[Milton-L] Symposium on Milton's Samson

[Horace Jeffery Hodges]

Speaking of intentionalist language, James:
 
"Milton intended us to get sucked in my Satan in the early chapters of PL so that we could change our opinion of him later on."
 
Since when did that fallen angel become your Satan? I seem to recall -- from my reading of Paradise Lost -- that he was my Satan!
 
Give him back right now!
 
Jeffery Hodges

--- On Wed, 5/6/09, James Rovira <jamesrovira at gmail.com> wrote:


From: James Rovira <jamesrovira at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Symposium on Milton's Samson
To: "John Milton Discussion List" <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2009, 11:06 PM


Harold --

Fish has been intentionalist all along -- or at least most of the time
-- in my reading of him.  Milton intended us to get sucked in my Satan
in the early chapters of PL so that we could change our opinion of him
later on.  Milton intends to create a certain type of reader in his
Areopagitica -- not to defend free speech, but to create a certain
kind of reader.  Quite a bit of intentionalist language even slips
into deconstructions of text.  Press these deconstructors and they'll
say they're just using shorthand, but my suspicion is that they're
either being undisciplined or don't know the meaning of their own
words -- just using catchphrases to sound current.

Anyway, look over Surprised by Sin again and tell me if you don't see
any intentionalist language.  I seem to recall some when I read it.
Don't have a copy now.

Jim R
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20090506/9bbb0da5/attachment.html