Joel W. Darrington and Dr. Joseph Parry, Humanities, Classics and Comparative Literature
Mikhail Mikhailovich (M. M.) Bakhtin is increasingly becoming one of the important literary theorists of our century. Writing in Stalinist Russia in the first half of this century, Bakhtin has come out of obscurity in the last twenty or so years to a place of prominence. His literary theories are broad and diverse. One dimension to his theories stood out to me as being particularly useful to any reading of Shakespeare. Bakhtin, while writing about the novel, articulated the nature of “double-voiced discourse”&that is, discourse which anticipates, incorporates, and is penetrated by the discourse of others, words “with a sideward glance” to those surrounding the speaker (1). Granted, Bakhtin specifically states that such “dialogized” discourse is a “privilege available neither to dramatic nor to poetic genres” (2). However, as Helene Keyssar notes, several of Bakhtin’s “key concepts,” including double-voiced discourse, seem “not just applicable to drama but centered in the most elemental attributes of dramatic forms”(3). Keyssar goes on to defend Bakhtin’s position in regards to classical drama and to justify her use of his theories for modern drama.
I proposed that one could also find extensive use of double-voiced discourse in Shakespearean drama. I analyzed The Tempest using this particular Bakhtinian concept as a tool to arrive at my own interpretation of the play. Also, in a way, my paper was a sort of case study for the way double-voiced discourse can work in Shakespeare and drama in general. I feel that this kind of interpretive strategy is a necessary contribution for the way Shakespeare is read. I make no claim that double-voiced discourse will revolutionize the way people find meaning in Shakespeare. But I do feel that it is a valuable new tool for approaching Shakespeare in a way that reveals new insights about the characters and their interrelationships. I see in Shakespeare’s play an interest in the plural voices of society that is similar to what Bakhtin explores in the modern novel. Yet in my research I found virtually no Shakespearean criticism that used Bakhtin’s theory of double-voiced discourse as a critical tool, and absolutely none that applies such to The Tempest. My paper examined how The Tempest reveals that Shakespeare shared an interest with Bakhtin regarding society’s multiple voices. However, my use of this Bakhtinian concept did not solve every interpretative problem in the play. Indeed, as Bakhtin and many other contemporary literary critics would agree, an ultimate interpretation is impossible since a dialogized text can have no final meaning. I explored only one fascinating dimension of what The Tempest could mean.
My methodology involved analyzing Shakespeare’s The Tempest using Bakhtin’s idea of double-voiced discourse as an interpretive tool. I focused my analysis on how the various characters’ use of double-voiced discourse reveals aspects of their personality and relationships with each other. Although I drew upon past critical analyses to augment my own views, the interpretation was original to me.
Through my research, I found that the play centers on Prospero’s power. In his overzealous spirit of justice, Prospero seeks to use his magical and discursive powers to enforce his mastery over others in order to regain his lost dukedom, which he legitimately claims. His magical power reinforces his discursive power and he often threatens to use his magic to ensure obedience. Yet one of his most effective means of discursive power is his use of moralistic discourse, which seeks to persuade rather than coerce, and is based on his legitimacy as an authority figure rather than on his coercive magical powers. When Prospero comes to realize the dangerous, anarchic nature of illegitimate power, he renounces his magical art and confines his power to his legitimate authority, and changes his discourse to a morally persuasive one of mercy. Throughout the play, other characters highlight Prospero’s transformation through their own power struggles and experiences with the dangers of power. This is all manifested in the characters’ use of double-voiced discourse.
By examining the characters’ use of double-voiced discourse, I better understood the ways in which acts of power are accompanied by discourses of power. This use of double-voiced discourse in the text helps the reader better appreciate and understand Shakespeare’s treatment of coercive power as an anarchic force with moral problems. It also clarifies Shakespeare’s focus on the need for legitimacy in order to safely exercise power.
In summary, The Tempest describes the transformation of Prospero from a powerful and vengeful master to a forgiving and virtuous leader. His transformation is reflected and influenced by the discourse he chooses, which changes from a discourse of mastery to a discourse of mercy. Along the way, his discourse shapes and molds the voices and actions of those around him. Ultimately, though, it is his relinquishing of power that allows all to be reconciled in a comedic ending. The play that begins with a tempest ends with the promise of “calm seas” and “auspicious gales” (5.1. 318).
I spent approximately 70 hours in background research and preliminary work for this paper before the writing phase. I then devoted approximately another 80 hours to further research, consultation with Dr. Parry, and writing/revising. Once the paper was completed, I submitted a copy of it to the Honors Department as an Honors Thesis. I then defended the paper before a committee of faculty members, from the Honors and Humanities departments. While the questioning was rigorous, I was nonetheless able to successfully defend my work, earning a ranking of “Excellent” from the committee.
References
- Simon Dentith, Bakhtinian Thought: An Introductory Reader (New York: Routledge, 1995) 47.
- Dentith 214.
- Helene Keyssar, “Drama and the Dialogic Imagination: The Heidi Chronicles and Fefu and Her Friends,” Modern Drama 34 (1981): 88.