“Tom Jones” by Henry Fielding (post 1): Narrator’s unreliability is blamed on the “Historic Muse,” who must give permission to reveal secrets

I have just begun this 871-page classic novel, published in 1749.

The chatty, but not explicitly named, narrator, says: “Whether [a character] was innocent or not, will perhaps appear hereafter; but if the Historic Muse hath entrusted me with any secrets, I will by no means be guilty of discovering them till she shall give me leave” (1, p. 88).

I do not see the above as a trivial literary flourish. Instead, I wonder: Who is the Historic Muse, and why must she give permission as to what the narrator can narrate? She is not named. Instead, she is referred to by her function, which is typical of unnamed alternate personalities.

Literary criticism has praised this novel’s well-planned, complex plot, but the narrator denies ultimate responsibility for knowing and telling the whole story. And it does seem improbable that the complex plotting would have been done by someone like the chatty narrator.

In short, the presence of alternate personalities in the creative process of this novel is suggested by the presence of unnamed thinkers, who are known by their function (the narrator and the Historic Muse) and have different responsibilities.

This is not a book review, but I will say it is enjoyable and keep reading.

1. Henry Fielding. [The History of] Tom Jones [A Foundling] [1749]. Edited by John Bender and Simon Stern. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008.