Allegory and Bakhtin

           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…

"The Lie"

            Sir Walter Raleigh’s “The Lie” is my favourite course text to date.  Though fascinated by the manipulative nature of James’s writing, Elizabeth’s unconcealed angst, More’s socio-political critique in Utopia, etc., there is something about the strength in the simplicity of Raleigh’s poem that I was struck by.  Knowing he was to be executed and that any convictions of treason would obviously be nullified by the fact that he was already to be beheaded, Raleigh addresses the political, social, and monarchic issues that exist in society, head-on. 

Within the first three stanzas, Raleigh attacks the monarch, the court and the church, three institutions not to be meddled with, showing their corrupt and rotting foundations and their deceiving ways.  Raleigh points to the falsehood and weakness of monarchic rule stating, “they live / Acting by others’ action; / Not loved unless they give, / Not strong but by a faction” (13-16), unequivocally commenting on exactly what caused James and Elizabeth so much anxiety.

These obtrusive revelations continue in the tenth stanza as Raleigh subverts some of the fundamental principles people live by. He equates fortune with blindness, nature with decay, friendship with unkindness, and justice with a lack of action (55-58).  Although Raleigh appears simply as a bitter and pessimistic prisoner, he is encouraging people to challenge the accepted state of affairs.  He forces them to look past the superficial stability of these socio-political systems to their rotten core by telling people, in his powerful and passionate, monosyllabic phrase “give them all the lie.”

While I appreciate the effectiveness of Raleigh’s language and style, I think most of all I applaud his attitude.  Instead of sulking over the fact that he is soon to be beheaded, he is empowered by his inevitable demise, this invincibility of the soul.  He cannot be beheaded a second time for treason.  Understanding this he rips open the confines of society to expose to the people the ruin that has governed their lives.

Sinner or saint? The choice is pretty clear to me.