<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.druidic.org/roc-bio.htm">http://www.druidic.org/roc-bio.htm</a><br>
<br>
Joanna<br>
<br>
ravi wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid4465E17C.4080300@exitleft.org">
<pre wrap="">At around 12/5/06 5:48 pm, Jerry Monaco wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 5/12/06, Carrol Cox <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cbcox@ilstu.edu"><cbcox@ilstu.edu></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> The Imperfect Enjoyment
John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Oh, this is just too good!
For anyone interested some of the Second Earl of Rochester's poems can
be found here.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.poeforward.com/poetrycorner/wilmot/poems.htm">http://www.poeforward.com/poetrycorner/wilmot/poems.htm</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
What is this vacuous nonsense? Here I quote from one of his pieces
titled "A Satyre [sic] Against Mankind":
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> 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;
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>