[Milton-L] interpreting poems variously [was Satan etc.]

[mgrattan at ucsd.edu]

Perhaps I'm over simplifying, but isn't this exactly why Plato didn't want
poets in his Republic? They confound truth rather than lead one to it?
Seems to me that the debate has roots that go deeper than the New Critics.
Michael
Oh, and I'm so glad that I don't live in P's Republic (and not just
because I'd be out of a job).
> Carl
>
> As several have already noted, we do not, or should not, interpret poetry
> in any way we want.  The words have to do work, which is to limit the
> range of meanings.  However, most serious poetry means more than its
> words, leading us to interpreted meanings by varrious means, of which
> unraveling ambiguity is one.  Empson book on this subject of course should
> be read, if not taken too much to heart (he feels prescriptive at times).
> The question raised by literary critics has often been related to how we
> obtain these interpreted meanings.  The oldest text I know of on the
> subject is Plato's Ion.  It is worth a careful read.  When one gets beyond
> the idea that poetry is channelling divine inspiration, it raises many of
> the questions about poetry that we still ask.
>
> Kim Maxwell
> _______________________________________________
> Milton-L mailing list
> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
> Manage your list membership and access list archives at
> http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
>
> Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/