Milton and Nietzsche
Just a short, odd observation. I find it a bit disturbing that the Nietzschian and Miltonic views of the universe aren’t really all that different. One of these days, I’ll have to read John Rumrich’s book on Milton to get a better understanding of Miltonic chaos. For Milton, chaos was the part of the universe untouched by God. For Nietzsche, the universe was chaos except for the part touched by man.
Hell, for Milton, was concave. The earth was “hanging in a golden Chain / This pendant world, in bigness as a Starr / Of smallest magnitude close by the Moon” (P.L. II:1000-1003). Between them was chaos:
. . . behold the Throne
Of Chaos, and his dark Pavillion spread
Wide on the wasteful deep; with him Enthron’d
Sat Sable-vested Night, eldest of things,
The Consort of his Reign; and by them stood
Orcus and Ades, the dreaded name
Of Demogorgon; Rumor sat next to Chance,
And Tumult and Confusion all imbroiled,
And Discord with a thousand various mouths. (P.L. II: 959-967)
Where Foucault and Deleuze, as heirs to Nietzsche, part ways with Milton is in their perception of the scene. It is the “thousand various mouths” of discord that speak of our deliverance, at least as I read them right now. Perhaps that is why the “universalists” despise them so.
“Hell for Milton?” Better to say “The hell Milton described in Paradise Lost.” Milton’s readers have long allowed themselves to be confused by the strength of the work. It’s not uncommon for one to intuit that the poet actually carries a deep sense of the reality of his expression beyond his creation and that his creation informs his actual beliefs, his vision. But it is wrong to confuse the poet with his work. Ask de la Cour. I think a better reason for all, not just “universalists,” to “despise” the good ol’ pomo boys would be the lack of rigor explicit in this kind of comparison.
Just a thought… also, the use of “despise” was yours and I simply carry it through. For me, despise is much too strong a word. “Differ” and “strongly counterpose” are a few terms that make more sense and are less inflammatory.
I’m not a “New Critic.” The image of Hell I spoke of is available across several works, including Paradise Regained. It was simply more convenient to imply Milton thought rather than say In Milton’s poems. This construction provided a pause in the sentence (through the subordinate clause) which matched the hesitation in my thought.
I’ve never met Milton. He hasn’t visited me in visions, yet at least. All I know of Milton is confined to what he wrote. An essential Milton, which exists behind these texts can only be mythic.
My English major side wants to apologize for the slip. My rhetorician side wants to defend it, as this was a casual thought in passing— not a developed thesis. A casual thought is not, by definition, rigourous. Commonplaces (like refering to an author’s work as if it were the author’s thoughts) are usually acceptable to a general readership.
As a result, I feel a little schizophrenic over the whole affair.
This tendency to label, to declare oneself a “new critic” or not, creates a friction in discussion I think. Am I a “new critic” because I insist on the distinction between “hell for Milton” and “the hell Milton described in his poetic work?”
More to the point, drawing a connection between Nietzsche and Milton is a lot like drawing a connection between Richard Wagner and Jean-Baptiste Lully. It’s easily done but not particularly meaningful.
Incidentally, there is plenty of interesting and informative biographical material available on Milton if you’d care to broaden your context. (I suppose a seance would work too, but I’ve never had much luck with them).
I beg to differ. The friction is in the pedantry.
The “New Critical” approach is vested in the autonomy of the text, a distinction that you chose to beg.
I’m familiar enough with the biography of Milton, facts which under the “New Critical” school would be inadmissable. However, the distinction I chose to note is important to me and my ongoing train of thought. This type of pedantic discussion is neither productive nor fun. If you don’t understand where I’m going with this, that’s fine. It’s my space, and I will write to standards that I decide for myself regardless of intrusion.
Yup. It’s your space, and you can shut down the conversation anytime. I hope you’ll leave room for just a little more, although I understand you find it tedious. I’m just a rookie at discourse and no rhetorician, but I’ve been around the block a few times with old blind John, so I wanted to comment.
What I understand you’re saying is that you agree with me that the text is NOT autonomous and does not reflect a meaning all its own, and rather that your sense of Milton’s sense of hell has been informed by reading a lot of his work and inferring that he meant what he said and that he was invested in or attached to the vision he projected. I’d agree with this whole-heartedly.
On the other hand, the Nietzschean thing seems to come from out of right field and I don’t get the convergence at all. I think the two men’s weltanschauungen were informed by such different forces as to be orthogonal at best, and probably not even frameable in a common reference set.
This is simply my off hand reflection on your observation which was probably way to intellectually freighted for me to get my simple head around. Sorry to have intruded on your space. I’ll just go away now.
“This is simply my off hand reflection on your observation which was probably way to intellectually freighted for me to get my simple head around”
Don’t be an idiot. There was no condescension coming from Jeff; you just made an erroneous assumption (that obviously knowledgable Jeff didn’t know the commonplace that ‘it is wrong to confuse the poet with his work’) and you were corrected.
“The friction is in the pedantry.”
“The “New Critical” approach is vested in the autonomy of the text, a distinction that you chose to beg.”
“There was no condescension coming from Jeff; you just made an erroneous assumption (that obviously knowledgable Jeff didn’t know the commonplace that ‘it is wrong to confuse the poet with his work’) and you were corrected.”
What inconsistent, loose minded, pouting posers. On your journey toward self-actualization and authenticity it’s not surprising that you’d find Nietzsche and his acolytes attractive. Maturation is obviously not a function of time-on-planet. The surprising thing here is that the rhetorician, with comments enabled in his personal publishing space, chooses to ignore the opportunity for engaged conversation, and rather slams the door shut.
“The surprising thing here is that the rhetorician, with comments enabled in his personal publishing space, chooses to ignore the opportunity for engaged conversation, and rather slams the door shut.”
1) No, the not-so-surprising thing is that the scholar wishes to continue making notes without being asked to debate matters of pedantry. This is just a blog, not a paper and not a dissertation. It’s think-space. Let the man think. Jeez.
2) Just because you invite people to a party at your house doesn’t mean you must thank them for insulting your decor and throwing up on your cat. It’s permissable to ask those people to go. Having read Jeff for a long time, I’m certain that he would welcome interesting or helpful coments, even those that disagree with his point. Comments are a means of engaging in fruitful conversation, not a way to pick apart your gracious host. All you are accomplishing is meaningless negativity.
At this point, perhaps it would be best if we all just go home for the night.
Proving, once again, the unkindest cuts are the cold ones.
Pastrami: I said nothing about Nietzsche. I am not Jeff. You are an idiot.
Freedom, Discipline, and Autonomy
“H” In recent posts on true discourse , Milton and Nietzsche , and Deleuze, Foucault, and Kant on autonomy , This Public Adress asks, in effect, what is it to be free? I wonder if the discussion would benefit from three
Freedom, Discipline, and Autonomy
“H” In recent posts on true discourse , Milton and Nietzsche , and Deleuze, Foucault, and Kant on autonomy , This Public Adress asks, in effect, what is it to be free? I wonder if the discussion would benefit from three