[Milton-L] Abdiel and Treason law

[Susan McDonald]

Well, we might not be able to find her exact birthday, but the text 
does give some suggestion of her conception in Book V's description of 
Satan:

                                                           he of the 
first,
If not the first Archange. great in power,
In favour and pre-eminence, yet fraught
With envy against the Son of God, that day
Honoured by his great Father, and proclaimed
Messiah King anointed, could not bear
Through pride that sight, and thought himself impaired.
Deep malice then *conceiving*, and disdain,
Soon as midnight brought on the dusky hour
Friendliest to sleep and silence, he resolved
With all his legions to dislodge . . . . (V. 659-69; emphasis mine)

The OED cites both uses of "conceive" (ie. the obstetrical and the 
intellectual) as predating PL.  Plus, the word itself occurs on line 
666 -- a coincidence I've always liked.

Susan McDonald


Michael Gillum wrote:


>Thanks to everyone so far for a really stimulating and informative
>discussion. More to come, I hope.
>
>Todd Butler notes that the exact situation of Sin's birth is at the 
assembly
>called by Satan on arriving in the North. On reflection, I was wrong to 
say
>that Satan has taken no overt action before Sin's birth. He openly 
incites
>his followers to revolt and reject God's authority (5.785-90). I'd 
consider
>that an action.
>
>Obviously, the discussion of treason law connects here in that Satan is
>committing a form of treason. Other threads of the discussion would 
connect
>in that we wonder whether Satan's fall was irrevocable back when (or 
before)
>he woke Beelzebub to start the revolt in motion.
>
>Can Sin's birth be placed exactly in the narrative? Since it isn't 
mentioned
>in the narrative of the assembly in Book 5, it would seem to occur after
>Abdiel's departure, but that seems too late to be allegorically 
appropriate.
>Perhaps, since the allegory of Sin is  ontologically different from the 
epic
>narrative, Milton didn't want to mix them and so left the chronology 
vague.
>
>Michael
>
>On 6/25/08 2:15 PM, "butlert at mail.wsu.edu" <butlert at mail.wsu.edu> wrote:
>
>> 
>> Regarding "unapproved," I think we might need to be a bit more specific
>> about the processes of thought. One's reason might consider--we might 
say
>> "entertain"--images (from the imagination) of any number of desires. 
The
>> question, of course, is whether simply accepting an image or impulse is
>> sufficient. In practical terms the matter was problematic--how does one
>> make thought legally actionable?
>> 
>> That Sin springs from Satan's head earlier in the epic is certainly
>> relevant here. Though her birth surely indicates the importance of
>> thought, it's worth noting that she springs forward
>> 
>> In Heav'n, when at th' Assembly, and in sight
>> Of all the Seraphim with thee combin'd
>> In bold conspiracy against Heav'ns King, (2.749-51)
>> 
>> So the question is, has Satan simply thought rebellion, or is his 
assembly
>> of the angels sufficient to be an act of rebellion?
>>
>> Todd Butler
>> Buchanan Assistant Professor
>> Department of English
>> Washington State University
>> 
>> 
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>

--------------------------
Susan McDonald
Department of English
University of Saskatchewan
257.10 ARTS 966-6391
susan.mcdonald at usask.ca