[Milton-L] Eve's curls (reply to William Moeck)

Suvi M Makela Suvi.M.Makela at uta.fi
Wed Oct 7 07:19:51 EDT 2009


Dear Milton list,

This is just for laughs.

I've only now been reading the list messages on acrostics forwards.  
This is just a funny thing that I noticed about the PL quotation by  
Jeffery Hodges (not related at all to his point but to the previous  
acrostics discussion):

> I warn'd thee, I admonish'd thee, foretold
> The danger, and the lurking Enemie
> That lay in wait; beyond this had bin force,
> And force upon free Will hath here no place. (PL 9.1171-4)

In Japanese "itta" means "said". So, accidentally, the first letters  
of the lines enforce the message in a language Milton did not even know.

Best,
Suvi


Lainaus Horace Jeffery Hodges <jefferyhodges at yahoo.com>:

> Alan Horn asked:
>  
> "Where is the 'appropriate background evidence' to suggest that  
> Milton or any writer of his period thought that men had no right to  
> enforce the obedience of their female dependents 'if gentleness  
> failed'?"
>  
> Jeffery Hodges suggests:
>  
> I warn'd thee, I admonish'd thee, foretold
> The danger, and the lurking Enemie
> That lay in wait; beyond this had bin force,
> And force upon free Will hath here no place. (PL 9.1171-4)
>  
> (Luxon, Thomas H., ed. The Milton Reading Room,  
> http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton, August, 2009.)
>  
> Here, the fallen Adam reminds that fallen Eve that in their unfallen  
> state, he had had no right to force her submission to his will when  
> she had insisted on going off on her own way.
>
> Prelapsarian conditions forbade force in male-female relations. As  
> for postlapsarian conditions, I don't know Milton's view.
>  
> Jeffery Hodges
>
> --- On Sun, 8/30/09, alan horn <alanshorn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: alan horn <alanshorn at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Eve's curls (reply to William Moeck)
> To: "John Milton Discussion List" <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
> Date: Sunday, August 30, 2009, 1:23 PM
>
>
> "M. is not approving automatic 'subjection,' but 'subjection' earned ?
> earned by being
> 'required WITH GENTLE SWAY.'"
>
> In the passage in question, Eve's subordination is justified by her
> natural inferiority ("not equal, as their sex not equal seemed"),
> which is backed up by reference to divine purpose (God made her for
> Adam). It is not freely given and Adam does not have to win it by
> being a good master. He is a good master, but that's not the grounds
> for his authority.
>
> "If gentleness fails, the kind of subjection M. endorses is out of the
> question. M. does not give Adam carte blanche
> to fall back on ungentle 'sway'"
>
> Where does it say any of this in the passage? Where is the
> "appropriate background evidence" to suggest that Milton or any writer
> of his period thought that men had no right to enforce the obedience
> of their female dependents "if gentleness failed"?
>
> "'subjection' and tyranny are two quite different things."
>
> That's right. Tyranny is illegitimate rule over another. For Milton
> patriarchy was natural and divinely ordered. Women's liberation was
> not on the agenda for seventeenth-century bourgeois revolutionaries
> like him.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
>






More information about the Milton-L mailing list