I've been relatively quiet on the thesis front lately, but I've decided to break my silence and share the first draft of my introduction. Apologies for the inflated rhetoric. It's impossible not to be polemical when you're writing about a polemicist. With any luck, I'll be ready to post my conclusion later next week.
This study of Milton's 1671 poems is an attempt to take
seriously the activity of Milton’s “fit” reader. Over the course of the
following chapters, it will become clear that, within Paradise Regain’d . .
. to which is added Samson Agonistes, such
activity is as much a strategy within a culture of domination as it is constitutive of Christian virtue.
Although Milton’s remarks and appeals to the reader might suggest a “real”
audience, the fit reader is a textual production through and through. Between
approaches that emphasize the book as a determinate object of material history,
on the one hand, and those that reduce reading to the operation of free,
interpretive agency, I focus on reading as a materially dependent practice that
is ideologically situated. Such an approach, I argue, is necessary to
appreciate the production of Milton’s post-Restoration reader. This also means,
however, that although interpretation, as a socially symbolic act, is finally
answerable to history, the reading of literature must be treated as a specific
kind of practice that cannot be simply reduced to the reader’s time, place, or
interpretive community. In their reading, writes Fredric Jameson, works of literature
produce “that very situation to which [they are] also, at one and the same
time, a reaction” (46). Just as the 1671 poems work to produce specific kinds
of readers, they also work to construct the enemies of such activity, which
always appear for Milton as interpretive foils.
The politics of interpretation in Restoration England were,
of course, a result of a larger social transformation that, for Reformers like Milton, remained
unfinished. Chapter 1 sketches the dominant trends of early modern Protestant
interpretation and thus locates Milton’s hermeneutic method in its historical
and ideological moment. In this context, the poet-theologian figures as a harsh
critic of extra-biblical authority and a vigorous advocate of further
Reformation in England. Under this banner, Milton engages the limits of
Protestant hermeneutics in order undercut the prohibition of divorce. In the
tracts of his early career, Milton appeals to an audience for whom the bible is
a “self-interpreting” text and builds his argument for divorce upon the “key of
charity” and the “analogy of faith.”
Over the course of his argument, Milton suggests that an unhappy
marriage diverts one’s labor from his vocation and prevents the leisure time
necessary for one’s public work to be productive. Productive labor is defined
less in terms of material wealth than it is by bringing a “helpful hand to this
slow-moving reformation which we labor under” (963). In this way, Milton’s
early published writing advocates for the labor of authorship and the labor of
reading. While the activity of reading in this period is still associated with
leisured classes, Areopagitica
demonstrates how books are not only “published labors” but are also “as
vigorously productive as those fabulous dragon’s teeth, and, being sown up and
down, may chance to spring up armed me” (930). This chapter argues that the
privilege of both authorial and interpretive labor must be thought alongside
the material labor of textual production: the operations of the print shop and
the circulation of the market.
The Licensing Order of 1643 signaled the revival of
pre-publication censorship in England’s book trade. The ethical vision of this
tract locates a free market system of exchange as the expression of the
nation’s will towards Reformation, a sign of trust in its collective ability to
“search after truth.” Freedom from external constraint here entails an
opposition to licensing’s monopoly over the book trade. In treating the
published book as the author’s property,
Milton’s discussion prefigures the formal of material labor in the production
process and follows what some critics have identified as “possessive
individualism,” the objectification and instrumentalization of social
relations. Where Areopagitica can
be compared with Milton’s first post-Restoration tract, Of True
Religion (1673), as establishing a more
inclusive theory of toleration, I read this discourse on liberty as a depiction
of an emerging capitalist appetite for socialized labor.
This optimistic image of a reading republic is effectively
smashed in Milton’s 1671 publication, Paradise Regain’d . . . to which is
added Samson Agonistes. Chapter 2 and 3
both show how Milton’s understanding of reading works within defined limits. In
Paradise Regain’d the act of
reading is productive and mobile, while in Samson Agonistes reading operates as a process of negation and
iconoclasm. In both poems, the formal characteristics of the printed book are
highlighted, first, as the contradictory ground of interpretive labor and,
second, as a strategy of opposition to the spectacular representations of the
Restoration. In my second chapter I look at the social and political context of
the London book-trade following the Restoration. Key to this setting is what I
call the “ideology of completion,” a strategy by which England’s restored
government convinced its citizens of the necessity of monarchic rule and a
centralized state church. Milton’s 1671 publication occurs in this context as a
material disruption of fixed (or restored) categories. Arguing that Paradise Regain’d works to construct a mobile reader who appreciates
the contingency of the material text, this chapter explores how the Son upsets
the conditions of identity by dismantling the hermeneutical
binaries—means/ends, internal/external, contemplative/active,
private/public—through which Satan interprets God’s kingdom. Although both the
Son and his adversary draw on verses from scripture in their debate, Satan is
revealed to rely on extra-textual modes of domination, while the Son embodies
an immanent relation to God’s Word. This Protestant approach to scripture is
also reflected in Mary, whose memory practices are picked up by the Son, and
later in the volume by Samson.
Parallel to the Son’s mode of reading, or “revolving,” I
position the material format of the 1671 edition against the arguments of those
like Walter Ong, who understand the advent of print merely as the further
reification of the written word. Print, argues Ong, “is comfortable only with
finality” (132). Rather, drawing on the material features of Milton’s text, I
argue that the apparently “fixed” limits of print are mobilized and effectively
opened through a process of reading and re-reading encouraged by the 1671 Omissa. We thus begin to see how Milton’s strategy of
biblical reading, as developed in Chapter 1, informs the political,
oppositional stance of the 1671 poems. The Omissa represents a crucial component of this study, not
simply because it marks the material format of the text as irregular, but also
because, along with Milton’s protagonists, it opposes the ideology of
completion that conditions textual interpretation.
While Chapter 2 shows how the labor of reading is assumed
and transformed through the Son’s posture of interpretation in Paradise
Regain’d, my final chapter considers how Samson
Agonistes puts this mode of reading into
crisis. By focusing on the collapse of labor into idolatry, I argue that
Milton’s tragic poem is positioned against those who would valorize human
industry without thinking through its political and theological consequences.
Israel’s captivity means that there is no “outside” of idolatry for Samson or
his audience, except through what Walter Benjamin calls “divine violence.” Such
violence operates outside of the visibility that constrains Samson and corrupts
his people. Again, I try to demonstrate how Milton’s publication relies on its
formal features to produce a particular kind of reading subject. Alongside
Samson’s toppling of the Philistine temple, Milton positions his dramatic poem
against popular entertainment: against the spectacle of theatrical production,
and against pre-given modes of representation. The Omissa again functions as a built-in mode of resistance to
an ideology of completion, but here assists in turning the poet’s audience from
spectators to readers. With Samson Agonistes, in other words, Milton preserves the possibility of
an audience by forcing his readers to pass through the violence of Samson’s
destruction, marking a transition from theatrical spectacle to textual space.
This chapter concludes with return to the problem of the vocation for early
modern Protestants and its articulation through Max Weber’s theory of the
Protestant work ethic. With the help of Giorgio Agamben, I suggest that
Milton’s 1671 poems together establish a radical critique of identity politics,
instead putting forward a notion of collectivity that is open to the future in
the figure of the “remnant.”
Rather than the possessive individualist established in
readings by Marshall Grossman, Christopher Kendrick, and John Guillory, we
witness a poet whose post-Restoration publications find him still in search of
a social potential that is not pre-determined by the formal or real subsumption
implicit to capitalist modes of exchange. Neither do we see an affirmation of
“free” textual or interpretive space in Milton’s late poems, but are engaged in
a mode of reading that undertakes a formal opposition to the state. Recognizing
the strategic positioning of Paradise Regain’d . . . to which is added
Samson Agonistes is crucial to its
politics, which, I argue, have been misinterpreted and underemphasized by
critics that avoid the question of ideology and neglect the material
contingency of text for early modern readers.
In Milton’s development of the “fit” reader, I locate the
potential of a non-identical collective, the subject of recent discussions by Giorgio Agamben (The Time That Remains) and Alain Badiou (Saint Paul: The
Foundation of Universalism). Paul
represents for both critics a figure that demonstrated the ability to think the
social or “universal” without recourse to some prior condition of belonging,
whether a people, a city, an empire, a territory, or a class. Rather than
objective victory, it is “subjective victory,” writes Badiou, “that produces
hope” (95). A subject is born out of her commitment to what Badiou calls, a
“truth event,” while the domain of ethics is determined by a subject’s fidelity
or faithfulness to such an event. According to Badiou, this is what the
Resurrection of Christ means to St Paul. If Milton can be said to oppose a
certain “identitarian” logic, it is only because he opposes its use in
government surveillance and repression. This to say, the definition of reading
that these chapters articulate is strategic. For the philosopher Alain Badiou, the “identity”
refers to a static condition of belonging, while the “subjectivity” entails a
responsive and excessive kind of agency. In this study, Milton’s “fit” reader
corresponds to the latter category. Against laws that divide, enumerate, and
name, fit readers work within defined limits to produce a space of grace, which
occurs without a condition of debt or duty. In his reading of Roman 6:14 (“for
you are not under law, but under grace”) Badiou understands a restructuring of
the subject according to a logic of becoming: “For the ‘not being under the
law’ negatively indicates the path of the flesh as suspension of the subject’s
destiny, while ‘being under grace’ indicates the path of the spirit as fidelity
to the event” (63). Here a potential dissolution of various identities is
indicated first by a negative declaration; the “but,” on the other hand,
“indicates the task, the faithful labor in which the subjects of the process
opened up by the event (whose name is ‘grace’) are the coworkers” (64). As
Terry Eagleton has recently suggested, Badiou’s work “grasp[s] the vital point
that faith articulates a loving commitment before it counts as a description of
the way things are” (119). Perhaps, then, Milton’s late poems can, in fact, be
understood as signaling a turn to faith. We should, however, be careful not to
dismiss such faith as a departure from politics. As the young Milton once wrote, "if other things as great in the church and in the rule of life both economical and political not be looked into and reformed, we have looked so long upon the blaze that Zwinglius and Calvin hath beaconed up to us that we are stark blind."
Works Cited
Alain Badiou, Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism. trans Ray Brassier (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003).
Terry Eagleton, Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate (New Hampton: Yale University Press, 2009).
T. S. Eliot, On Poetry and Poets (New York: The Noonday Press, 1961).
Fredric Jameson, The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act (London: Routledge, 1983).
John Milton, The Complete Poetry and Essential Prose of John Milton. eds. William Kerrigan, et al. (New York: The Modern Library, 2007).
Walter Ong, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. (London: Routledge, 2002).
No comments:
Post a Comment