[Milton-L] struggling with a paper

BlevinsJake at aol.com BlevinsJake at aol.com
Sat Feb 5 19:25:28 EST 2005


Jim,

Thanks for your earlier message, and I think I did understand your 
position--even through the missed sarcasm (email will just never take the place of good 
old fashion voice inflection, will it?)

My last word on the subject is this. As so often happens with topics on this 
list, it took a half dozen postings to find out we are apparently about 99% in 
agreement. My original point--a response to the initial M.A. student who used 
the phrase Eve was clearly "more vulnerable" than Adam--was basically that 
since all we have is what Milton wrote (and even, as you pointed out, the 
tradition of Eve's fallibility), we can't really know whether Adam was less or more 
capable of surviving the temptation by Satan. Certain issues of character in 
the text of PL, I think, suggest Adam perhaps would not have been all that more 
successful--but again we can never know for sure.

It THEN occurred to me, that in a way Eve IS more vulnerable simply because 
Satan chose her--regardless of why he did or the accuracy of his perception of 
Eve. I still think, though, that to BEGIN reading the text with the 
presumption that Eve's will or character is weaker than Adam's is, well, presumptuous. 
As I said before, all the text itself tells is 1) Satan BELIEVES Eve is more 
vulnerable than Adam and 2) Eve is ultimately vulnerable to Satan's temptation. 
We will never know whether she was more vulnerable because Adam was never in 
the same situation. It is at this point that we simply have to delve into the 
issues of character and conjecture--which, Jim, as you suggested, is usually 
worth the time.

Have a nice upcoming week. I have to spend three days at home for the 
Louisiana Mardi Gras break--very unfortunate (please read sarcasm here).

Cheers, Jacob



In a message dated 2/5/2005 6:05:29 PM Central Standard Time, 
jrovira at drew.edu writes:
Yep, everyone's sarcasm detector has been broken so far.  Pretty 
uniformly.  My including Satan in there along with God should have been, 
I thought, enough, but I guess I misjudged.

Get that sarcasm detector fixed and you won't yawn so much :).

Jim Rovira

Walker at geneseo.edu wrote:

>"Undoubtedly neither God nor Satan are nearly as misogynist as Paul."
>
>Oh, yawn.
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20050205/cad80ac9/attachment.htm


More information about the Milton-L mailing list