Allegorical texts have dominated the content of this course. Whether through the creation of deception or the dissimulative self in monarchic writing, the subversions a domineering society in non-aristocratic writing, or the various layers of meaning coming out of Faustus, allegory was a major component of effective writing in the Elizabethan period. This idea of multiple levels of narration brought me to Mikhail Bakhtin’s theory on the dialogicand heteroglossia.
By second-year I was quite familiar with Bakhtin’s work and have had it in my theoretical, mind bank for a few years now. Therefore, when I read a text, the notions of stratification of language and authorial intent are always on my mind. I am always seeking out ways in which the authorial voice projects itself on the text, where there is an inconsistency in voice. While it can be quite heavy material to grasp, and I may have wished I hadn’t had to get through it at some points, I am glad I do have this knowledge, insofar as I am able to critically engage with texts and always challenge aspects that may be deemed questionable.
I have been thinking about this throughout the course and how easy it has been for us to point out the anxieties present in monarchic writing, or decipher the metaphors in subversive poetry. Sometimes I wonder though, or questions arise in class, about how the people of the Elizabethan period reacted to these texts? Did they see the anxieties surfacing? Did they understand that James was arguing for his divine kingship purely out of self-interest? If they wanted to rebel, or find truth, would they be able to interpret the messages that were hidden amongst the writings Shakespeare, More, etc.?
I can only imagine how different Elizabethan England might have been, if Bakhtin was readily available for people to read and learn from…
No comments:
Post a Comment