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.
Thank you for introducing me to the concept of hetereoglossia. Shifts in voice are yet another aspect of the modern novel that I have, until now, taken for granted. It is so interesting to imagine the creation of such effects as having been new, exciting experiments for the eighteenth-century writer. I wonder, though, exactly why the novel was so uniquely fit for experiments with heteroglossia. Is it simply because, often, the novel's authorial voice is meant to fade from our consciousness and we to experience the events of the narrative voyeuristically?
ReplyDelete