A
Lakoffian Reading of the Vine-Elm Metaphor in John Milton’s Paradise Lost.
… they led the vine,
To wed her elm: she spoused about him
twines,
Her marriageable arms and with her brings
Her dower, the adopted clusters, to adorn
His barren leaves. (Paradise
Lost 5.215-19)
John Milton’s use of the
vine-elm metaphor (VEM) to illustrate the organic nature of Adam and Eve’s
marriage in Paradise Lost (PL) has
long attracted critical attention keen to mine the genealogy of this trope with
its long history of pagan, Biblical, and classical authority. Mandy Green is
one such critic who dedicates no less than an entire chapter to the metaphor by
marshalling a slew of sources to outline the motif’s history (Ovid, Virgil,
Horace, Quintilian, The Book of Psalms,
and Genesis) while also surveying
much of the critical commentary to date. Her work is exhaustive in offering the
modern reader a way into the myriad of interpretations suggested by the VEM,
yet such a comprehensive approach provides little detailed insight into the
mechanics of just how effectively the metaphor operates within Milton’s scheme.
This paper will provide a more structured approach through employing George
Lakoff’s theory of the conceptual metaphor to map the epistemic correspondences
between the source domain (garden) and target domain (marriage) in the VEM.
Such detailed analysis helps the modern reader better assess the efficacy of Milton’s
use of the metaphor to convey his vision of ideal marriage throughout PL.
The
key to better appreciating Milton’s use of the VEM lies first in understanding the
metaphor’s target domain (a marriage)
in terms of the source domain (a
garden). Within the domain of marriage there exists a number of entities
(husband and wife) which correspond to various entities within the domain of a
garden (plants). For Lakoff, such correspondences are seen to be exploited in
the operation of metaphor through the function of “cross-domain mapping” (203).
We can trace the mapping of these correspondences within Milton’s depiction of Adam
and Eve as follows: the elm and vine (Adam and Eve respectively) exist in a
garden with the joint goal of growing upward together toward light (ascending
to God) all the while thriving in an ever-changing condition of mutual health (mental
and physical compatibility) under the purpose to produce fruit (creation of offspring).
Such a simple mapping of correspondences reveals a key conceptual metaphor: marriage-is-a-garden. In the hands of Lakoff,
this kind of key metaphor could be viewed as “primary” and “conventional” in
our thinking, since it relies on the natural, familiar, and fixed authority of
horticultural concepts to conceptualise growth or lack thereof in a marital relationship
(208-9). Put another way, we inherently reason about marriage using the kind of
knowledge we would normally use to reason about the growth of plants. Some marriages
in their prime can flourish, for
instance, which can be traced to the antecedent Latin verb florere (to bloom) that is derived from flos (flower). This kind of thinking about marriage in terms of a
growing garden exhibits the same kind of epistemic mapping we see in other key
conceptual metaphors brought to our attention by Lakoff. One such metaphor is love-is-a-journey, where we use the
knowledge we have about travel to reason about the direction a love
relationship might take (206). Some couples, for instance, are thought of as going
their separate ways after the
relationship reaches a dead-end
(206). In short, marriage-is-a-garden sits
in the same metaphorical category as love-is-a-journey,
since both are key conceptual metaphors that allow for new instances of
cross-domain mapping to be understood immediately by anyone. Understanding these
primary and conventional aspects of the conceptual metaphor marriage-is-a-garden is important for
any analysis of marriage within PL, since
Milton draws from the kernel image repeatedly to create various pictures of growth
to describe the marriage of Adam and Eve in Paradise.
Looking
closer now at how Adam is figured as the guiding elm, we see he is depicted as
the “best prop” available for the vine (Eve) to vertically approach the right
mix of light and protective “shade” required to adequately fruit and flourish
(9.432, 9.266). In this, we see Milton does not break with the viticultural
wisdom set down in the Ovidian pastoral tradition that states the “elm loves
vines [and] vines never desert their elm” (“Amores” 2.16.41), or that the vine
looks “most lovely” when the “elm tree [is] supporting the beautiful clusters
of shiny grapes” (“Metamorphoses” 14.660-63). The Virgilian pastoral tradition
follows suit in stating that one “keeps the fields happy” if they “fasten vines
to elms” (“Georgics” 1.2). Such ancient horticultural lore helps us develop an
image-schema of the movement of the vine and elm within the source domain
(garden). The movement appears to be an upward extension along a shaded path
toward light. An observation of this upward direction of growth in plants reveals
what Lakoff calls the “cognitive topology” of the source domain (garden) (215).
This topology ought to be found “consistent with the inherent structure of the
target domain [marriage]” if we are to witness a tight metaphorical mapping within
Milton’s use of the VEM (215). Indeed, we do find one example of a corresponding
image of upward extension in the body of Adam (elm) propping up the body of Eve
(vine) who “half embracing lean[s] on our first father [Adam]” immediately
after recollecting her initiation into marriage with Adam (4.494). These bodily
gestures visually confirm Adam as Eve’s natural support in marriage; a position
that Eve had already been educated into with the guidance of God. We must
remember that during Eve’s nativity scene she is trained—or redressed like a
vine—by God to move from her default position laying “down on the green bank”
(4.557-8)—or creeping low as an unsupported vine—up to a position that meets “tall”
Adam standing “under a platan” (4.77-78). Eve’s ultimate lesson in this scene
is that her rightful position is “by [the] side” of Adam (her elm) (4.485). The
significance of Adam standing under the platan (plane tree) waiting for Eve is
rightly brought to our attention by Green who suggests that Milton’s use of the
platan “most certainly” (137) mines the Horatian association of Adam’s initial bachelorhood
with the inherent barrenness of the plane tree (platanus caelebs trans. celibate plane tree): “plane trees, without
vines, will drive out the elms” (“Odes” 2.15.4-5). The same association of male
sterility is used by Quintilian who makes the contrast between the “barren
plane [sterilis platanus]” and the
“elm that weds the vine [marita ulmus]”
(“Inst. Or.” 8.3.8). To summarise, it appears then that the epistemic qualities
of the two domains used in the VEM tightly correspond: tall elms are put to
best use when matched with a vine; Adam (husband) will flourish and be most
healthful and productive when matched with Eve (wife). The physical dimensions
of Adam who is tall enough to access and provide better light for low-creeping Eve
strengthens the metaphor further. Taking our cue from Lakoff, the VEM appears
to show The Invariance Principle in
action when we see that the “metaphorical mappings preserve the cognitive
topology of the source domain [garden] in a way consistent with the inherent
structure of the target domain [marriage]” (215).
A
brief analysis of Milton’s views on marriage found within his divorce tracts is
crucial for better understanding the topology of his particular vision of
marriage set out in PL. Such an analysis
is essential for strengthening any conclusion we might make about the efficacy
of the VEM. Much of Milton’s vision of healthful matrimony set down in his divorce
tracts is informed by the principle taken from Genesis that suggests “woman was purposely made for man” (“Tetrachordon” (“Tet”)
Gen 1.27). According to Milton, God’s
“chief end was of creating woman to be joined with man, his own instituting
words declare, and are infallible to inform us [of] what is marriage” (“Doctrine
of Discipline and Divorce” (“DDD”) Bk1 Ch2). We find this principle
distilled in Milton’s brief synopsis of the Genesis myth within PL: “he for God only, she for god in
him” (PL 4.299). It is clear that the
individual well-being of woman is a secondary concern for Milton’s thinking on
marriage. Indeed, we find instead that the “true dignity of man” sits at the
centre of Milton’s polemical sights, where the matrimonial welfare of men is
privileged over that of women (“Tet” Gen 1.27). For Milton, man should assume his rightful position of nobility
in a marriage based first on friendship with a compatible companion who can
provide “cheerful conversation” for him as a “remedy against” the customary “loneliness”
of bachelorhood (“DDD” Bk1 Preface). Maggie
Kilgour is helpful here for finding in Milton’s formulation of an ideal wife the
terms often associated with the “traditional description of a friend” normally found
in a “same-sex relation” (204-5). She suggests that this element of Milton’s
conception of an ideal marriage resembles classical models of companionship
that had attracted much interest from Renaissance thinkers engaging with Aristotelian
theories of friendship during Milton’s time (204-5). Self-knowledge and how
best to access it are just some of the concerns sitting at the heart of these
classical theories of friendship. Kilgour directs our attention to Aristotle’s
claims that self-knowledge requires the presence of another: “when we wish to
know ourselves we can obtain that knowledge by looking at our friend, for the
friend is as we assert, a second self” (“Magna Moralia” 2.15). Eve is presented as just this type of friend for Adam. Her compatibility
with him is evident when she is brought to Adam as “[his] likeness, [his] fit
help, [and his] other self” (PL 8.450). It appears then, that Eve in the role
of wife performs the essential function of fostering Adam’s self-knowledge
through her ability to engage in the kind of dialogue associated with
friendship that helps both of them become better learners and reformers of
their own natures. If we return now to the
interlocking image of the vine and elm quoted in epigraph, we see that this
metaphor exhibiting the intertwining of two organic elements together is a fitting
emblem for the dialogic element of marriage that is so important for Milton, as
seen in his divorce tracts analysed earlier.
Concluding
now with our final assessment of the VEM, we have seen that the plants in the
source domain of the garden flourish only in intimate relation with each other,
which accurately corresponds to the interdependent flourishing envisaged for
Adam and Eve. In this respect, we could say that the VEM captures perfectly the
ligatures of mutual need that bind the first human pair together. Both the vine
and elm exhibit organic compatibility conducive to fruitful growth that is
witnessed when the vine’s “clusters” bring fruit-bearing potential to the elm’s
“barren” leaves (5.218-9). Similarly, Adam and Eve exhibit interpersonal compatibility
conducive to better conjugality when their “mind and person pleases aptly”
thereby “accomplish[ing] the bodies’ delight” (“DDD” Ch2). In this respect, we
could say that the VEM captures perfectly the intellectual harmony that is
essential for a peaceful and fruitful Miltonic marriage. Kilgour notes that
during the nativity scene Adam and Eve “come together, no longer literally as
one flesh but as independent yet attached individuals” (217). Kilgour’s emphasis
on the properties of independence and attachment within Paradisal marriage
informs our assessment of the vine and elm as exhibiting their own independent strengths—the
elm provides tall, sturdy, direction and shady support for the vine’s delicate support-seeking
stems—that once attached to each other ensure a productive existence that is “fruitful”
for both entities (7.396). In short, after outlining the cognitive topologies
of a garden and a Miltonic marriage, and subsequently tracing just a handful of
the correspondences between these two epistemic domains, we can see just how
far-reaching the VEM can be applied in articulating the interlocking dynamism of
biblical history’s first human pair.
WORKS
CITED
Aristotle.
“Magna Moralia.” The Works of Aristotle.
Ed. W. D. Ross.
<http://archive.org/stream/magnamoralia00arisuoft/magnamoralia00arisuoft_djvu.
txt>.
Green,
Mandy. “The Vine and Her Elm: A Marriage Made in Paradise.” (123-48). Milton’s Ovidian Eve. Farnham: Ashgate,
2009.
Horace.
“Odes.” Poetry in Translation.
<http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/HoraceOdesBkII.htm#_Toc39742789>.
Kilgour,
Maggie. Milton and the Metamorphosis of
Ovid. Oxford: OUP, 2012.
Lakoff,
George. “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor.” (202-51). Metaphor and Thought. Ed. Andrew Ortony. Cambridge: CUP, 1993.
Milton,
John. Paradise Lost. Ed. Gordon
Teskey. New York: Norton, 2005.
---,
“Doctrine of Discipline and Divorce.” The
John Milton Reading Room. Ed. T. Luxon. <http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/ddd/book_1/index.shtml>
---,
“Tetrachordon.” The John Milton Reading
Room. Ed. T. Luxon.
<http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/tetrachordon/genesis/text.shtml>
Ovid.
“Amores.” Poetry in Translation.
<http://poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/AmoresBkII.htm#_Toc520535849>
---,
“Metamorphoses.” London: Penguin, 2005.
Quintilian.
“Institutio Oratoria.”
<http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Quintilian/Institutio_Oratoria/8A*.html>
Virgil.
“Georgics.” Poetry in Translation. 19
May 14.
<http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/VirgilGeorgicsI.htm#_Toc533589841>
No comments:
Post a Comment