[lbo-talk] further evidence of the decline of men

[joanna]

He was a precocious, talented libertine. Some argue that the language 
had reached such a pitch of perfection by his time that Rochester could 
not but lisp in verse. But I think he really was a first rate poet doing 
his best in a blighted time.

But the philosophy he espouses, is nothing new -- the vanity of man, 
which expresses itself through bondage to the senses, overreliance on 
logic/reason, and foolish imagination.

As for the capitalization. I know it was firmly in place by the 18th 
century -- capitalizing nouns. (Further evidence of our mistaking ideas 
for things, perhaps.) Carrol could probably enlighten us as to why we 
see it in the 17th. with Rochester.

http://www.druidic.org/roc-bio.htm

Joanna

ravi wrote:


>At around 12/5/06 5:48 pm, Jerry Monaco wrote:
>  
>
>>On 5/12/06, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>        The Imperfect Enjoyment
>>>                John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester
>>>      
>>>
>>Oh, this is just too good!
>>
>>For anyone interested some of the Second Earl of Rochester's poems can
>>be found here.
>>http://www.poeforward.com/poetrycorner/wilmot/poems.htm
>>
>>    
>>
>
>What is this vacuous nonsense? Here I quote from one of his pieces
>titled "A Satyre [sic] Against Mankind":
>
>  
>
>> His senses are too gross; and he'll contrive
>>A sixth, to contradict the other five;
>>And before certain instinct will prefer
>>Reason, which fifty times for one does err.
>>Reason, an ignis fatuus of the mind,
>>Which leaving light of nature, sense, behind,
>>Pathless and dangerous wand'ring ways it takes,
>>Through Error's fenny bogs and thorny brakes;
>>Whilst the misguided follower climbs with pain
>>Mountains of whimseys, heaped in his own brain;
>>    
>>
>
>What is with the complicated language to make a silly point about
>Reason? And what's with the uppercase 'R'? Some sort of pre-pomo? And
>once you strip the fancy language and unnecessary Latin, what is left?
>Is it even correct about 'reason'? Turns out not. As Richard Dawkins
>[more politely] said of Keats.
>
>What a waste of time reading this sort of stuff. Nothing I have read so
>far about him makes me think he is worth my time! Was this guy a Nazi by
>any chance?
>
>	--ravi (do I need a smiley?)
>
>
>P.S: Jerry, you are a good sport, and I still owe you some responses.
>Interesting poems by the way... though I never quite learnt how to read
>poetry :-(. But the segments of Hölderlin that I have had a chance to
>read (thanks to guess who?) were beautiful, even to my untrained eye/mind.
>
>  
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20060513/2f979320/attachment.htm>