From Lycidas@worldnet.att.net Sun Sep 19 05:22:28 1999 Received: from mxu3.u.washington.edu (mxu3.u.washington.edu [140.142.33.7]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.08) with ESMTP id FAA55982 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 05:22:28 -0700 Received: from mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.38]) by mxu3.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.08) with ESMTP id FAA02553 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 05:22:27 -0700 Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.79.2.136]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with ESMTP id <19990919122223.XEGC29082@worldnet.att.net> for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 12:22:23 +0000 Message-ID: <37E4D3EE.DA98789A@worldnet.att.net> Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 08:15:42 -0400 From: "Terrance F. Flaherty" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: classics@u.washington.edu Subject: Re: Milton Chronology References: <002d01bf01dc$91a7f640$a66bda18@ne.mediaone.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Patrick T. Rourke" wrote: > > On the assumption that TF's hypercitation of Flannagan's Milton Chronology > was intended as an argument directed at my comments, I note the following: I guess you are free to assume as you see fit, but I really don't think your comments about me and my intentions are fair. I don't want to get into this kind of nonsense. > > >1652 February. Becomes totally blind towards the end of the month, most > likely as the result of glaucoma. > > Textual note to Sonnet 19, Shawcross ed. (p. 639): > > > > Date: May ? 1655; position in 1673 edition. Date of composition is > frequently given as 1652 because of l. 2 and the date of Milton's blindness; > however, see n. to that line. Text: 1673* > > > > Shawcross's note in text on "E're half my days": > > > That is, probably before he had reached the age of fifty [JTS cites Isaiah > 65.20]. The phrase has frequently been interpreted in terms of normal life > span and the Biblical three score and ten years, requiring an earlier date > of composition. [JTS cites Maurice Kelley, 17th c. News 11, 29 (1953). > Yes, this is good argument. > > Now, about Prof. Flannagan's chronology, I note the following: 1) that there > is only one source for his chronology relevant to this issue that predates > Shawcross, and that book does not predate the revised edition I have; 2) > that the date of publication of Milton's first collection, 1645, provides a > useful terminus ad quem for Sonnet 19, as it's hard to imagine that a sacred > poem would be held back (Sonnet 19 is in the 1673 edition, as noted by > Shawcross), and so the poem was likely written after the 1643 date implied > by a "three-score and ten" understanding of "E're half my days"; 3) that > Flannagan does not provide a date of composition for Sonnet 19; 4) the > events of Milton's life, e.g. his reduction of duties, in 1655 provide an > interesting possible context for Sonnet 19. Now, Shawcross's is not the > standard edition, but his arguments do at least have some validity. Agreed. > > If I am incorrect in my presumption that Professor Flaherty's hypercitation > was some kind of argument against me, it's because Professor Flaherty was > not kind enough to explain his hypercitation. Nor was he kind enough to > remember that most of my comments began as an analogue to what I saw as a > questionable critical suggestion, that Ted Hughes waited until he was old > enough to translate Aeschylus, and suggest that he apply his philological > skills to determine what that implies about my view toward the suggestion > that Milton waited until he went blind or even made himself blind the better > to imitate Homer. I guess I should have included some comments. We can not date the sonnet. How's that? We can date poems and prose written prior to blindness. This supports my statement: Milton's ear, one could suggest, improved with blindness, but I don't think so. His knowledge and sensitivity to all things musical and poetic was well established (thanks to a remarkable gift and his father) prior to his total loss of sight. > > Perhaps explicitness is de rigeur: > > I think Milton after his blindness attempted to justify his physical > sufferring ("justify the ways of God to man"), and that he cast himself in > the Homeric role after the fact, after he had begun his tragic epic as an > epic, in order to suggest that there was some sympathy between himself and > Homer. I also think that the imagery as vehicle in Sonnet 19 is drawn from > physical blindness (but not absolute blindness; in other words, probably > earlier than 1655; probably indeed a little before 1652, as I suspect that > the blindness in glaucoma is a gradual process). I don't have scholarly > evidence for this, no, but that is my feeling about the poem. I'm willing > to be convinced by argument: the marshalling of primary sources as evidence, > and a careful chain of reasoning from primary source to conclusion (in other > words, I am not convinced by Shawcross: he has not met my standards of proof > or disproof, but has at least demonstrated that the question remains moot). > I am not willing to be cowed by argumentum ex cathedra, and never have been. > > P. T. Rourke > ptrourke@mediaone.net I doubt that I can convince you by argument. However, if you are interested in civil discussion I am willing to try. TF .