Yes, perhaps we might get a fuller picture of the mature (?!) Donne's approach to the unique problems of Protestant grace if
we read "Batter my heart," not as a discrete second-person prayer--a self-contained nugget of masochistic ecstasy--but as
continuous with the other Holy Sonnets. What happens, for instance, if we note the similarities of language between "Batter my
heart" and the following:
Spit in my face you Jews, and pierce my side,
Buffet, and scoff, scourge, and crucify me,
For I have sinned, and sinned, and only he
Who could do no iniquity hath died...
Are the Jews somehow the agents of grace in this poem? Is the violence here sexual, as in the more famous sonnet, or is
"homosexual rape" Christ's prerogative, and these Jews merely the expectorators of a more one-dimensional violence? And
here Christ and the persona both suffer from the Jews' violence; are Christian and God on the same side, all of a sudden?
Maybe moreso than in "Batter my heart," but "moreso" means nothing when it comes to grace. Donne's Jews can "crucify me,"
but only one Crucifiction matters, that of "once an ingorious man."
In "Batter my heart," God is "three-personed" and the persona is one somewhat-consentual-violent-sex-victim/grace-
recipient, but here the Jews add a further term to the persona's perspective--now there's more than one man involved (and
later we get Jacob as a contrast to Christ)--and as for God, he seems increasingly human the more the Jews victimize him, yet
increasingly divine the more Donne reluctantly compares his sufferings to Christ's. "Batter my heart" is about a one-to-three or
one-over-one relationship, but I'm not sure I follow that relationship when I try to transfer it to this more populated (and
infinitely less popular) sonnet...
-Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: Harry Berger Jr <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:09 pm
Subject: Re: Petrarchism and Christianity
To: [log in to unmask]
> Well, but the struggle in 10 (Gardner) responds first to the
> evasions
> performed in the preceding sonnets, the efforts and failures to
> break
> down the wall of self, so he pleads desperately for a one-shot
> ravishment here and now. As Dr Apricot says, it's more than false
> modesty, it's because he wants his will to be overcome. But the
> resonance comes from the sequence-plot. In this context, whether or
>
> not it's rape, homosexual rape, metaphoric rape etc., doesn't seem
> very interesting or germane. For one thing, he's asking for it.
>
>
>
> On Nov 21, 2007, at 7:16 AM, anne prescott wrote:
>
> > Well, same-sex rape, anyway. If ravishment is the same as rape--
> not
> > crystal clear to me, although the words are related even if not
> > identical. "Homosexual" is a debated term for the early modern
> > period, of course. In any case I'm not sure that the rules
> governing
> > sexual harassment apply to divinities. Turkeys are probably safe,
>
> > tomorrow, but I'd be careful about letting a swan near me
> (although
> > divine swans probably prefer younger females to this
> grandmother).
> > Seriously, though, what Donne wants seems not the same thing as
> your
> > ordinary rape, and of course what he wants is his will to be
> > overcome, not just his modesty, which means in turn that consent
> is
> > not logically possible. He wants not just prevenient grace, so to
>
> > speak, but overcoming grace. No? Anne P.
> > On Nov 21, 2007, at 5:47 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> >
> >> I suppose that 'Batter My Heart, three-person'd God' as a
> >> homosexual rape
> >> fantasy is a preferable reading to that which conjures up images of
> >> battered cod and deep-fried Mars bars. Doesn't rape have to be
> >> non-consensual but this is more like a plea for the overcoming
> of
> >> false
> >> modesty.
> >>
> >> Best wishes,
> >>
> >> Richard R
> >>
> >>
> >>> Hannibal,
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for this explanation. I'm afraid that I betray my
> lack of
> >>> knowledge of scholarship each time I post a comment to this
> list. I
> >>> would not have guessed that the readings you describe for
> either
> >>> Teresa
> >>> or Donne would exist. But that's surely because I generally shun
> >>> critical writing (I'd read more of it if I could, but I have
> too
> >>> little
> >>> time left and too many original texts I still want to study).
> >>>
> >>> Your last statement:
> >>>
> >>>> I think my broad point is that we need to take greater pains to
> >>>> understand early modern religious experience in its own terms.
> >>>
> >>> is so telling. To truly understand religion, or art, or even
> science>>> from late Medieval times within that period's own frame
> of
> >>> reference --
> >>> rather than through projection our own age's common viewpoint,
> >>> with all
> >>> its laughable errors (future generations will readily identify
> >>> these,
> >>> though we can't easily see them ourselves) -- would appear to
> be
> >>> almost
> >>> impossible.
> >>>
> >>> For example, the possibility of a representation such as
> >>> "Petrarchan"
> >>> appears not to have been conceivable to humans until centuries
> after>>> Petrarch's own time -- if Owen Barfield's study of the
> past is to be
> >>> believed. In his "History in English Words" he says that the
> >>> identification of a world view with a particular human being
> was not
> >>> something that was ever conceived until the Renaissance; or,
> there
> >>> is
> >>> no record of such a conception prior to that time.
> >>>
> >>> I mean, it wasn't conceivable then that the world could
> "validly" be
> >>> seen in a "Petrachan" manner or in "Aquinas's way", etc. You
> >>> couldn't
> >>> just select a perferred point of view and move on, as we do
> today.
> >>> No,
> >>> in those times, there was only ONE world, and it existed
> outside of
> >>> humans, "out there" in the perceivable phenomena. And most of
> those>>> phenomena themselves were actually objective living
> organisms, or
> >>> else
> >>> representations of creatures, gods, nymphs, who normally chose to
> >>> remain invisible to humans, wrapping themselves within, or hiding
> >>> behind, the veil of the perceivable phenomena. Try "seeing" the
>
> >>> world
> >>> that way today. It's difficult!
> >>>
> >>> Hence, to appreciate what Petrarch, or Dante, or Teresa were
> >>> experiencing and thinking as they wrote their works is indeed
> almost>>> impossible for a modern person. How do we wipe away from
> our eyes,
> >>> our
> >>> own vision, the mechanical universe (which didn't exist in
> Medieval>>> times) and see and feel the sun as a living being,
> image of God,
> >>> every
> >>> day when we walk outside? How can we read their writings within
> the>>> reference frame of the reality they themselves lived?
> >>>
> >>> It's quite difficult -- if not impossible.
> >>>
> >>> Just one example of our difficulty: invocation of the muses. To
> us,>>> this looks like artifice; perhaps we even think it "cute". I
> highly>>> doubt Medieval and earlier writers looked at it that way.
> To them,
> >>> it
> >>> was a prayer to the actual, literal source of the words that would
> >>> (they hoped) be transmitted to them from the gods, which they
> would>>> then record. They conceived themselves as "scribes".
> Hence, Dante:
> >>>
> >>> When Love inspires me with delight,
> >>> Or pain, or longing, I take careful note,
> >>> And as he dictates in my soul, I write.
> >>>
> >>> [Purgatorio, Canto 24]
> >>>
> >>> I don't think he was lying to us, or saying this with tongue-in-
>
> >>> cheek.
> >>> This is how he felt what we would call "the artistic process"
> >>> happened,
> >>> how he felt his work was formed, deposited within him. His job
> was
> >>> not
> >>> to create (only Love and the gods can create realities out of
> >>> nothing),
> >>> but rather to sift and sort and select and, ultimately, record/
> >>> write.
> >>>
> >>> Well.. I'm again surely showing my lack of scholarship, since I
> have>>> read almost no criticism of Dante, either! These are merely
> my own
> >>> opinions.
> >>>
> >>> I do thank you very much, Hannibal, for your very interesting
> >>> initial
> >>> comment and especially for taking the time to provide further
> >>> explanation.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Kevin
> >>>
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:37:55 -0500
> >>> HANNIBAL HAMLIN <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Kevin,
> >>>>
> >>>> I didn't express myself very well, I'm afraid. I didn't mean
> >>>> that I
> >>>> don't take her seriously (I do), but that many, especially
> American>>>> academics who assume a particular secular worldview,
> tend to read
> >>>> her
> >>>> religious experience in non-religious terms (sexual,
> psychological,>>>> political). The same thing has often happened
> with Donne, another
> >>>> writer who blurs boundaries between the sexual and spiritual/
> >>>> secular
> >>>> and sacred (so that "Batter My Heart," for instance, becomes a
> >>>> homosexual rape fantasy).
> >>>>
> >>>> I think my broad point is that we need to take greater pains to
> >>>> understand early modern religious experience in its own terms.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hannibal
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
>
|