trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
 - Nov 8, 2005
 
- Posts
 - 25,593
 
Milton believed that most people are natural slaves. He got this idea from Aristotle, who used it to rationalize ancient Greek society's dependence on slave labor. In Aristotle, a slave is a person whose actions serve the purposes of somebody else: a person whose own activity is alien to him, because it belongs to another. By serving the purposes of another he ceases to belong to himself— he becomes an attribute, a "property," of the other person. Serving alien purposes is unnatural, because it is human nature to pursue one's own purposes, but many, perhaps most, people are attracted to this unnatural way of life. These people would rather be slaves than free.
It is easy to dismiss the concept of natural slavery as a piece of self-interested fiction. Of course the ruling class in a slave-owning society will need to believe that slaves are naturally suited to their condition. But Milton was well aware that legally enslaved people are not necessarily natural slaves and that many natural slaves are not legally enslaved. The Aristotelian argument describes the nature of servility, not the empirical characteristics of slaves. Milton believed that every individual was naturally inclined toward mental slavery. Not everyone acted on his or her natural inclinations, however, and in fact a virtuous life should be a continuous act of resistance to slavish temptations...
...a natural slave will be unable to distinguish between appearance and reality, between sign and thing. He will assume that signs are all there is; he will believe that the world of appearances is the real world. He will live in a kind of hyper-reality, in which simulacra are all that exist. In other words, he will enter what twenty-first century philosophers call "the postmodern condition."
A natural slave will also be a literalist... The religious fundamentalists of the twenty-first century would, by Milton's standards, exhibit a slavish mentality. But the same would be true of most secular inhabitants of the liberal, relativist, pragmatic Western world, with its postmodernist philosophers who celebrate the plethora of depthless simulacra that distinguishes our era. He would have judged these two modes of thought, which seem polar opposites to us, as different versions of the same underlying slave mentality, different ways of fetishizing images.
-David Hawkes
John Milton: A Hero of Our Time
Berkeley, California 2009.
I didn't know a damn thing about John Milton before I picked up this book. Of course, I'd heard of Paradise Lost but that was the entire extent of my acquaintence with him. Never— in a million years— would I have guessed that Milton was closely associated with the Roundheads of the English Civil War and— at some risk— emerged as one of their leading spokesmen. He was a bit of a "weird unit." Possessed of intelligence and a titanic ego, he was convinced of his place in posterity nothwithstanding a long delayed emergence into prominence.
Hawkes' prose is orthodox and pedestrian. His attitude toward his subject is difficult to divine. Hawkes seems to want to make a point using Milton's life but I'll be damned if I can figure out what that point is. While the knowledge of Milton's life that I gained reading the book made the effort worthwhile, I'm nevertheless left with a feeling that Hawkes swung and missed.