[Milton-L] Re: unfallen psychology
richard strier
rastrier at uchicago.edu
Tue Jul 1 18:07:22 EDT 2008
To reply briefly to Jim Rovira (though others, of course,
should do so as well):
I think that Milton believed that regeneration could be
complete in our lives. I think that not only was he not a
Calvinist, but that he was pretty close to being a Pelagian
(this ought to get another string going!). Arminianism, as I
understand it, was a way of getting the benefits of classical
ethics into a system with a Calvinist vocabulary.
Re Milton and what English could do, I think the question was
what he thought poetry could do. And I think he had a VERY
high opinion of this (and of his own capacities with regard
to it). And I think that, in relation to Eden, he was right
to have this opinion of himself. (I've written at length
about why I think M's vision of/ presentation of Eden is much
superior, morally and well as poetically, to his vision of
heaven.)
As to "Was Blake really concerned with representing an
unfallen subjectivity, or was he largely concerned with
representing a Christian subjectivity in a specific context,"
I think you've answered the question in adding, "Or did he
not see a difference between the two?" As Mrs. Blake said,
William spent much of his time in heaven.
---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 16:46:39 -0400
>From: "James Rovira" <jamesrovira at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Re: unfallen psychology
>To: "John Milton Discussion List" <milton-
l at lists.richmond.edu>
>
>Richard, forgive me, I think for myself. If we accept
at face value
>the Christian idea of "fallenness," there's still a great
deal of
>debate about whether or not it's possible to represent
unfallen
>language in a postlapsarian world. The question pertains
especially
>to Diane's quotation from Christian Doctrine: when Milton
talks about
>regeneration, does he mean a process we undergo
throughout our lives,
>or does he mean a process we could conceivably complete
in this
>lifetime, or does he mean a process that is automatically
completed
>upon the Christian's regeneration by the Spirit?
Christian belief
>encompasses all these options -- I'm curious where Milton
placed
>himself. It's unclear to me from the quotation. The
question is not
>whether or not Milton could represent an unfallen
language, I suppose,
>but whether or not Milton believed that he could.
>
>Also, if we're going to think like literalists, Milton
was in fact
>writing in 17thC English, which is a fallen language, not
in the
>language of Adam and Eve, which is lost to us (unless
you're a very
>conservative Jew or Christian, in which case you believe
it was
>Hebrew). Can unfallen thought be represented in a
language developed
>after the fall? The question I keep returning to is, Was
Blake really
>concerned with representing an unfallen subjectivity, or
was he
>largely concerned with representing a Christian
subjectivity in a
>specific context? Or did he not see a difference between
the two?
>
>Just to be clear about myself: my field is English
Romanticism and my
>dissertation was on Blake and Kierkegaard, not Milton. I
don't
>consider myself a Miltonist and have never claimed to be
devoted to
>Milton. I consider myself a Romanticist, but in my
opinion all
>Romanticists have an obligation to read and understand
Milton,
>especially those working in Blake. I'm currently working
on turning
>my dissertation into a book: my next chapter will be on
the Four Zoas,
>then on Blake's Milton, then on Jerusalem. My beginning
point is that
>the messes Blake kept running into when writing creation
stories such
>as The [First] Book of Urizen and The Four Zoas could not
be resolved
>until Blake addressed the role of the artist and his
relationship to
>his influences in Milton. So once I get to writing about
Blake's
>Milton I'll return to Milton himself in more depth.
>
>Jim R
>
>On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 12:56 PM, richard strier &
lt;rastrier at uchicago.edu> wrote:
>> To say that "Milton could not conceive of an
unfallen human
>> psychology, or represent it in language" seems to me
to be
>> EXACTLY wrong, and to thoroughly underestimate the
>> astonishing achievement of the most original parts
of PL
>> (namely, the presentation of human life before the
Fall).
>> What a pity that someone devoted to Milton should
think this.
>>
>> RS
>>
>>
>> Richard Strier
>>
>_______________________________________________
>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
Richard Strier
Department of English
University of Chicago
1115 East 58th Street
Chicago, IL 60637
More information about the Milton-L
mailing list