a rooster raised to fight!

As the fight escalates and Adams defeats the man, we read the defeat in three different layers of translation: the language of fighting, poetry, and of plan English: “…’till he concluded (to use the Language of fighting) that he had done his Business; or, in the Language of Poetry, that he had sent him to the Shades below; in plan English, that he was dead” (161). Fielding is attempting to weave classical tradition into modern life. He has replaced the classical, non-Christian hero with Adams, a simple, Christian, clergy. Is heteroglossia then paving way for a more democratic novel that is available to a wider audience? Fielding is aware that he has a varied audience and is aware that it’ll be a middle class society who will need simple language. Is Fielding utilizing common language to include middle-class readership?

Adams refers to the woman as a “Damsel.” Is she even a damsel? Adams himself interprets the fight scene in terms of classical heroism (Adams is the hero meant to rescue the “damsel” in distress). Is the reality Adams is living in flawed? Adams is a comical, simple, and gullible character.  Fielding references the author of Don Quixote in the title page of Joseph Andrews. Don Quixote’s problem was that he read too many Romances and even knights himself.  He’s become unrealistic and starts to believe fantasies are real; Fielding parallels him to Adams.

Fielding continues to take the epic and shuttle in onto lower class individuals. At one point, Joseph Andrews is introduced in mock-epic fashion. First, Fielding calls forth the Muses like classical writers would and says, “Now thou, whoever thou art, whether a Muse, or by what other Name soever thou chusest to be called” poking fun at this classical invocation (243).  Fielding continues to introduce Andrews referring to him as the “Plain, the young, the gay, the brave Joseph Andrews” (243).  The new classical hero is the common individual. Andrews grasps his “cudgel,” not sword like classical heroes would, and “Lightning darted from his Eyes, and the heroick Youth…ran with the utmost speed to his Friend’s Assistance” (244). The epic is replaced with the middle class individual. He jokingly refers to this scene as a “battle” which, “Thus far the Muse hath with her usual Dignity related” (245). Andrews is fighting dogs! He’s not in a battle with Roman or Greek epic men. Is Fielding insisting that the epic is unrealistic? Is he replacing the classical with the middle class? I don’t think there is a stable definition of a novel and Fielding is experimenting with the genre.

The Self-Conscious Narrator in Henry Fielding’s Shamela and Eliza Haywood’s Anti-Pamela

Is Henry Fielding’s Shamela exposing Pamela’s true character? In an early letter to her mother, Shamela says the squire held her hand and she “pretended to be shy” (243).  And when he had kissed her, she “pretended to be Angry, and to get away” (243). She continues and says that by “Ill-luck,” Mrs. Jervis walked in on the squire kissing Shamela and spoiled the moment. We’ve wondered about Pamela’s honesty in her letters regarding her feelings for Mr. B and his attempts at her. Is Shamela the real Pamela exposed? If Pamela were not trying to appear virtuous to her parents, would she have also said she was pretending to be upset? Shamela is an honest narrator, she tells her audience that she enjoys the squire kissing her and holding her hand, but is aware of her role as a woman and must appear to be virtuous in front of the squire. The difference between her and Pamela is she’s actually honest in retelling her story through her letters. Is Shamela less virtuous than Pamela because she admits to liking the squire’s attempts? I think Shamela is a self-conscious and honest narrator, unlike Pamela.

In Letter VI, at Twelve o’Clock, Shamela is writing to her mom and says, “You see I write in the present Tense” (247). Shamela is conscious of the act of writing and is honest in admitting her presence as the narrator. She then admits to having feigned a “Swoon” in front of the squire and in having difficulty maintaining her  “Countenance, when a violent Laugh desires to burst forth” (18). Shamela has freedom as a self-conscious narrator, and when she desires to laugh at pretending to have swooned, I think she desires to laugh at her own reckless freedom in writing the truth, where others before her have tried to conceal it.

In conversation with Mrs. Jewkes, we continue to see Shamela’s self-consciousness. Mrs. Jewkes tries to lecture Shamela on her behavior in Letter X and says if other servants are punished, it is her fault. Shamela, however, doesn’t allow this conversation to continue.  She says, “Mrs. Jewkes remembered the Smart of my Nails too well to go farther; and so we sat down and talked about my Vartue till Dinner-time” (258). Later down the page, Shamela says they “talked of honourable Designs till Supper-time” (258).  Shamela is not trying to be affected like Pamela was; Shamela is putting everything out on the table in discussing “vartue” and “honourable designs”. The artistry of a narrator is in the novel.

Shamela brings all artistry to the surface. Fielding appreciates the self-conscious narrator, which is why I think he pokes fun at Pamela’s supposed “virtue.” We will see the self-conscious narrator reappear in Fielding’s Joseph Andrews as well.

The title to Eliza Haywood’s Anti-Pamela reads: Anti-Pamela; or Feign’d Innocence Detected. Feigned innocence detected is similar to my speculation that Fielding is exposing Pamela as feigning her innocence and dislike of Mr. B’s attempts.  Syrena’s intentions are revealed to us in the very beginning from a narrator. We are told early on that Syrena did not hope to become a laborer but that she may become rich either through “Marriage, or a Settlement from some Man of Condition” (56).  She is willing to become a mistress to someone of high rank or status; and she is only 13 years old at this point! Syrena is a social climber, and Haywood may be implying that so too is Pamela.

The self-conscious narrator, after having relayed to us that Syrena and her mother hoped for more grand options, says, “Here one cannot forbear reflecting, how shocking it is, when those who should point out the Paths of Virtue, give a wrong Bent to the young and unform’d Mind” (56).  The narrator is giving her own opinion on the behavior of her characters. Is this opinion directed at Samuel Richardson who claims to “cultivate the Principles of Virtue…in the Minds of the Youth”? Haywood is clearly not concealing her sentiment towards Richardson’s novel in her title Anti-Pamela.

Syrena is similar to Shamela in that she is honest about her feelings too. She admits to pretending to act a certain way and is very obvious in wanting money, status, and gifts from men of high rank. We know very well what she is after and she lays it all out.  Like Shamela, she is aware of her role as a female, and so puts on a virtuous act in front of Vardine when they first meet. He is very sexual towards her, admitting to watching her dress and asking her opinion on which stockings to purchase. Though Syrena appears to be careless in front of him, she says “I said nothing, but pretended to be mighty uneasy, tho’ in my Heart I was well enough pleas’d” (61). And then of course she does choose a pair of stockings. Syrena is aware of her role as a female though and so she rejects the stockings when Vardine insists she takes them. She is honest in admitting though that "indeed they were very pretty” and later regrets not taking them (62, 69).

I am very curious about the narrator appearing before Syrena’s letters. Can we safely assume this is Haywood laying out her thoughts and giving us a depiction of her character before we’re even able to judge Syrena for ourselves? The narrator continues to reappear throughout the novel, commenting on Syrena and exposing her intentions.  

Also, why don’t we get to see the letter Syrena wrote to her mom pretending she got rid of Vardine (73)? Instead, the narrator relays their conversation to us. Is this significant in any way? Does the narrator seem to have her own agenda throughout the novel?

Pamela's Marriage to the Rake in Samuel Richardson's Pamela

We briefly discussed Pamela’s outspoken personality in class. For a servant girl of her social class, she is indeed opinionated and vocal about her opinions.  Pamela worries about protecting her virtue and so denies Mr. B’s attempts at her. I enjoy that Pamela speaks for herself and puts the rake in his place! She questions how she became Mr. B’s property and refuses to bet taken as property (126). In Volume I, Pamela is not a passive female, but a rebellious one. In Volume II, however, things change. Pamela gets married and it is this maneuver by Richardson that I would like to discuss.

For women, marriage became a tool for economic security.  Pamela brings no wealth to her family unless she marries well. . For lower class women, their virtue was their way to get to a higher station.  Pamela remains virtuous and is thus rewarded with money. This brings me back to my point in class about virtue being economical. Pamela knows her virginity is worth something. Does her marriage to Mr. B render Pamela passive? Does it work against trying to uphold what seemed like female rebellion against male power? What has allowed her to put her guard down?

All throughout Volume I, Mr. B has tried to control Pamela, physically and mentally. He tries to rape her, and he even intercepts her letters and tries to control her pen. There exists this tension between Pamela fighting and avoiding Mr. B and yet wondering why she can’t hate her “master”! She begins her letters by referring to Mr. B as someone who “look’d like an Angel” (18). Later, even after his horrid attempts at her, she is “rejoicing for his Safety” (179). And even after he wants her to be his mistress, she says, “Why can’t I hate him?” and refers to him as a “handsome fine Gentleman” (196).  

So, what has allowed Pamela to put her guard down? Should we be angry that she married the rake? Pamela is very clear about her agitations with Mr. B and how she feels so unhappy in her position. Yet, after her terrible experiences and Mr. B’s proposal to her to be his mistress, Pamela’s language changes and she describes Mr. B’s mannerism as “something so noble, and so sincere” (214). That is aristocratic language! Is Pamela’s virtue taking her to a higher station, and is this what middle class women should aim for? Is Richardson saying that virtue is purely economical?

After Mr. B’s marriage proposal, he even confines her to the house and forbids her sending any letters or receiving any. What is her reply? “I will give Mrs. Jewkes no Trouble, Sir, said I, and will keep pretty much in my Chamber…to shew you I will obey in everything I can” (222).  Does she have other reasons for this passiveness than to go home and see her parents? Is she letting her guard down because she could be a wife and legally married? Later on, when Mr. B is letting Pamela go away “scot-free,” Pamela questions herself at wanting to leave the house and says, “I think I was loth to leave the House. Can you believe it? – What could be the Matter with me, I wonder?” (244).

            Has Mr. B’s marriage proposal “tamed” Pamela? Is she concealing her love for him to appear virtuous in her letters? Perhaps she has loved him all along but was smart enough to know that if she wants a proper marriage, she must remain virtuous and that in the end, her virtue will be rewarded. And so it was.

Shifting Virtues in Samuel Richardson's Pamela

I would like to start off by drawing similarities between the title to Samuel Richardson’s Pamela and Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe. We discussed how 18^th century novels are meant to be instructive. Pamela is very clear about this in its title. The title reads Pamela: or Virtue Rewarded. Thus, readers are told that in this novel, virtuous people are rewarded. This novel teaches you that to be rewarded, you must be good and virtuous. Moreover, as the title reads, Pamela was written, “In order to cultivate the Principles of Virtue and Religion in the Minds of the Youth of Both Sexes.” This is basically a conduct book! It is meant to teach morals and religion to youths.  Similar to the preface in Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe, the title to Richardson’s Pamela also indicates that it will instruct readers on how to behave morally.

In the 18^th century, women had little authority, and the novel was even seen as a threat to young women. At the center of Samuel Richardson’s Pamela, however, is a working class female; this had to have been rebellious at the time! I believe Pamela is more so targeted towards women and how they should behave. A concern at the time might have been about women leaving their families to make a living serving the upper class. For lower class women, virtue was their way to a higher station. Thus, virtue in Pamela is rewarded, and we know that Pamela in the end is rewarded with money. I wonder if this may have been cringe worthy to some at the time. The idea of being virtuous for economic reasons may have been seen as immoral. However, I would think this is an aristocratic point of view, considering they were born privileged. Pamela remains virtuous, denying Mr. B’s attempts at her, and she is thus rewarded for her morality. Basically, a woman’s virtue is attached to her hymen. But in avoiding becoming a sexual object, does Pamela become a sexual object because she knows her virtue is worth something? Her virtue is so strong that she even transforms aristocratic masculinity. The rake (Mr. B) is reformed and actually gets married! Thus, the middle class has the power to change the corrupt upper class. This is a change from 17^th century ideology.

The epistles in Pamela allow for autonomy of self. For a servant girl before marriage, Pamela actually speaks for herself.  She asks herself “how cam I to be his Property? What Right has he in me, but such a Thief may plead to stolen Goods?...This is downright Rebellion, I protest!” (126).  Pamela realizes her body is not someone else’s property, and that she can control her identity through her writing. She is rebelling against standards placed against her sex. Pamela writes herself, she’s in control of how she is represented and is thus asserting her right to define herself. Mr. B, however, wants to control Pamela and censor her writing. He tries to intercept her letters and chases her letters as though they were her body! I wonder though if Pamela is less worried about her body/sexuality, and more worried about Mr. B seeing her letters because they are representative of her mind and thus, her identity.  She claims, “The very things that I most dreaded his seeing or knowing, the Contents of my Papers…” (309).  It sometimes seems that Mr. B is more interested in controlling Pamela’s mind than her body. Is this representative of a shifting patriarchal society that is now more interested in policing a woman’s mind? Is Pamela’s virtue attached to her letters?