By Jasper Burget

In his essay “From the Prehistory of Novelistic Discourse,” Mikhail Bakhtin argues that the central characteristic of the novel is its multiplicity of voices. He specifically addresses two factors in the origin of the novel: parody and linguistic diversity. He says,

The most ancient forms for representing language were organized by laughter—these were originally nothing more than the ridiculing of another’s language and another’s direct discrouse. Polyglossia and the interanimation of languages associated with it elevated these forms to a new artistic and ideological level, which made possible the genre of the novel. (51)

Bakhtin elaborates by explaining how through parody “Language is transformed from the absolute dogma it had been within the narrow framework of sealed-off and impregnable monoglossia into a working hypothesis for comprehending and expressing reality,” and continues, “Only polyglossia fully frees consciousness from the tyranny of its own language… Parodic travestying forms flourish under these conditions, and only under this milieu are they capable of being elevated to new ideological heights” (61). Nowhere, it would seem, should this view of the novel be better expressed than in Tobias Smollett’s The Expedition of Humphry Clinker. The novel is written exclusively in the form of letters by a number of character and it is rife with humor, often of a subversive nature. Humphry Clinker, then, epitomizes both the interanimation of languages and the ideological comedy that Bakhtin sees as the essence of the novel. The reality, however, is more complex than that. Smollett only breaks down social order so that he can to build it back up again. He seeks a more perfect union—between nations, classes, and even genders. Humphry Clinker is certainly borne from a tradition of laughter and a society of polyglossia. It constantly both represents and lampoons contrasting points of view. Yet it also attempts to reconcile them—to make sense of a nonsensical world. The following will examine both the ways in which Smollett subverts the artificial order of British society, and the ways in which he strives build a new order in its place.

The most obvious way in which Smollett undercuts any sort of singular authoritative voice is through the novel’s format. Humphry Clinker is an epistolary novel. It consists of 85 letters, written by eight characters, although three of these eight write only one letter each. There is no clear authorial voice, and, in fact, no authoritative narrative voice at all (that the words “author” and “authority” share a root is telling in and of itself). The narrative is accessed exclusively through the voices of the characters. Single events are recounted multiple times by different sources, which makes the biases of the narrators clear. Polyglossia and dissonance reign supreme. Yet by presenting a variety of versions of different events the truth is ultimately revealed. In describing Clinker’s trial, Matthew and Jeremy generally agree; except that Matthew omits his outburst during the trial, which one only hears of later from Jeremy’s account. Often Matthew and Jeremy will elaborate on an incident that the other has glossed over, so that it is only between the two that the reader can get the complete picture. At one point, Matthew observes of Lydia,

Something uncommon is the matter with that poor child; her colour fades, her appetite fails, and her spirits flag.—She is become moping and melancholy, and is often found in tears.—Her brother suspects internal uneasiness on account of Wilson, and denounces vengeance against that adventurer.—She was, it seems, strongly affected at the ball by the sudden appearance of one Mr. Gordon, who strongly resembles the said Wilson; but I am rather suspicious that she caught cold by being overheated with dancing. (235)

In this case it turns out that neither Jeremy nor Matthew are correct. The reader must turn to Lydia herself, who explains,

I was not so much affected by the censure he passed upon my own indiscretion, as with the reflection he made on the conduct of Wilson—He observed, that if he was really the gentleman he pretended to be, and harboured nothing but honourable designs, he would have vindicated his pretensions in the face of day—This remark made a deep impression upon my mind—I endeavoured to conceal my thoughts; and this endeavour had a bad effect upon my health and spirits. (260)

In this way, even as it subverts any authoritative voice, Humphry Clinker’s polyglossia creates a sense of order. All of the letters taken together form something akin to a third-person omniscient narrative, which works to illuminate the clouded motivations of its characters and the complicated issues of its time.

As well as multiple versions of events, Humphry Clinker contains a variety of narrative voices. It should be noted that certain voices are certainly privileged above others. Of the 85 letters, Matthew and Jeremy write 28 apiece. Their letters are also usually considerably longer than those of their female counterparts, so that the voices of upper-class males dominate the narrative. All the same, it is notable that lower class and female voices are included in the first place. The women’s letters are characterized by a concern with their immediate circumstances, in contrast with the editorializing character of the men’s letters. Tabitha writes exclusively to the housekeeper regarding the upkeep of Brambleton-hall, while Lydia and Winifred both seem primarily concerned with how the events of the story affect them and their romantic pursuits. Tabitha’s letters are characterized by atrocious spelling and unintended innuendo. In one letter she declares her hope that Clinker may “have power given to penetrate and instill his goodness, even into your most inward parts” (275). Through such double meanings, Smollett’s voice intrudes into the text alongside his characters. Jenkins also struggles with spelling, but while Tabitha’s mistakes are set against her pompous attitude and sexual frustration, Jenkins’ are part of a general low class dialect, epitomized in such a line as, “We are all upon the ving—Hey for London, girl!—Fecks! we have been long enough here; for we’re all turned tipsy turvy” (70). The more educated characters, on the other hand, intersperse their letters with Latin phrases and even occasional Greek words (written in the Greek alphabet), providing an obvious counterpoint to the cruder letters. The novel also gives voice to different national dialects. Irish and especially Scottish dialects appear throughout the text, from characters such as Micklewhimmen, who says, “It was a vara poorful infusion of jallap in Bourdeaux wine; and it’s possable he may ha ta’en sic a dose as will produce a terrible catastrophe in his ain booels” (174). Humphy Clinker is characterized, then, not only by a variety of perspectives but by a very literal variety of languages, an obvious expression of polyglossia.

These disparate voices have clear political and sociological implications. The various voices in Humphry Clinker often present multiple points of view on an issue. One issue that the novel addresses again and again is urbanization. Matthew says upon arriving in London, “The capital is become an overgrown monster; which, like a dropsical head, will in time leave the body and extremities without nourishment and support” (87), while Lydia says “I can have no idea of any earthly temple more grand and magnificent” (91). Here two characters see the same phenomenon—London’s great scale and rapid growth—in very different lights. Matthew is prone to complain about everything and is a self-professed misanthrope, while Lydia is a hopeless romantic and easily impressed. The reader clearly sees the prejudices that color the character’s opinions. This is represented even more clearly in the character of Lismahago, a devoted contrarian, who loves to play devil’s advocate. In one episode, he and Matthew each present compelling arguments for and against the unification of Britain. Here again, Smollett argues the issues of the time from both sides, so that it would seem that there is no authoritative voice in the text. Smollett does, however, subtly propagate a political agenda. After his debate with Lismahago, Matthew admits, “Though I did not receive all his assertions as gospel, I was not prepared to refute them; and I cannot help now acquiescing in his remarks so far as to think, that the contempt for Scotland, which prevails too much on this side the Tweed, is founded on prejudice and error” (279). By representing both sides while making one more influential than the other, Smollett actually strengthens his argument. In the end the reader is left with a compromise position: that while the union may not have been so terrible as Lismahago observes, the Scottish are unfairly disparaged in England. All of this works towards creating real British unity out of the false unity established in 1707. Smollett actually uses the dissonance of the times to create order.

Humphry Clinker is certainly a subversive book. Smollett ridicules many aspects of English society. At one point, Jeremy observes that writers come “…from the refuse of every other profession” (133). Later, Matthew writes, “The York surgeon said he could not tell whether there was a fracture, until he should take off the scalp; but, at any rate, the operation might be of service in giving vent to any blood that might be extravasated, either above or below the dura mater” (166). Along with writers and doctors, Smollett makes fun of the judicial system and the nobility, in the form of a corrupt judge and a foolish duke.  Matthew’s description of the Scottish highlanders, on the other hand, recalls the Germans of Tacitus’ Germania. Matthew casts the highlanders in the role of the noble savage. Their excellent hospitality is contrasted with the poor hospitality of the English, and their simple lifestyle and serene homeland are portrayed favorably in comparison with the crowded chaos of London. Like Tacitus, Smollett is using the highlanders to make a point about the condition of supposedly more civilized peoples. Much of the subversive humor in the novel is less refined. Tabitha often replaces “shut” with “shit,” “accounts’ with “accunts,” and so on. The novel is fixated with bowel movements, which seem to find their way into every situation. In one episode, Jeremy walks in on Justice Frogmore, “Enthroned on an easing-chair, under the pressure of a double evacuation” (303). In an essay on Smollett, John McRae observes,

Smollett is interested in the body social as a mirror of the body politic – laughter at bodily functions, bodily embarrassments, and bodily characteristics is the most natural and humanising laughter. This relates, as Bakhtin suggests, the main events in the life of the grotesque body to elemental forces of matter. (203)

Smollett’s obsession with vulgarity is, then, an appeal to more natural states and a subversion of artificial social structures. It is a return to the same sort of folk culture extolled in Matthew’s description of the highlanders and seen by Bakhtin as the root of novelistic discourse.

It is clear that Humphry Clinker is a subversive work: a novel that is not only born from a society of discord, but actually revels in it. Ultimately, however, Smollett is attempting to do more than celebrate nonsense. He is trying to create unity. To understand this point, it is useful to turn from Bakhtin to another theorist of the novel, Georg Lukács. Both Bakhtin and Lukács see the novel as a product of the confusion of modernity. While for Bakhtin the novel is based in the movement from monoglossia to polyglossia, for Lukács it results from the loss of a singular, authoritative worldview—what he calls totality. The novel is not, however, merely a byproduct of this modern dissonance; rather, it is an attempt to create a new sense of meaning relevant in the modern world. In The Theory of the Novel, Lukács says, “The novel seeks, by giving form, to uncover and construct the concealed totality of life” (60). This vision is carried out in Humphry Clinker. Smollett uses the epistolary format to present diverse narrative voices and differing opinions on key issues, seemingly in order to break down the world order by pointing out incongruities and making them the subject of laughter. In fact, this plethora of voices, and the dissonance that accompanies it, is a method for building a new sense of totality in an age of chaos. By giving voice to people of different social standings, ages, nationalities, genders, and opinions, Smollett paints of complete picture of the Britain of his time. McRae observes, “By the time the expedition of Humphry Clinker has been successfully completed, the gentry and the low, the past and the present, the regions of Britain, friends and lovers, the mind and the body, all have been joined in a vision of harmony and joy” (207). A Scottish man marries a Welsh woman, and a member of the gentry marries a servant. The marriages in themselves represent a unity between the genders. The entire plot can be seen as a narrative of unification—a diverse array of people and voices growing closer together, culminating with a joyous flurry of weddings. It is telling that the book is named for Clinker, a relatively minor character. This is because Clinker represents the process that is at the heart of the novel. He begins the story destitute and literally butt-naked, but despite his simplicity (or perhaps because of it), he often comes to the rescue in times of need, particularly when he saves Matthew’s life. In the end he is revealed to be Matthew’s illegitimate son, completing his movement across the social spectrum. Clinker, and Smollett, cross societal lines, and blur them in the process. Initially this might seem to be destabilizing to the social order, but it serves Smollett’s larger purpose of unifying British society. By eliminating dividing lines, Smollett brings Britain closer to real unity.

This unity is, however, itself only an illusion. Even as she is about to wed Lismahago, Tabitha starts chasing after Baynard. Jeremy is drawn to Letty, but while one would expect Smollett to tie up all the loose ends and have the two fall for one another, Letty departs before anything occurs between them. At the end of the novel, all of the characters go their separate ways. Winifred declares, “our satiety is to suppurate” (352). As McRae points out, this has an obvious double meaning. Even as the novel’s characters depart in different directions immediately after coming together, so Smollett’s carefully constructed unity does not hold up for long. It has been evident all along that Smollett’s attempts to reconcile the incongruities that appear in his novel are imperfect solutions. McRae says,

The author, knowingly again, tells us this Utopia was a fiction: the family’s journey and the nation’s journey goes on. The “squintasense” is a necessary point of view, a prism, of all that is best and worst in society. And the journey goes on despite the author’s intervention, wit and wisdom. (208)

Even the novels happy ending has an aura of parody. The family’s carriage happens to fall into a river next to Dennison’s house, who happens to be an old friends of Matthew, who happens to say his old name just as Clinker walks into the room, revealing that this man they picked up on the side of the road just happens to be Matthew’s son. This series of absurd coincidences is surely poking fun at the typical happy ending. Baynard’s wife dies, clearing up his affairs. Matthew’s health miraculously recovers. The ending is too good to believe. It is, in McRae’s words, “…almost a parody of the traditional happy ending” (207). In the end, the novel’s greatest parody is of itself, and this ultimate parody throws everything back into confusion. Yet this is all in keeping with Lukács’ vision:

The creative individual’s reflexion, the novelist’s ethic vis-a.-vis the content, is a double one. His reflexion consists of giving form to what happens to the idea in real life, of describing the actual nature of this process and of evaluating and considering its reality. This reflexion; however, in turn becomes an object for reflexion; it is itself only an ideal, only subjective and postulative; it, too, has a certain destiny in a reality which is alien to it; and this destiny, now purely reflexive and contained within the narrator himself, must also be given form. (85)

In other words, because the narrative structure of a novel is only a reflection of the novelist’s own ideology, the end product is inherently subjective. It is therefore just as irreconcilable with reality as the totalitarian ideals that the novelist is attempting to deconstruct. The failure of Smollett’s project is inevitable, and it is this failure that makes novels such as Humphry Clinker so well suited to reality. Smollett is wrestling with modernity in his novel. He travels from the discord of Bakhtin towards a sort of unity, before finally settling in the middle ground proscribed by Lukács. The interplay of dissonance and unity in Humphry Clinker is a reflection of the same struggle as it occurs in the real world. Smollett turns it towards comedic purposes, and the humor has stood up surprisingly well over time. The reason for this is not hard to guess: it is funny because it is true.

References:
1. Bakhtin, M. M. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Ed. Michael Holquist. Austin: U of Texas, 1986. PDF.
2. McRae, John. “The Squintasense of Satiety.” The Journal of Linguistic and Intercultural Education 2(2/2009): 201-012. PDF.
3. Lukács, György. The Theory of the Novel; a Historico-philosophical Essay on the Forms of Great Epic Literature. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T., 1971. PDF.
4. Tacitus, Cornelius. Germania. Trans. J. B. Rives. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999. Print.
5. Tobias, Smollett. The Expedition of Humphry Clinker. Ed. Günter Jürgensmeier. Munich: n.p., 2005. PDF.