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

Campbell, W. Gardner Gardner_Campbell at baylor.edu
Fri Sep 4 13:09:26 EDT 2009

Where I’d differ, Carol, is in drawing the line between “unity with God’s will” and alterity. I think Milton believes that his project of justification depends on a God who’s really serious about creaturely alterity within the context of obedience.  I don’t doubt that Eve’s disturbed by her own growing alterity. It’s hard to know or accept or navigate one’s own alterity, let alone that of others. (“I is another,” after all.)

Perhaps Empson is right that genuine creaturely alterity is simply incompatible with the Christian God. Perhaps he is wrong. Whatever one’s conclusions, though, I think that Milton’s exploring the question in fascinating, novel, and complex ways.


From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu [mailto:milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu] On Behalf Of Carol Barton
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 11:45 AM
To: milton-l at lists.richmond.edu
Subject: Re: RE: [Milton-L] Eve's curls (reply to William Moeck)

Gardner, I would argue that there are degrees of separation involved here, too.

I think a reasonable case can be made for Eve's dream in Book IV being a psychological "parting of the ways," if not an actual one. It's not an actual severence (in the way that the one in Book IX will be), and it's not an intellectual severence (in the way that the debate between Adam and Eve will be), but it's a motion away from the unity with God's will that makes Eve an "other," separate from God and Adam--which is why (I believe) it's so disturbing to her.

Sep 4, 2009 12:28:41 PM, milton-l at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:milton-l at lists.richmond.edu> wrote:
As a small postscript to Louis’s post, in my essay on hierarchy, alterity, and authority I point out that the separation in Book 9 is the *second* separation, not the first. That’s not to say that there are no differences—of course there are—but it is interesting that the poem doesn’t inextricably link separation and danger. I won’t go into the whole argument here—if anyone’s interested, you can find the argument in my essay—but I will point out that Milton’s handling of all the concerns in this thread is in my view remarkably complex and nuanced. The temptation for critics is to find Milton much more rigidly categorical  in the poem than the evidence warrants. For example, John Carey incautiously says that “wander” is a key verb in Paradise Lost that belongs to the lost and fallen. But that reading won’t survive the providential and blessed appetitive wandering praised in 7.40-50, where I take Milton to be speaking in propria persona. For another example, Mary Nyquist says that the parting in Book 9 is the first for Adam and Eve, but the text complicates that climactic parting with a similar (and interestingly detailed) parting in Book 8 that forms a very intriguing juxtaposition with the later separation.
From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu> [mailto:milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu>] On Behalf Of Schwartz, Louis
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 10:50 AM
To: 'John Milton Discussion List'
Subject: RE: [Milton-L] Eve's curls (reply to William Moeck)
I have no quarrel at all with what you say about Adam’s authority to use coercion or with your suggestion about the false analogy, but I don’t agree that Eve should necessarily have followed Adam’s advice.  I’m not at all convinced that his argument, taken in the context of the poem’s larger discourse about temptation, is either the wiser or the better one.  He’s right (in lines 9.342-75) in what he says about obedience, about the danger of false appearances, and about the good that can come from mutual minding, but I also think he stumbles significantly when he suggests that it’s better to “avoid,” rather than to “seek” temptation.  One could argue that there might be some danger of pride in the “seeking,” but there could be zeal in that, too—a danger, perhaps, like a lot the unstable things in the narrow room of Eden, but not in itself fallen).  And in this particular story—the way Milton tells it—“avoiding” temptation is simply impossible.
In addition, the perfectly good idea that Adam and Eve could benefit from staying together to “mind” one another only makes a kind of temporary sense at this point in the narrative.  How long would that have to last?  Is it either possible or good for them to be unseparated indefinitely in their daily lives?  At some point paradise will have to allow for the impulse to be apart (that’s, on Eve’s part what started the whole conversation).  That impulse has its pleasures, it allows for the cultivation of certain things that constant togetherness does not, and none of these are incompatible with paradisal existence (some of these pleasures and opportunities—Eve’s—have been beautifully explored, for example, by Diane McColley in her essay “Eve and the Arts of Eden”).  If this reading makes any sense at all, Eve must be right that they are “secure single or combined” or their happiness is frail.  That she fails her test does not prove that she’s wrong about that, unless you’re willing to argue that she can’t be blamed for her failure (a conclusion that one could come to, but not one that the poem argues for).  And does the text assure us that Adam would not have been deceived by whatever Satan might have thrown at him, either alone or with Eve?  Satan is a pretty resourceful antagonist, and God has let him at large to try humankind.   He was lucky on the first attempt, but who knows what he’d have come up with later?
Louis Schwartz
Associate Professor of English
University of Richmond
Richmond, VA  23173
(804) 289-8315
lschwart at richmond.edu<mailto:lschwart at richmond.edu>

From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu> [mailto:milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu>] On Behalf Of Michael Gillum
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 4:01 PM
To: John Milton Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Eve's curls (reply to William Moeck)
It seems the ontological difference between Adam and Eve in PL is great enough to confer authority (she ought to follow his advice) but not great enough to justify coercion (he must allow her to choose whether to follow his advice). They are on the same plane of being, but he is slightly wiser and is the natural leader. Not only does Adam abjure the use of force, he doesn't even make rules. Rules are implicit in nature and reason, except for the Special Prohibition. Apparently, one of the rules is that an unfallen human may not coerce another.
Eve does not rebel against Adam; rather, she makes a well-meaning error of judgement in being overly assertive of her natural liberty. I think separation scene defines a contrast within the apparent analogy Satan : God :: Eve : Adam.
As Louis Schwartz implies, in Milton's view, analogies taking the form (God : creature :: boss creature : other creature) are false analogies.


Milton-L mailing list
Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu<mailto: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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20090904/d70e0532/attachment-0001.html

More information about the Milton-L mailing list