[Milton-L] RE: Eve and innocence

Chuck Keim CKeim at auc-nuc.ca
Thu Nov 24 09:18:20 EST 2005

I am fascinated by this argument; in particular, I have been pondering
Roy Flanagan's thoughts concerning innocence and I recall Boyd Berry's
contention that Adam and Eve's "fallen" lovemaking is not really
"fallen" at all--they are still married!
It seems to me that Milton's emphasis on marriage, "Hail, Wedded Love,"
brings an important point to light: we become more innocent as we become
more intimate with our partner. 

Chuck Keim 
Nazarene University 

-----Original Message-----
From: milton-l-request at lists.richmond.edu
[mailto:milton-l-request at lists.richmond.edu] 
Sent: November 24, 2005 10:01 AM
To: milton-l at lists.richmond.edu
Subject: Milton-L Digest, Vol 25, Issue 33

Send Milton-L mailing list submissions to
	milton-l at lists.richmond.edu

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	milton-l-request at lists.richmond.edu

You can reach the person managing the list at
	milton-l-owner at lists.richmond.edu

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Milton-L digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re:  O Eve, in evil hour... (James Rovira)


Message: 1
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 21:36:27 -0500
From: James Rovira <jrovira at drew.edu>
Subject: Re: [Milton-L]  O Eve, in evil hour...
To: John Milton Discussion List <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
Message-ID: <4385272B.3050406 at drew.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed

I think some criteria for the difference between pornography and art 
have been formulated, and they're sensible.  Some of what I've heard has

to do with intent -- pornography really has no goal beyond sexual 
arousal, while nudes in art pay attention to form, lighting, etc., 
usually to make the subject beautiful.  The intended effect upon the 
viewer is entirely different in each case.  Mapplethorpe managed to 
combine these concerns, so his photos of flowers are at least as erotic 
as his photos of nudes (this combination also complicates his work 
legally), but I think he's an exception.

In my own thinking the first difference between Degas and Debbie Does 
Dallas is context.  Where do you go to see the former, and where do to 
go to see the latter?  What is your mindset when you approach the former

venue compared to your mindset in the latter venue?  When I saw the full

nudity in Salome at the Orlando Opera I went to see a drama and 
understood the nudity to be a factor in the dramatic tension, not to be 
something that creates arousal (honestly, I was more curious about how 
good the -opera- singer would look naked).  Context isn't the sole 
determining factor, of course: content can still be pornographic in an 
artistic setting, but it will seem inappropriately placed:  "Shocking." 
Cheap thrills and even cheaper media coverage.

Kierkegaard does quite a bit of thinking about this topic in _Concept of

Anxiety_; sensuality per se is not sin, and certainly not in a state of 
innocence/ignorance, but once spirit posits a differentiation between 
mind and body (postlapsarian state) sensuality becomes inextricably 
bound up with sinfulness.  I don't recall him considering the 
possibility of a postlapsarian innocent sensuality; sometimes the 
aesthetic personality can acheive this, but more often the aesthetic 
personality collapses into itself, into what Kierkegaard called the 
"inclosing reserve," the demonic.

Jim Rovira


Milton-L mailing list
Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
Manage your membership and access list archives at

End of Milton-L Digest, Vol 25, Issue 33

More information about the Milton-L mailing list