Stanley Fish Interpreting the Variorum

Interpreting the "Variorum"Author(s): Stanley E. FishSource:

Critical Inquiry,

Vol. 2, No. 3 (Spring, 1976), pp. 465-485Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1342862

Accessed: 03/08/2009 01:38

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress.Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Critical Inquiry.

http://www.jstor.org

InterpretingtheVariorum

StanleyE. FishI

The first two volumes of the Milton VariorumCommentaryave nowap-peared,andI findthemendlesslyfascinating.Myinterest,however,isnotinthequestionstheymanagetoresolve(althoughthesearemany)butinthe theoreticalassumptionswhichareresponsiblefortheirocca-sional failures.Thesefailuresconstituteapattern,one in which ahostofcommentators-separatedbyas much astwo hundred andseventy yearsbutcontemporariesin their sharedconcerns-are linedupon eithersideof aninterpretivecrux.Someof thesearefamous,even infamous:what is thetwo-handedengineinLycidas?what is themeaningofHaemonyinComus?Others,like theidentityof whoever orwhatevercomesto the windowinL'Allegro,ine46,areonlyslightlylessnotorious.Still others are of interestlargelytothosewho makeeditions: matters ofpronounreferents,lexicalambiguities, punctuation.Ineachinstance,however,thepatternis consistent:everypositiontakenissupportedbywhollyconvincingevidence-in thecase ofL'Allegroand thecomingtothe window there is apersuasivechampionforeverypropernoun withinaradiusof tenlines-andtheeditorialprocedure alwaysendseitherinthegraceful throwingupofhands,or in therecordingofadisagree-ment between the twoeditorsthemselves. Inshort,these areproblemsthatapparentlycannotbesolved,atleastnotbythe methodstradition-allybroughtto bear on them. What Iwould like toargueis thattheyarenotmeantto besolved,but to beexperienced(theysignify),andthatconsequentlyanyprocedurethatattemptstodeterminewhich ofanumber ofreadingsis correctwillnecessarilyfail. What this meansisthat thecommentators andeditors have beenaskingthewrongques-465

InterpretingtheVariorumtionsandthat a newset ofquestionsbased onnewassumptionsmust beformulated.Iwould likeat leastto makeabeginninginthat directionbyexaminingsome of thepointsindisputeinMilton'ssonnets.Ichoose thesonnetsbecausetheyarebrief andbecauseonecan moveeasilyfromthemto the theoreticalissues with whichthispaperisfinallyconcerned.Milton'stwentiethsonnet-"Lawrence ofvirtuous fathervirtuousson"-has been thesubjectofrelativelylittlecommentary.Init thepoetinvites a friend tojoinhim insomedistinctlyHoratianpleasures-aneatrepastintermixedwithconversation,wine,andsong;arespitefromlaborallthemoreenjoyablebecauseoutside the earth isfrozen and thedaysullen. Theonlycontroversythesonnet hasinspiredconcerns itsfinaltwo lines:Lawrenceofvirtuous fathervirtuousson,Now that the fields aredank,andwaysaremire,Where shall wesometimesmeet,andbythe fireHelpwasteasullenday;whatmaybe won5 Fromthe hardseasongaining;time will runOnsmoother,tillFavoniusreinspireThe frozenearth;andclothein fresh attireThelilyandrose,that neither sowed norspun.What neatrepastshall feastus,lightandchoice,10 OfAttictaste,withwine,whencewemayriseTo hear the lutewelltouched,orartfulvoiceWarbleimmortalnotesandTuscanair?Hewhoofthosedelightscanjudge,andspareTointerposethemoft,is not unwise.1Thefocus of thecontroversyis the word"spare,"for whichtworeadingshave beenproposed:leavetimefor and refrain from.Obviouslythepointiscrucial ifone istoresolve thesenseofthelines.Inonereading"thosedelights"arebeingrecommended-he whocan leavetime forthemisnotunwise;intheother,theyare thesubjectofawarning-hewhoknowswhentorefrainfromthemisnot unwise.Theproponentsofthe twointerpretationsciteasevidence bothEnglishand Latinsyntax,various sourcesandanalogues,Milton's"known attitudes" astheyarefound inhis otherwritings,and theunambiguously expressedsenti-

1.Allreferencesare toThePoemsofJohnMilton,ed.John Careyand Alastair Fowler(London,1968).

StanleyE.Fish,professorofEnglishatJohnsHopkinsUniversity,isthe authorofJohnSkelton'sPoetry,SurprisedbySin: TheReaderinParadiseLost,andSelf-consumingArtifacts:TheExperienceofSeventeenth-CenturyLiterature. HispreviouscontributiontoCriticalInquiry,"FactsandFic-tions:AReplytoRalphRader,"appearedin ourfirst volume.466StanleyE. Fish