Is Psychoanalysis a Donne deal?

Date: Thu Jun 30 7:10 PM, 2005

Is Psychoanalysis a Donne deal?

Date: Fri Jul 1 8:24 AM, 2005

Hello Julie. Seems as if there's plenty of room for discussion. But search me. What might Winnicottian object relations help us to understand about Donne's poetry?

--DF

Date: Fri Jul 1 11:34 AM, 2005

Hi Dennis.

Thank you for responding here. I have a number of preliminary ideas, but they're scattered and underdeveloped at this point. Where should I begin (and how should I presume?)

Winnicottian theory, I think, might relate to Donne's persona making, for instance and the very big question of where (if anywhere) the core Donne might be in all of those contradictory self-representations. Donne I think was particularly adept at playing all the roles his society handed him--so good that I suspect he sometimes lost himself in the drama. On the other hand, Donne sometimes subverted the roles he was handed, modifying the relational codes (for lack of better terms right now) that were dictated to him. New relational possibilities emerge when old ones are subverted.

Others have discussed the extent to which the woman in Donne's love poetry becomes mother to the speaker (I started here in my first essay--the one hanging in suspension right now). We could argue further that the regression works to the end of a therapeutic transformation. But my point would not be merely that the historical Donne recovered from his dysfunctional childhood. Rather it would be that Donne as historical man intuited a way beyond the relational dysfunction of early modern English society.

I'm interested also in the psychology of Donne's religion, the way in which his often masochistic relation to God seems (in contrast to Herbert's representation of the God-self relationship) disempowering. If God in Donne as in Herbert has a parental (maternal) analogue, the parenting appears abusive. What's the pay off? Or does some other dynamic supplant this one in the religious poems.

I'm interested also in the way Donne's poems (here I'm thinking again of the love poems) show various stages in the evolution of a relationship from the object's being subjectively perceived and treated as extension of self to the object's being outside of the self, a person in her own right in relation to whom the speaker can grow. There's vivid illustration in Donne's work of the move from an infantile sense of the other as the self's creation to a mature sense of the other as other. Again, this idea is one I've developed a bit in my essay. But I think it might be interesting to explore where the object is (inside, outside?) in Donne's other poem's as well. What can we say about the ontology of the object-as-Donne-understands-it as men are related to in Donne's verse letters or as God is related to in Donne's religious writings?

And for that matter what about the "author"-reader relationship--the overlap between rhetoric and object relations in Donne's poems, the way in which multiple overlapping audiences in some poems (listener, coterie audience, the self as auditor of his own utterance) must be addressed by multiple layers of self--giving rise to characteristic formal features of Donne's work and his culture (equivocation, paradox, ambiguity) which function psychologically to preserve the self's unity in spite of profound cognitive dissonance.

I don't mean to ramble. I'm struggling to bring a thesis into focus. I hope you and others will reply here.

Best,

Julie

Date: Sat Jul 2 6:40 AM, 2005

I think I understand what you mean, Julia, about Donne's subverting of available social roles and conception of new ones. Each of his portraits, in its details and implications, can be seen as evidence of this process. I'm not sure any of these are mutually contradictory self-representations, however. Some of them incorporate apparent contradiction. For example, the Oliver image of a royal chaplain, in effect a state portrait of a preacher who was a courtier, and was also (some would have recognized) a satirist and a descendant of Thomas More. These facts would be experienced by observers as rather contradictory.

When you speak of a "dysfunctional childhood," as well as of a "dysfunction of early modern English society," which dysfunctions do you refer to?

It seems a stretch to me to call Donne's relation to his God one of an abused child. I do think Donne is a child of God. But his rhetoric seems to address or characterize God with great freedom, focusing sometimes on their respective differences in power and capacity to work out their relations, theologically quite traditional although sometimes expressing the traditional in surprising or shocking ways. I'd call him more cheeky than abused. He characterizes their differences so extremely as perhaps to suggest a masochistic streak. But his writings don't seem to encompass the notion that he, a creature or a child of God, might himself be able to empower or disempower himself in this connection. I don't think Herbert could do that either, although I don't know Herbert as well.

I'm curious to know in which of Donne's poems you find "an infantile sense of the other as the self's creation." I don't think I've noticed that before. Maybe I am missing something here.

I fully agree with your characterization of the complexity or layering of Donne's rhetoric in regard to audiences. How would Winnicott help us to understand this?

--DF

Date: Sat Jul 2 12:07 PM, 2005

Hi Dennis:

Thanks again for your willingness to respond. You've raised some very helpful questions, which I'll answer (albeit in broad strokes) one at a time here.

My claim that Donne's childhood was dysfunctional is in part based on the traumas he was forced to undergo, in part as an infant of his day (separation from his mother, wetnursing), in part because of circumstances (loss of father) in part because of his family's identity as Catholics in Reformation England (witnessing executions of other Catholics, visiting his uncle in prison, having his brother die in jail, etc). I've argued before (in my work on Herbert) that Lawrence Stone may have had some valid points (if somewhat overstated) regarding the effects of wetnursing, swaddling of infants, authoritarian parenting styles and so on on the average person of the day. Although I agree with more recent historians like Linda Pollock that the parents were devoted to their children and intended only the best, from a pschological standpoint we must look at the child's experience rather than the parent's intentions in evaluating the effects of childrearing practices. I argue then for a degree of normative dysfunction (by modern standards) in early modern society's approach to childrearing--resulting in a "normative" model of the self that would be by modern standards somewhat pathological. Let me hasten to assert we're probably dysfunctional ourselves (the best of us; obviously the worst are) by a more enlightened standard. And it may well be that early modern parents did some things better than the typical parent of our day.

My argument, at any rate (and others have argued the same) is that Donne's experience as child (about which we can know only a fraction) was sufficiently traumatic to establish what we find in the personae of his poetry--infantile levels of dependence at times, counter-dependence at times, splits in the fabric of "self," relational difficulities.

As for Donne's relation to God, I realize that it is in many ways conventional. I think in looking at a poet's representation of God, one might be able to discern various layers of transference--but transference has cultural as well as individual components. I do think that Donne's representation of God looks different from Herbert's, though--more fear based, with less certainty of protection. There's a lot of guilt in Donne, fear of damnation; there's a self-annihilating quality before God that one rarely finds in Herbert.

Winnicott argues that one's understanding of God begins in early childhood and whether one conceives of God in terms of protective "everlasting arms" or the rod has to do with one's relation to mother as well as one's early religious education. One approach to God, grounded in a nurturing parenting style, leads to self-empowerment; the other leads to the fracturing of self. "Abused" may have been something of an overstatement on my part (I was thinking of "Batter my Heart") but the notion of Donne's God (admittedly conventional) as one who disempowers the self, who breaks it, seems valid. In this respect Donne's relation to God seems to have an effect opposite of his relation to the female Other in many poems. She becomes the "good enough" mother Winnicott talks about. And God as mother? Pretty scary.

The love poems in which I find "an infantile sense of the other as the self's creation" will probably be the subject of a conference paper, if it's accepted, in Baton Rouge next year. I'm looking at "The Good Morrow," "Aire and Angels" and "The Dreame."

Finally you raise the question of what object relations might contribute to an understanding of Donne's rhetoric. I can only begin to scratch a surface here. As rhetoric suggests, different personae emerge in relation to differing audiences; so when a poem has multiple audiences, multiple personae (emerging from multiple layers of the self) must be harmonized, unified--perhaps a good deal more challenging for a person of Donne's complexity in a day when relational codes were so much more complex than it would be for a person of our day.

Think for a moment about the problem of the Elizabethan settlement, the desire of Elizabeth, Cranmer and others, to write a document ambiguous enough that it could be aceded to by people on either side of the religious spectrum. Equivocation, Paradox, Ambiguity--all of the devices characteristic of the Donne school of poetry--may have emerged from the exigencies of self-representation in relation to the multiple audiences of the day. As a self, Donne was challenged to encompass opposites--opposing objects were internalized in his psyche; his lifelong struggle was to solve the puzzle of self, to find a version that could get along with all of these contradictory, opposing others. It's a big problem, and, I think, an interesting one.

I know I've opened multiple cans of worms here. Again, the question is whether any of this seems original enough to pursue further--and interesting enough to pursue.

Best,

Julie

Date: Sun Jul 3 5:47 PM, 2005

I don't doubt, Julie, that Donne's childhood was dysfunctional in some of the ways you have mentioned, especially in relation to what child psychologists now think normal. It was certainly shocking and debilitating for a child to endure some of these circumstances, although I tend to think the effects of religious persecution were probably more trenchant than those of swaddling or wetnursing (if indeed Donne was ever swaddled or wetnursed). I might be wrong in this opinion, but at least we know Donne and his family did endure religious persecution. Its effects are something I have long found both interesting and too little considered in Donne studies, except from the facile approach to what has been called his "apostasy."

I like the idea of trying to connect traumatic experiences of childhood to the poetry, although I don't recognize immediately the general lines you suggest—such as infantile dependence or (and I'm not sure what you mean by this) "counter-dependence." Obviously I haven't been reading about these things. When you speak of "splits in the fabric of 'self,'" what are you taking into account?

On Donne and God, again I don't really understand what "layers of transference" are. You make me feel that I have a lot of reading to do, and I don't know when I'm going to have the chance to do it.

On Donne and Herbert, I'm not so sure Donne was more fearful. Are you saying Herbert was without fear of damnation? It may be true that Donne talks more about fear, in both poetry and prose, than Herbert does. But all Christianity is fear-based more or less, and Christians would generally say this is so for good reason. Not talking about fear doesn't necessarily mean repressing it; but talking about fear doesn't necessarily mean being obsessed with it either. Where does Donne annihilate himself before God? The places I can imagine you might cite all seem like rhetorical histrionics to me. That's the opposite of self-annihilation.

On Winnicott, now of course I haven't read Winnicott yet, but I must say that (on the face of it) the dichotomy between conceiving of God as a protector and conceiving of God as "the rod" does seem a false one, especially for a Christian. I'm having trouble seeing how one's relation to mother can itself decide whether one conceives of God as a protector or as a punisher.

Apart from Winnicott, are you suggesting, Julie, that Donne did not have nurturing parents and grew up mentally ill, conceiving God as mainly a punisher rather than a protector? I think you'll find more characterizations of God as a protector than of God as the opposite in Donne's writings. And I don't see any line where God in "Batter my heart" disempowers or breaks Donne's self. Am I missing something?

--DF

Date: Sun Jul 3 11:30 PM, 2005

Hi Dennis:

Thanks for staying with me in this conversation. You're really making me think. When you say I make you feel like you have a lot of reading to do, I can only say that you make me feel the same way--and I appreciate it. Most of what I'm saying, if it seems complicated, is the result of muddled thinking. I'm still in the very early stages of what I hope will turn out to be a long-term project on Donne.

For instance, the phrase "multiple layers of transference" was a sloppy one on my part, I think. I was compressing a number of vaguely articulated thoughts into one phrase there. I was thinking that representations of God (whether or not one believes in God) are always constituted at least in part by tranferences--plural, because I suspect we project multiple important relationships onto our idea of the divine--e.g. our experience of Father, Mother, Friend, Ruler, etc. We also project what we need and what we fear onto the Divine. Some ideas about God are common to people within a specific denomination; some ideas about God are common to people within a specific historical milieu; some ideas about God emerge from more individual experiences. So what I was calling a "layer" of transference has to do with whether a given attribute of God-as-one-understands-Him comes from one's culture, one's personal experience, one's denomination, etc. I'm sure there's a better, clearer way to put this.

Counter-dependence means reactions against dependence--a rebellious refusal to depend on someone, even if one really needs that person, a denial of need. In Donne's poetry there are times when the female is his whole world; he seems to have as much problem saying goodbye to her, or dealing with her death, as she has saying goodbye to him. There are levels of dependence that approach infantile dependence when Donne fears he'll fall apart without his beloved, when he feels emptied out and unreal without her. But there is also counterdependence in some of the more cavalier moments--as in "Love's Diet" where the implicit message is "I don't need you."

As for the phrase "splits in the fabric of self" I am assuming Donne was in various ways a divided subject. One point I'd like to pursue (in Winnicottian terms) is the division between Donne's false (socially constructed, socially compliant) self/selves and his true (bodily-based potential) self. I think I can find splits too in the developmental maturity level of Donne's speakers. In some poems, Donne's desire to use wit to undercut personal pain and the intellectual maturity of Donne's wit in terms of its content may suggest an adult maturity level, while the pain he is undercutting is that of a small child. As best I recall my last post (I'm not looking at the moment) I think I used the phrase "splits in the fabric of self" when I was talking about Donne's multiple audiences. Maybe the meaning directed toward one audience betrays infantile or early childhood feelings/states of being, while the meaning directed toward another audience shows greater maturity.

I'm not sure I agree with you that "all Christianity is fear based." Herbert seems deeply grieved, repeatedly grieved, over perceived absences of God, but he writes very few poems evidencing any fear of damnation. Except for one poem, "The Water Course" that ends on the word _damnation_ (and on the word _salvation_ since the form branches both directions) I can't think of references to hell and damnation in Herbert. Donne is obsessive in a poem like "Hyme to God the Father"; even the refrain is obsessive--the word play, the worry.

You're right that God does not actually break the speaker in "Batter My Heart." The speaker begs Him to, though. Isn't the implication that divine violence is an act of mercy, that to break the self is to save the soul? I read somewhere that Donne's mother was so benevolent that she disciplined her children herself rather than allowing servants to do it. Isn't that idea--that punishment equals a sign of benevolence--even a little suspect?

I'm facinated by your claim that where Donne seems to "annihilate himself before God" he engages in "rhetorical histrionics" which are "the opposite of self-annihilation." I need to think about this further.

And now for the big question--do I think Donne was mentally ill? No--but I do think he was troubled. In fact, I think he was quite adaptive in finding ways to avoid illness through creatively restructuring himself (in his relationships as he wrote about them, in his writing). I think it took the genius he manifested in his work and life to avoid being mentally ill. A lesser mind under the same circumstances might have been "mentally ill" (personality disordered?) in far more debilitating ways. Maybe Donne's "way out" became a publically available way out for others when the poems were published. Maybe (I've come close to arguing this point in an essay on _Lear_ and _Paradise Lost_ recently published in an online journal called PsyArt) the normative personality in Donne's day was disordered by our standards, and Donne's re-forming of self in his work contributed to a new paradigm for self-organization and relational habits.

Let me say again, my thoughts are very rough at this point. I know I'm making broad claims, and I'll need much time to flesh them all out (or scap some and flesh out the others). I do appreciate your help in challenging me to get more clear.

Well in the time it's taken me to write all this, the t.v. programming at our house has taken me from The Wizard of Ox as background music to Gregorian chants. It's after midnight--time to get my four year old to bed and go read.

Best,

Julie

Date: Wed Jul 6 12:37 AM, 2005

Hi All:

Well, I am going to jump aboard with my two cents worth: Julia, you posit that Donne was somehow masochistic because in his “Batter my heart” he asks God to break him. I find am working on the polar opposite of your own paper. You seem to make the assumption that because Donne’s relationship to God is an unequal one, Donne must be disempowered when he acknowledges that very inequality. Perhaps it would help you to understand better if you think about the following allegory. Compare God to the Oncologist. Donne has cancer, and the cancer will kill him – even the smallest amount of cancer will kill him – and he begs the Oncologist to do anything necessary to remove the cancer. Cut him open, rip out those bad cells, bathe him in radiation, soak him with cancer killing poison, just get those cells out, he begs. Is this person a masochist? He wants to remain among the living, likes the pretty things like food, drink the ocean, and other such. But this is an unequal allegory – life and eternity are not equal. I agree with Dennis ( if I understand him correctly) that to argue that Donne is a masochist is to simplify the ramifications of his poetry.

“Isn't that idea--that punishment equals a sign of benevolence--even a little suspect?” you ask:

Again I will allegorize: my child runs into the street in front of oncoming traffic. I have told her again and again not to do so, but she goes ahead and does it repeatedly. ANY punishment I mete out in response to this life-threatening disobedience IS punishment. There is a whole gamut of possible reactions on my part, but from her perspective, even the simple talking-to is punishment. Is it suspect? It escapes my sleepy brain, but if you run this through the Bible, you get the same sort of answer I just allegorized for you.

Have you consulted the Bible, or other good theological scholars? I know that suggesting doing so dates me, but there is a great deal written on these ideas that you are wrestling with.

Until next time:
Leslie

Date: Wed Jul 6 11:06 AM, 2005

Hi Leslie:

Thanks for your response. I like the oncologist analogy, but I've been thinking further, in terms of it, about "Batter My Heart." So let me complicate the analogy for the sake of discussion here.

Donne asks God, who so far feels it necessary only to "break, blow, burn and seek to mend" (spellings are modernized because I'm working from memory here) that He instead "batter" Donne's heart, that is "overthrow" him completely using full force, so that Donne "may rise and stand."

In the analogy you've used, Donne has cancer. God is the Oncologist. So the Oncologist has done everything He considers needed; say He has used radiation and/or chemotherapy and/or the least invasive surgeries possible. The physician seems to think these measures sufficient, we may assume. It is the patient who is yelling, "No, amputate." "If thy hand offend thee cut it off"-- or ask the Divine surgeon to.

Donne is desperate, but he also seems to be a bit insecure about the efficacy of divine grace. In his mind, only (perhaps salutary) divine violence will suffice to free him from his cancer (his sin, later represented in the poem itself as betrothal to God's enemy). It's as if one idea of God in the poem vies with another. The God Donne expects or thinks he needs would find a canker in the flesh and cut through the bone. The God Donne experiences addresses the problem in a less invasive way, as if to assert "My grace is sufficient for thee, for my strength is made perfect in weakness." Isn't it Donne's egotism that demands the radical cure so that he, by his own agency, may then "rise and stand."

So maybe I was wrong in asserting that God is an abusive parent here. Donne wants an abusive parent. Instead he gets a nurturing one, more interested in supporting the fragile self in order to let it mend than in breaking it so that it can rise and stand, however scarred by the encounter.

I don't know in detail how these ideas apply to other religious poems by Donne. I do know we'll find at least a few others where Donne's guilt outlasts its usefullness (which is, in Reformation terms, to bring him to the stage of mortification) and asserts itself almost in oppostion to God's justification and sanctification. So maybe Donne's religious poems go father than to advance Reformation (or Catholic--but here I'll take Lewalski as my authority) coventional ideas of God. Maybe they explore in depth the psychology of theological despair--perhaps analyzable in psychological as well as religious terms.

Thanks again, Leslie, for participating here. I've been rather isolated from professional dialogue (except for my own classroom) since I had my son, now four. It helps me a great deal to interact online as I seek to get back into the swing of professional criticism.

Best,

Julie

Date: Thu Jul 7 7:45 PM, 2005

I have been thinking about your point concerning my allegory -- that Donne is asking the Surgeon / God to amputate his no longer cancerous body part -- perhaps because of a breakdown in trust in the efficacy of divine grace. I would answer, after a days worth of thought (not much), that Donne is perhaps more closely aware of the problem, of the potential return of the cancerous condition than the Surgeon is. The Surgeon talks of removing the cancerous growth, while the patient -- in fear of the return of the cancer -- requests the removal of the entire body part. If the breast is not there, the cancer can't return in it. The patient will go to great extremes to hang on to life. The Doctor is more willing perhaps to go through the cycle of surgery/chemo/radiation again than the patient is. The Doctor, to some degree is distanced from the consequences of the cancer, and of the treatment. No amount of reassurance will suffice someone who faces the possible return of cancer -- and here I speak as an authority -- and I am not certain it is a lack of faith in divinity -- I think that it is in C.S. Lewis's words Merely Human.

So once more I question the reading of Donne as masochist -- in part because that implies expecting to recieve pleasure of some sort from the application of pain. (OED) Is there some other term in Psychoanalysis that covers this? Donne will do, beg for, any divine intervention -- however brutal it might be -- to save him from (In Buffy's terms) the "big bad." Note that his expectation of pleasure to be recieved from the application of pain is to be recieved after he departs this life. He expects to recieve "life everlasting."

I have also been thinking about Herbert's poetry, and why it seems so much less troubled than Donne's. I am not certain that it needs to be read a greater faith -- it could also be less self-examination -- or fewer sins in his background that he feels the need of divine forgiveness for. He wrote for a different audience, in a different genre and format -- at least as far as the Temple goes. Certainly I feel closer to Donne's poetry than to Herbert's, because his seems more real somehow, closer to the troubled questioning faith that most humans do. Donne meant his to perform as exemplums -- or at least I will argue that. A comparison of the two poets certainly needs doing -- they seem to have such radically different approaches to the same God.

I have to say that I also am enjoying this new ability to discuss Donne with other's who speak him.

Leslie

Date: Thu Jul 7 11:20 PM, 2005

Leslie and Julie,

I’m having a hard time with the doctor/patient relationship allegory, in relation to “Batter my Heart.” The parallel doesn’t help us understand anything in regards to human emotion. We need to look at what is going on “internally” for the speaker and how the language, in effect, plays out the drama. I agree with Dennis that the language, where self-annihilation in Donne is concerned, is an effect of “rhetorical histrionics.”

The speaker in “Batter my Heart” doesn’t seek to be “broken,” but to be "made new" or plainly put "perfect.” He is left "mended," which is the only healing power God can provide any human. The speaker doesn't want to be "mended" because that means he must remain as he is - susceptible to more sin. Julie, you mentioned the poem "A Hymn to God the Father," where you suggest, “the refrain is obsessive--the word play, the worry.” I agree that the “refrain is obsessive” but I don’t see so much “worry” or “fear” as I see a man struggling to live with his limitations. The speaker truly struggles to live with himself as a flawed human being, which is true for the speaker in "Batter my Heart," as well. He is shamed before God; however, that shame isn’t brought on by God but rather the speaker himself, which leads to my thoughts on Winnicott.

I’ve not read Winnicott and I don’t know his methods, research, etc., but I have a hard time believing that, “one's understanding of God begins in early childhood and whether one conceives of God in terms of protective "everlasting arms" or the rod has to do with one's relation to mother as well as one's early religious education.” I don’t concede that Donne’s relation to God is either “abusive” or “nurturing.” God plays, in essence, the role of “guide” in Donne's life journey. God is the filter through which every thought and action is passed. God “hovers” in Donne, but not as “abusive” or “nurturing” parent, but rather the constant voice, the “internal check,” that has to be reckoned with.

There’s more to say but it’s getting late for me. I’ll check back.

Colleen

Date: Sat Jul 9 12:45 AM, 2005

Hi Coleen.

Thanks for your input here.

At first glance, I questioned your claim that "the only healing power God can provide any human" is mending rather than renewal. Doesn't Reformation theology talk about "the new man" as opposed to the Old Adam? But on further reflection, I remembered a passage from Luther, discussing the gradual process whereby the old man is made new, so that, in this world at least, the transformation is never as perfect as one might desire. That, I take it, is the problem you see Donne struggling with here. He can't trust himself, and God won't quite take over. It is Donne's desire, at some level, to abandon himself completely to the Almighty, to be no longer an agency in the world. Does Donne's God then require that humans accept agency and responsibility for their actions (reponsibility at least to the extent of having to come back and ask for more forgiveness)?

I'm thinking out loud here. It seems to me this question of agency, being central to the difference between say Calvinism and less extreme versions of Reformation thought, might go somewhere.

I've also been looking back at Winnicott, trying to see whether I represented him fairly. The actual contrast he is developing in talking about the mother's importance to the child's God-concept is the difference between a parent who inculcates a specific doctrine (through shaming, through moral lessons, through "teaching about" God) and the parent who practices a nurturing manner that the child can transfer to the idea of God. God becomes an idea based in experience of mothering. The quote I was remembering is this:

"Let's take my suggestion that the whole of the preverbal expression of love in terms of holding and handling has vital significance for each developing baby. Then we can say that on the basis of what has been experienced by an individual, we may teach the concept of, say, everlasting arms. We may use that word, 'God'. we can make a specific link with the Christian church and doctrine, but it is a series of steps. Teaching comes into place there on the basis of what the individual child has the capacity to believe in." ( Winnicott, Home is Where We Start From 148-49)

Donne's God-concept, it seems to me, is the product more of inculcation than "holding and handling"-- in contrast say to Herbert's. I'm not sure I understand completely your claim that "God plays, in essence, the role of “guide” in Donne's life journey. God is the filter through which every thought and action is passed. God “hovers” in Donne, but not as “abusive” or “nurturing” parent, but rather the constant voice, the “internal check,” that has to be reckoned with." Are you saying the concept is one less of a personal relationship (e.g. parent-child) than of a more abstract Other? Is Donne's God the conscience in your view? That would be a more Freudian than Winnicottian notion I think.

On "Hymne to God the Father," I think I really do hear a certain amount of worry/fear/obsession. Part of what I see happening in the poem is the gradual unraveling of self--right up to the line in which Donne fears that when he has "spun his last thread [he will] vanish" just short of heaven (on the shore). He is simultaneously spinning threads of worry and undoing himself. He fears coming to a core of nothingness. When he finally unravels one sin after another from his exterior, he gets to the center, and there's no one there.

I'd like to hear more on your sense of how Donne views God. I've been re-reading the religious poems and will be doing so yet again in the next week or so.

Best,

Julie

Date: Sat Jul 9 1:18 AM, 2005

Hi Leslie:

I'm enjoying this forum too. It helps me immensely to have to back up what I'm thinking--or change it.

In reference to your questioning the masochist label I put on Donne because you don't see an expectation on his part of pleasure from the pain, I'm sure someone has already discussed the possible sexual pun on the image of Donne's rising in response to God's battering. I don't necessarily embrace this reading in full, but I think it is defensible--especially with the reference to rape at the end.

I'm not sure I'd say that Herbert's poetry is "less troubled" than Donne's; it's troubled in a different way. There seems to be less concern about otherworldy destinations, more deeply experienced grief over God's perceived absences here and now. I find it interesting that you relate so much better to Donne's spiritual experience than Herbert's. I was thinking the other night that I'm having the opposite problem at this point (in part because I worked on Herbert for five years nonstop but also I think I was just geared that way).

When you say that you see Donne's poems as "exemplums," I take it you mean that they're directed as much to a congregation as to God? I've never thought of them in those terms, though I guess I do hear a difference in (to borrow Dennis's term) the histrionics of Donne versus Herbert.

I've always heard Herbert's lyrics as first and foremost aimed to God in prayer--though Herbert himself was aware of the discrepancy between that intent and his desire to render them poetic and commit them to written form. Donne's poems also address God at times (e.g. "Batter My Heart . . .") though sometimes he addresses others. But perhaps there's a metalevel at which Donne's poems become drama in a way Herbert's don't? (I don't know if I could defend that statement, but for now, I'll let it stand. Maybe you can flesh it out).

It's very late. I've been online all day rearranging a vacation that would have started tomorrow in Dauphin Island Alabama, were it not for the prospect of the hurricane. Now we're headed to the Smokey Mountains starting the middle of next week. Meanwhile, like you, I'm enjoying this conversation. I hope to hear from you again.

Best,

Julie

Date: Wed Jul 13 4:03 AM, 2005

Hi Julie,

Sorry for the delay. It's my pleasure to participate here. I enjoy the dialogue and interaction. It makes me think.

Let me apologize: My argument, in regards to “Batter my Heart,” is weak at best in its execution, albeit not so weak as to be lost on you. Yes, "the transformation is never as perfect as one might desire at least in this world." It is through God’s mercy and forgiveness that one is renewed, yet one is never completely free from God's judgment. Sin, begets sin, begets more sin, ad infinitum “at least in this world,” which is well dramatized and emphasized in a poem like "A Hymne to God the Father." The "loop" effect of each refrain setting the dramatization, I speak of, to motion. The struggle of the speaker is particularly clear in "Batter my Heart" where the second quatrain informs the first: the speaker "laboure[s] to admit [God], but Oh to no end." The conclusion the speaker arrives at: “[I] never shall be free.”

Julie, you say: "It is Donne's desire, at some level, to abandon himself completely to the Almighty, to be no longer an agency in the world.” I’m inclined to think it’s more a fantasy than a “true” desire. This kind of thinking might lead one to consider suicide? Let me think this through: The first quatrain of “Batter my Heart” is very bold in its language. Donne has employed God in the craft of “master” blacksmith. The “heart,” alludes to the “iron heart” in Holy Sonnet I, which requires rescue. The speaker isn’t satisfied with God’s mending. It’s almost as if the speaker begs to be beaten or forged into God’s image, and consumed by that image, from the perspective of knowing rather than being. If the speaker had a desire “to be no longer an agency in the world,” then I imagine that thought would be echoed and realized elsewhere (within the poem). What is your thought on this?

You asked me: “Does Donne's God then require that humans accept agency and responsibility for their actions (responsibility at least to the extent of having to come back and ask for more forgiveness)?" Yes, this action represents a strong part of Donne’s faith in action. This is a major part of his Catholic upbringing.

You mentioned: "It seems to me this question of agency, being central to the difference between say Calvinism and less extreme versions of Reformation thought, might go somewhere.” This is really interesting to me and I hope you will elaborate? I might add that Donne’s Roman Catholic upbringing is central to his religious education and could prove to be valuable, particularly with regards to Winnicott.

Let me explain: You consider that, “Donne's God-concept, is the product more of inculcation than "holding and handling.” I don’t know if you can justify this statement based on the fact that Donne abandoned the religion of his upbringing and attempted to embrace a new one. Does this change the paradigm? It appears to me, that unless you can retrace the steps of Donne’s original religious upbringing and his attachment to it, you can’t really claim either effect (inculcation/holding-handling) is an extension of mothering, in regards to Donne’s God-concept. Wouldn’t the path of transference, mothering - - God-concept, in essence, be lost or would it transfer over? Do I have this all wrong?

Let me explain my thoughts on how I think Donne views his God. I didn’t see my thoughts through on this, let me explain: I see Donne’s relationship to his God and I say his because if Donne had remained a Catholic, there would be no question of God. An independent concept of who-God-is for a Catholic, in Donne’s time, was unheard of (until the Counter-Reformation). Reformation Theology opened the door for new insight into the possibilities and Donne was ripe for the picking. On some level, Donne had to abandon emotions or repress them as much as possible in order to explore his God-concept. This forced Donne to approach his God more objectively. You asked me, “Is Donne's God the conscience in your view?” I would say Donne had no choice but to make Him conscience.

I use the word “guide” to describe Donne’s relationship to his God because I see Donne’s God from a more objective perspective, partly because the relationship is often adversarial but mostly because Donne is searching for God. A guide can advise and interpret, even argue. Donne’s God, in essence, has to remain outside of himself so he can get a hard look at him, so to speak. Donne tenders many questions and arguments. It’s almost as if he hopes that by putting the questions out there, the answers will eventually come. I’m thinking of several of the Holy Sonnets here, though I won’t mention them now. In this sense, Donne’s search for a God-concept is not unlike the paper you are trying to pull together here. How can Donne begin to internalize and own his God-concept when he struggles to consider what that concept is? From this perspective, Donne’s God-concept is one of inculcation because his God-concept throughout his work is being forged. Having said that, can your really argue that Donne’s God-concept can be explained using a Winnicottian model?

Lastly, my thoughts reflect one last time on, "A Hymne to God the Father." I still beg to differ on the overall affect of the poem. It may seem to begin with "worry/fear/obsession" but as with any poem of Donne's, we run into danger when we try to isolate his thought because we are almost always guaranteed it will change. We have to run the course, even though the course often leads us to where we started. The course, in this case, leads us to the final lines in the last refrain, "But swear by Thyself, that at my death Thy Son, Shall shine as he shines now, and heretofore; And having done that, Thou hast done; I fear no more." It's not as if Donne is free from fear or worry, it’s just that those feelings, in my opinion, don’t describe the overall sentiment of the hymn. I think the hymn embodies catharsis. Even Walton describes Donne, "expressing great joy that then possessed his soul, in the assurance of God's favour to him when he composed it" (xxviii). Interestingly enough, the last few lines of the last refrain is the speaker’s declaration of faith, which is what releases him from the “worry/fear/obsession” you speak of.

I know this is an earful. I hope its food for thought.

Best Regards,

Colleen

Date: Thu Jul 14 11:07 AM, 2005

Okay Julia and Coleen:

I guess I am going to be lengthy, so please bear with me.

First to Donne’s supposed sexual response to God’s “batter[ing],” yes, there is a body of criticism that wants to read this. I frankly find the short-sightedness a bit facile. It is not all about sex. The word “ravish” has many meanings other than the modern “rape.”

In fact the OED runs on -- it seems -- forever on the other meanings, especially during the early modern period. One of them is “to lift up to heaven”. (I am working from memory here, it’s been awhile since I worked on Sonnet 14 -- I have a different paper to read at the SWCCL in Sept.) Perhaps when Donne seeks to “rise and shine . . .” he is talking not about his penis, and not about getting up in the morning, but about rising after his death, and shining among the angels in heaven. Angelic beings are supposed to shine luminescent. This is one of the problems of discussing the supernatural, one has only words, and the human world with which to work. One can only approach metaphorically. (And this is why I like allegory, metaphor, and analogy.) To be blunt, God has no body. That is where human agency comes in. Not being a man, I can’t claim that the idea of God’s spirit battering and ravishing one doesn’t get a sexual response -- but I know it doesn’t work that way for me. How does one talk about transcendence? Donne uses the metaphor of the body, of “knock, shine, breathe, captivity, ravish, chasteness” to discuss it. But I would like to read it as a metaphor -- not as the statement of masochism and homosexuality it too often gets read as today. This is about getting to heaven, having been saved from hell -- not about getting off.

Julia, you say "Donne's God-concept, it seems to me, is the product more of inculcation than "holding and handling"-- in contrast say to Herbert's. I'm not sure I understand completely your [Coleen's]claim that "God plays, in essence, the role of “guide” in Donne's life journey. God is the filter through which every thought and action is passed."

Let me toss in another 2 cents worth. I would remind you both that God was very much an interior part of Donne, indeed, more a part of him than we like to think about. I mean that Donne, as both Roman Catholic and Protestant, would have the Holy Spirit indwelling within him -- at least as far as he knew. According to Matthew, Jesus announced that the Holy Spirit would hold his place literally inside His (It's?) host until the day of final reward. How much closer can a "Guide" get? Donne is quite literally supposed to run all his actions, thoughts and reactions through the Britta of the Holy Spirit, to get a more pure, more Godlike agency. Calvinist agency of course is different than the others, since if one is born Saved -- prechosen to salvation -- then there is no agency needed for your own Salvation, nor can any agency you could provide nudge an unelect person closer to election. The question was always -- is one elect? How does an elect person act? Could even election be lost?

I am working towards my view of Donne's Holy Sonnets as exemplums. . . . If one posits that Donne did not view either himself, nor those Christians around himself as elect, then Donne needed to use his agency to positively affect the salvation of those around him. I would argue that he would not wish to be a stumbling block, tripping those following him. He would wish to guide them Salvationward. This is what would prove to himself, to some small degree, that he is not one of the Goats mentioned as Hell-bound in Mathew ?? Of course he would never be certain that like the goats, he wasn’t mistaken. This is a worry that all except the Calvinists share. They are assured that they are sheep. Donne is “working out his Salvation with fear and trembling.” Sorry, back to exemplars -- they are the backbone of the Christian tradition, roadmaps helping others to find their way. Donne was certainly aware of their usages and purposes, heck, even in his letters he thinks about how later readers will interpret his words; how much more important to leave an emblazoned trail towards God in Sonnets addressed to Him. I argue that the Sonnets truly encompass the range of emotions humans feel, from Joy -- a fruit of the Spirit -- to an awareness of sin and the impossibility of self-salvation. I argue that by his outspoken willingness to share the negative feelings as well as the positive, Donne opens the door to a more free expression of the human reaction to Godly expectations. He demonstrates that it is okay to question God, to yell at Him, to be fully human -- for Divine forgiveness forgives and accepts the human as he is -- even while the indwelt Holy Spirit guides the human towards faith in an unknown plan. The problem discussed in Holy Sonnet 14 is that the Holy Spirit will only guide, it will be a map -- and it takes human agency to read it. Donne perhaps wants the HS to do more than that -- he wants less responsibility both for his own salvation, and that of leading others. It would be nice, he thinks, if he were imprisoned away from the temptations of the world -- if there was no coffee, I wouldn’t drink it. Perhaps after awhile, I wouldn’t even crave it. Even Donne knows that it doesn’t work that way. So long as he lives he will be “betrothed to the enemy.”

Enough -- a perhaps more than my 2 cents worth, and I am possibly not expressing myself as well as I would had I a couple months to think about this response.

Best to all,

Leslie

Date: Thu Jul 14 10:04 PM, 2005

Hi Leslie and Julie,

I didn’t initially speak on the subject of masochism but I would like to respond now. Leslie, yes there is a body of criticism that wants to read God's "batter[ing]" as a sexual response. You are absolutely correct that "the word "ravish" has many more meanings than the modern rape." For my part, I don't think this type of criticism is "short-sighted," and this is where we part ways Leslie. Even though I don't personally find this body of criticism an "inspired" read, if you will, when applied to Holy Sonnet IV; I do, however, think there's room for this type of criticism in the dialogue.

One of the many magnificent qualities of poetry is that it has the ability to cross historical and cultural lines and speak as much to the minds at present as it does to the mind(s) of its time. You're right, "it's not all about sex," but this body of criticism may speak more to our time in history than to that of the 17th century. Are you not willing to entertain or consider it? How does this body of criticism reflect, interpret and influence popular culture and our society today? I’m not advocating or dismissing it, I’m merely, for the sake of argument, willing to hear it out.

Leslie, I agree that God was very much an “interior” part of Donne. I have no doubt about that. I don’t know if you read my post before writing yours? I didn’t comment on this aspect of Donne’s relationship with God and I know I didn’t infer it either. I was mainly focusing on the exterior process, which I believe had to take place, when Donne made the transition from Roman Catholic to Anglican. That transition had to have been lengthy and we can’t definitively say it was ever reconciled.

I still believe there was a “conscience” effort, on Donne’s part, to abandon his inherited beliefs in order to embrace new ones. Donne had to conceptualize God in an image that could then be internalized and owned. This process is a conscience exercise and the writing speaks to that. God as “guide” informs the writing. That’s why I said, “Donne had no choice but to make God conscience.” This isn’t, by any means, meant to definitively describe Donne’s relationship to God nor does it claim that God is conscience.

It’s getting late, so I’ll stop here for now.

Regards,

Colleen

Date: Tue Jul 19 6:33 PM, 2005

Dear All: (I can see this thread is being read by more people than are participating.)

Colleen:

I have taken my time since your last post to think over what you said, "Are you not willing to entertain or consider it? How does this body of criticism reflect, interpret and influence popular culture and our society today? I’m not advocating or dismissing it, I’m merely, for the sake of argument, willing to hear it out."

To be honest, my immediate reaction was irritation, and my secondary reaction to question how I somehow intimated unillingness to be open-minded about the theories in question. Let me clearly state that I find them short-sighted only because so many of those around me don't seem to understand that we are playing a "what-if" game. They seem to be happily married to their readings of John Donne as a homo-sexual masochist, and the matching reading of God as a Sadist. I personally believe a great deal can be learned by examining the posibilities -- but I recognize that what I am looking at it only a possiblity. What is gained by examining Donne, and Christianity for elements of what we read as masocism is vastly different from what is gained by blithely and blindly accepting it as so. What is gained by "outing him" (to quote a member of our faculty)? Clearly they then can label him a hypocite at that point, and dismiss him. I would like the criticism then to go on to discuss ways in which all fail the God / Perfection test. Does this particular "sin" score worse than say, the nice white lie that "dress doesn't make you look fat?" Why? And how about some internal evidence that consults historical "fact's." Does the supposed element of homoeroticism read as worse than being 'betrothed to your enemy?" Why? Why not? We could learn a whole lot from all the theories if we would all acknowledge that we are playing what if.

I would like to see a new language developed to deal with some of these problems. Certainly some of the terms carry emotional baggage that hinder discussion. So Julia, what about the term I asked for earlier -- one to encompass a desire for divine boundaries that would prevent wandering astray from the straight and narrow? I really think part of the problem here is lexical. Even the OED fails to come up with a more suitable word; people like me quibble at the devient implication of "Masochism."

And what about some discussion of Dennis's "rhetorical histrionics"? How do they work in this poem? How do they work when read by a Psychoanlytical theory? I don't know if such a reading has been done, but I am certain if it has, someone will enlighten me.

I apoligize to all if I seem unduly defensive, but my toes are already sore.

LO

Date: Mon Jul 25 11:01 PM, 2005

Leslie and Colleen,

I just got back to town after two weeks away. I'll be looking over your posts more carefully tomorrow and hope, if you're still interested, to respond a bit more.

Best,

Julie

Date: Wed Jul 27 12:51 AM, 2005

Hi Leslie and Coleen:

Still out there? Tonight I hope to be brief--just fishing for more conversation, if you're interested.

First Coleen, I'd like to reply to this passage from your last post:

". . . You consider that, “Donne's God-concept, is the product more of inculcation than "holding and handling.” I don’t know if you can justify this statement based on the fact that Donne abandoned the religion of his upbringing and attempted to embrace a new one. Does this change the paradigm? It appears to me, that unless you can retrace the steps of Donne’s original religious upbringing and his attachment to it, you can’t really claim either effect (inculcation/holding-handling) is an extension of mothering, in regards to Donne’s God-concept. Wouldn’t the path of transference, mothering - - God-concept, in essence, be lost or would it transfer over?"

Why would a man "abandon the religion of his upbringing to embrace a new one"? I'm thinking at some level his experience never matched the ideas he was taught about God. Something in the Anglican theology of his day was more in keeping with the internal experience of the other (mother/father/God) than Catholicism was, perhaps. I'm hypothesizing that Donne didn't switch religions merely to benefit politically, that his very conscientious struggle over many many years was about trying to sort out multiple, contradictory ideas (all his at one time or another) and find the ones that (for lack of better words) truly belonged to him. The God concept he kept more closely fit the path of transference/mothering perhaps than the God concept he tried to fit himself to growing up; and remember, it is not what his mother said about God but how she was or who she was in relation to him that would determine what paradigm would eventually fit best. For that matter, Donne's mother may have been supplanted over time by other mothers (i.e. by Ann More Donne operating in loco parentis psychologically speaking).

It may be that Donne's habitual cognitive pattern of trying to juggle premises that exist in apparent tension with each other determined that he would choose an Anglican theology that said "both . . . and" rather than a Catholic or extreme Protestant theology that said "either . . . or." Where, developmentally speaking, does this tendency (more common among Democrats than Republicans in our culture, I've noticed) to try to encompass multiple, paradoxically related but not quite contradictory, premises in a single thought come from? Maybe Donne tried to marry multiple contradictory authorities within himself. Mother? Nurse? Lost Father? Stepfather? Catholic teachers early in life; Protestant professors at the University?

What's clear to me from your points is that I have to think more--and stay close to the poems to stay grounded.

Leslie, I think your point about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is quite valid. Clearly Donne did believe the Spirit was within him and that his understanding of God could be based not on theological ideas only but also on a revelatory presence. But transference happens in real relationships. Just as my experience of father or mother may determine how I feel about certain sorts of older men or women all of my days, so my experience of primary relatedness (to nurse, to Mother) may determine what features of a real other I'm able to relate to--even God.

It's very late. There's much more in each of your posts I'd like eventually to say more about sometime.

Best,

Julie

Date: Mon Aug 8 10:04 AM, 2005

Sorry Julia,

I've been at my dad's farm -- a no-internet zone. Will read your post and respond tomorrow.

Leslie

Date: Sat Aug 20 10:07 AM, 2005

Hi Leslie:

Still there?

Best,

Julie

Date: Wed Aug 24 1:33 AM, 2005

Julia,

I have been thinking about your premises while I fed chickens and watched the sun set over the mountains.

Returning to your basic premises -- I think the questions boil down to these:

1. How does Donne's relationship with his mother impact his relationship with God both as God and as God the Trinity?

2. What sort of relationship did Donne have with his mother?

3. What was the common relationship of Mother to child in his time, and did Donne's follow the norm?

4. What sort of historical research has been done on mothering in the Early Modern period? How can you tie into this -- us Historical types want to know this base has been approached.

5. How does Donnes represent his connection to the mother relationship within his poetry or sermons? And here I think Dennis's "Retorical hystrionics" comes into play.

6. Can you globalize Donne's relationship with mothering to Donne's relationship to the Holy Spirit (usually the female aspect of the diety) as comforter? And as subhead to this -- does the failure of the human relationship necessarily lead to the matching failure to fully accept and utilize the leanings of the Holy Spirit? Where does psychoanalysis stand on this?

7. Does the Wincottian approach to psychoanalysis stretch to an approach to this topic through metaphor?

These were not in any sort of order.

I would suggest you look at several 1960's and 1970's articles that deal with the split of the trinity in Holy Sonnet 14 -- I have found them quite helpful -- if seemingly forgotten. Look for Craig Payne; Arthur Clements; Ed Kleiman; John Parish; and the glass blower imagry that Colleen mentioned is in a short piece by Tunis Romein.
All quite well done. Of course there are many of the Donne Society members that have wonderful books and articles that could provide more modern referents for you. I am somewhat dated and out of touch -- my dissertation is on "Demonic Possession and the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the English Early Modern Period." So you can see why my approach would be somewhat off kilter.

I know that many people are reading these posts, so how about stepping in with practical suggestions?

Sorry about the delays, life is somewhat chaotic this summer.

Leslie

Date: Wed Aug 24 9:27 AM, 2005

Hi, Julia,

May i ask a question on the Psychoanalysis of Donne?

since Donne desired to be raped by God, does it suggest that he had an imperfet ego? I mean if he has a so strong anima that he thinks he resembles a woman in one way or another? it must be resulted from some early memory or experience of his childhood. Am i reasonable ?

Thanks a lot

Date: Sun Sep 4 9:02 AM, 2005

Hi:

I'm checking in here on hurricane discussion and note that I've had a couple of responses.

Thanks, Leslie, for your suggestion about possible focus. I still haven't decided how much of this I'll pursue. As a note, I think the Son as well as the Holy Spirit may occasionally be considered maternal in early modern poetry (Herbert's more than Donne's, however).

To the anonymous Chinese student: I think I understand why you perceive Donne's feminine role in Holy Sonnet XIV as indicative of a psychological condition--a weak ego as you say. I think the feminization of the believer in Christian thought is fairly conventional, however. The church is represented as the "bride" of Christ in the New Testament. So I don't think Donne's relative femininity in the poem is that unusual.

Best,

Julie

Date: Thu Sep 8 9:21 AM, 2005

Hi, Julia, from what you have written here. I know that you are really an expert on Donne. I'd like to know your e-mail adress if I may. I've just started the study of Donne but have developed an immense interest towards him. I am troubled by some buffling questions now and i'd like to ask your opinions on them. May I? Thanks!

Date: Mon Sep 12 9:41 AM, 2005

Hi Monica:

Others here have greater expertise than I do, having been at this for many years. I did my first book on Herbert and have been teaching 17th-century poetry for several years. I've just started research on Donne in the past year or two. But sure you can email; please do; I'd love to share ideas. Trying not to list the email in such a way that search engines can pick it up, I'll record it this way: email "shaw" at "ulm"; the suffix is "edu."

Best,

Julie

Date: Wed Nov 23 1:47 PM, 2005

~~~Why would a man "abandon the religion of his upbringing to embrace a new one"? I'm thinking at some level his experience never matched the ideas he was taught about God. ~~~

I have an opinion that Donne was heavily influenced by St. Augustine. I think a good reading of "Confessions" would shed much light on Donne's influences and motivations. I would go so far as to opine that Donne perhaps thought of himself as the St. Augustine (as an author) of his generation.

Date: Wed Nov 30 1:50 PM, 2005

Hi Keith:

Can you elaborate on that? I've read _Confessions_ and part of other works by Augustine. I haven't made the connection you are suggesting by any means.

Best,

Julie

Date: Thu Sep 7 2:43 AM, 2006

Hello everyone,

Sorry to bother you all but I'm a high school student and I'm currently attempting to read John Donne's "Batter my Heart" in a psychoanalytical framework but finding it rather difficult as this is the first time, different "readings" have been introduced to me.

If at all possible, will someone help me analyse Donne's "Batter my Heart" or "Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" in a psychoanalytical framework?

I would like to thank you all in advance for any help you provide me,
Steven