[Milton-L] Re: trial and temptation; problematic angelophany

Emily Speller emily.speller at gmail.com
Wed Sep 9 14:32:37 EDT 2009


I've been busy enough that this reply is hardly timely, but thanks, Michael
Gillum, for directly addressing the two questions I posed earlier. I agree
with your response to the first, and see no objection to your examination of
the second.

Harold, thanks for the correction of dokimazo. Both dokimazo (v.) and
dokimion (n.) are in the scriptural passage I was referencing, and I meant
to mention both, but hastily and accidentally conflated the two in my
comment.

Thanks, Louis, for your insightful comments and for pointing to Gardner's
helpful 9/5/09 post on Areopagitica. I also hope to read a copy of the essay
on Nicholas of Cusa. (I think this is a substantial preview for those with
limited access  "Hierarchy, Alterity and Authority in
PL"<http://books.google.com/books?id=72aV-GZx3LsC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=Gardner--Alterity,+Hierarchy+and+Authority&source=bl&ots=lLnztHbjBz&sig=cp3lAsjazE9sdB2mTtxVBc3ZCx0&hl=en&ei=CeynSqaaEuGPtge91e2uCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false>
 )

I'll add one question to muddy the waters, arising from two comments.

Carol Barton wrote, "First Adam, then Satan, teaches Eve to feel
privation--to feel inferior--to feel that there is something lacking in her
existence, in herself, that can be remedied by ingesting the Fruit."

Gardner wrote, "Interestingly, Raphael's sternest warnings regarding Adam's
authority over Eve, and Adam's stoutest defense of Eve's integrity and
complexity, come right at the end of the book when Eve, like Hamlet,
overheard at least a bit (but how much?) of a very important conversation.
The consequences and context of that separation and overheard conversation
are large parts of what I'm exploring in my essay on alterity, hierarchy and
authority. The complications in the separation scene on Book 8 add even more
complications, tangles, wanderings, and wayfaring/warfaring to the
separation scene in Book 9.

I agree, but add, does Raphael (directly or indirectly) also "teach Eve [or
Adam] to feel privation"? It seems to me that his suggestion in Book 5 of
becoming more incorporeal (and more intelligential) through the great chain
of eating and his concluding conversation with Adam (that Eve partially
overhears) increase the likelihood of disobedience, though Raphael is sent
"to render Man inexcusable" (argument to Book 5).

I've been mulling over this for some time now, and would appreciate any
comments or recommendations for further reading on how this angelophany
complicates Milton's theodicy.
[I know the list members have already discussed the place of monism (or
"animist materialism") in Milton's (or Raphael's) articulation of the cosmic
hierarchy in Book 5, but I wonder if Raphael's conversation adversely
affects the dramatic action of the poem.]

Thanks,

Emily


On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 4:08 PM, <milton-l-request at lists.richmond.edu> wrote:

> Send Milton-L mailing list submissions to
>        milton-l at lists.richmond.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
> 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. CFP for Reformation (Hannibal Hamlin)
>   2. Re: Re: Temptation and trial, with more questions than
>      answers (Michael Gillum)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 17:02:56 -0400
> From: Hannibal Hamlin <hamlin.hannibal at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Milton-L] CFP for Reformation
> To: John Milton Discussion List <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
> Message-ID:
>        <895baebf0909071402n54c6fa3aifa2b4cab75fadf58 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Friends and Colleagues,
>
>
>
> I will be assuming the editorship of *Reformation* as of its next issue
> (vol. 15, 2010), and I invite you to submit articles in any area of
> scholarship relating to the Reformation era, broadly considered.
>
>
>
> The journal continues to feature articles treating matters religious
> (Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim). However, we encourage submissions
> not just in religious history and theology, but in literary studies, art
> history and architecture, music, biblical scholarship, translation, and
> social, political and intellectual history. Interdisciplinary approaches
> are
> especially welcome.
>
> * *
>
> *Reformation* is published annually (in print and online) by Equinox, and
> is
> sponsored by the Tyndale Society. Past contributors include William
> Kennedy,
> Judith Anderson, Patrick Collinson, David Daniell, Andrew Hadfield, Tatiana
> String, Christopher Hill, Brian Cummings, Willy Maley, Diarmaid McCulloch,
> David Norton, Anne Lake Prescott, Greg Walker, Phebe Jensen and other
> distinguished scholars.
>
>
>
> All articles are peer-reviewed, and we promise a timely turn-around.
>
>
>
> Details about submissions can be found on the journal’s website (
> http://www.equinoxjournals.com/ojs/index.php/reformation) or by contacting
> me directly at reformation at osu.edu.
>
>
>
> Dr Helen Parrish will be Book Review Editor and Associate Editor, and books
> for review should be sent to her at the Department of History, University
> of
> Reading.
>
>
>
> Please feel free to circulate this invitation in any medium.
>
>
> Hannibal Hamlin
>
>
>
> --
> Hannibal Hamlin
> Associate Professor of English
> The Ohio State University
> 164 West 17th Ave., 421 Denney Hall
> Columbus, OH 43210-1340
> hamlin.22 at osu.edu/
> hamlin.hannibal at gmail.com
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20090907/07bf8a9b/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 17:08:03 -0400
> From: Michael Gillum <mgillum at unca.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Re: Temptation and trial, with more questions
>        than    answers
> To: John Milton Discussion List <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
> Message-ID:
>        <b8ae1f780909071408n1e86e9b1k25cb1b287dc78e62 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Sorry for the blank post preceding.
> Emily Speller's quotations from DDC seem helpful. Obviously Milton
> interprets the Special Prohibition as a "good temptation" or trial from
> God,
> affording Adam and Eve the opportunity to show their stuff. God describes
> the Tree to Adam as "The pledge of thy obedience, and thy faith" (8.325).
> As
> Emily says, Eve does not go off to seek temptation by the Tree, but her
> temptation by Satan is an extension of the same principle.
>
> Emily asks, "Is Eve's desire for trial a desire for 'the good kind of
> temptation'? Is *desiring* "the good kind of temptation" the same thing as
> actively* seeking* it?" I would say the answer to the first question is
> clearly "yes," on the basis of her statement to Adam.
>
>  As to the second question, one might make a moral distinction between
> desiring a test and actively seeking it (rather than waiting for God to
> arrange it). On the other hand, *Areopagitica* commends the seeking, a
> virtue that sallies out and sees her adversary. However, Milton does locate
> that sallying in the context of fallenness: "Assuredly we bring not
> innocence into the world, we bring impurity much rather: that which
> purifies
> is triall, and triall is by what is contrary." Since Eve was already pure,
> maybe her sally was an inappropriate exposure of herself to evil. Perhaps
> this point casts some light on Adam's apparently lame argument about
> avoiding the "aspersion" of being the subject of an active temptation,
> discussed in other posts.
>
> Michael
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Michael Gillum <mgillum at unca.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Emily Speller <emily.speller at gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Perhaps some small help--or further complication--could be found by
> >> considering Milton's chapter on Providence in *De Doctrina
> Christiana*(1.8):
> >>
> >> "...God either tempts men, or permits them to be tempted by the devil or
> >> his agents.
> >>     Temptation is either for evil or for good.
> >>     An evil temptation is when God, as described above, wither withdraws
> >> his grace, or presents occasions of sin, or hardens the heart, or blinds
> the
> >> understanding. This is generally an evil temptation in respect of him
> who is
> >> tempted, but most equitable on the part of the Deity" (Hughes 988, sorry
> not
> >> to have Yale or Columbia at hand)
> >>
> >> Milton refers to James 1:3, cited earlier: "let no man say when he is
> >> tempted, I am tempted of God..." (Hughes 985). "We are taught in the
> Lord's
> >> prayer to deprecate temptations of this kind" (988).
> >>
> >> He then continues:
> >>
> >> "A good temptation is that whereby God tempts even the righteous for the
> >> purpose of proving them, not as though he were ignorant of the
> disposition
> >> of their hearts, but for the purpose of exercising or manifesting their
> >> faith or patience."
> >>
> >> He then lists six Biblical references in which God is said to *try
> *humans.
> >> Unfortunately I don't have Milton's Latin available at this
> moment--perhaps
> >> someone on the list could confirm that Sumner's *prove* is Milton's *
> >> probare* and *tempt, temptare? *The former Latin word appears to be more
> >> optimistic than the latter in the presumed result of the test, but
> temptare
> >> can mean both to tempt or to try (prove). As for the Greek in the NT
> verses
> >> he here cites, *dokimion *in 1 Pet 1:7 means to test, examine, approve
> >> (but not necessarily tempt--the connotations are more pedagogical) but *
> >> peirasmos* in 1 Pet 4:12 and Rev 2:10 can mean temptation or trial
> >> (Liddell & Scott).
> >> *
> >> "This kind of temptation is therefore rather to be desired"* (Hughes
> >> 988).
> >>
> >> I presume that God's placement of the tree of knowledge of good and evil
> >> in the garden is a good kind of temptation. But in leaving Adam Eve does
> not
> >> necessarily expect that the tree will provide the material for the trial
> she
> >> seeks.
> >>
> >> With respect to Eve, then, I have two questions:
> >>
> >> Is Eve's desire for trial a desire for "the good kind of temptation"?
> >> Is *desiring* "the good kind of temptation" the same thing as
> actively*seeking
> >> * it?
> >>
> >> I acknowledge that some will consider DDC impermissible to a critical
> >> analysis of PL. Here are a few passages from the poem that strike me as
> (if
> >> only obliquely) relevant to our inquiry:
> >>
> >> I'm intrigued by Adam's recounting of God's admission of trying him:
> >>
> >> "Thus far to try thee, Adam, I was pleased
> >> And find thee knowing not of beasts alone
> >> Which thou hast rightly named, but of thyself...
> >>
> >> And no such company as then thou saw'st
> >> Intended thee--for trial only brought
> >> To see how thou could'st judge of fit and meet" (8.437-39; 446-48)
> >>
> >> The trial then appears at least twofold--a test of Adam's knowledge of
> the
> >> animals, most prominently exercised in his naming them, and a test of
> Adam's
> >> knowledge of himself, demonstrated through both his humility before God
> and
> >> his dissatisfaction with animals as companions. Later, Eve seems to seek
> a
> >> similar test that confirms her identity and self-knowledge.
> >>
> >> It might be further useful to remember that the character of God states:
> >>
> >> "The first sort by their own suggestion fell
> >> Self-tempted, self-depraved. Man falls deceived
> >> By th'other first: Man therefore shall find grace,
> >> The other none" (3.129-32).
> >>
> >> To what extent is self temptation equivalent to seeking temptation?
> >> To what extent is seeking temptation the same as desiring temptation?
> >> Is seeking "good temptation" as dangerous as desiring "bad temptation"
> >> Is it a sliding scale? desiring good temptation-->seeking good
> >> temptation-->desiring bad temptation-->seeking bad temptation-->tempting
> >> oneself.
> >>
> >> For Milton, where's the cut-off between appropriate and inappropriate
> >> dispositions, and where do these overlap?
> >>
> >>
> >> --Emily Speller
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:23 PM, <milton-l-request at lists.richmond.edu
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>> Send Milton-L mailing list submissions to
> >>>        milton-l at lists.richmond.edu
> >>>
> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >>>        http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
> >>> 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: Eve's curls (reply to William Moeck) (Schwartz, Louis)
> >>>   2. RE: Eve's curls (reply to William Moeck) (Harold Skulsky)
> >>>   3. RE: Is Eve seeking temptation? (Arlene Stiebel)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Message: 1
> >>> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 12:08:04 -0400
> >>> From: "Schwartz, Louis" <lschwart at richmond.edu>
> >>> Subject: RE: [Milton-L] Eve's curls (reply to William Moeck)
> >>> To: "'John Milton Discussion List'" <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
> >>> Message-ID:
> >>>        <
> >>> 55CC5C4EA1F0AD4DA46C1767F92B954AE6EC98C30A at UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu>
> >>>
> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >>>
> >>> A couple of things in response to Jim's questions and comments:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 1)  I don't see why a willingness or a zealous desire to be tested has
> to
> >>> be sinful.  She's not seeking the object of the temptation--she's not
> >>> interested in hanging around the fruit and sniffing it, for example, to
> see
> >>> if it will make her want to bite.  She's willing to expose herself
> alone to
> >>> the possibility that Satan will try her.  This is because the desire to
> work
> >>> alone is good and because there is no way in the terms of the poem that
> >>> trial can be either bad or avoided.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2)  I think that you're right that the passages you quote do not
> clearly
> >>> indicate that at the end she's going because she is actively seeking
> her
> >>> trial.  But in the course of the dialogue she gives more than one
> reason for
> >>> why she wants to go, why it's good to do so and to want to do so.  The
> >>> reasons she gives in response to Adam at the very end are not her best
> >>> reasons in terms of the poem's larger discourse about trial (her
> reasoning
> >>> is not "perfect" or entirely consistent; it's maturing, not matured).
>  The
> >>> first part of the speech that ends with her ideas about "exterior help"
> >>> articulate some important things about the positive value of trial.  It
> is
> >>> this argument and the one about "help," things that I suggested earlier
> she
> >>> has been hurt into figuring out, that win her Adam's permission by
> trumping
> >>> his objections, none of which can bind because they make less sense or
> only
> >>> temporary sense.  It's for this reason that I'm not so ready to dismiss
> the
> >>> idea that they continue!
> >>>  to have a positive, motivating force for her as she takes her leave.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I think all of that was a trail in itself.  She didn't expect Adam to
> >>> respond the way he did, and she had to deal with it, drawing on what
> she'd
> >>> come to understand from Adam, Raphael, and her own experiences so far
> about
> >>> the nature of the edenic situation.  I think she passes this one.  That
> she
> >>> fails the next one is not an indication she got something wrong
> earlier,
> >>> only that in the face of Satan's deception she gets something
> drastically
> >>> wrong later.  It would have been good for her at that later point to
> have
> >>> remembered some of Adam's advice, especially the stuff about the "fair
> >>> appearing good."  Also, no doubt the scene would have gone differently
> had
> >>> she gone and gotten Adam to come talk with the serpent with her
> (remembering
> >>> the business about minding).  Still, how do we know it would have ended
> >>> happily, even then?  Adam's reason is hardly perfect yet either (he
> >>> certainly fails later to reason through his own moment of trial).  And
> as I
> >>> said a few days ago, what about !
> >>>  the next time?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Louis
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ===========================
> >>>
> >>> Louis Schwartz
> >>>
> >>> Associate Professor of English
> >>>
> >>> University of Richmond
> >>>
> >>> Richmond, VA  23173
> >>>
> >>> (804) 289-8315
> >>>
> >>> lschwart at richmond.edu
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu [mailto:
> >>> milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu] On Behalf Of James Rovira
> >>> Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 11:41 PM
> >>> To: John Milton Discussion List
> >>> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Eve's curls (reply to William Moeck)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Louis -- once you've identified the object of Eve's seeking as
> >>>
> >>> "temptation," which can only be to something wrong or immoral, haven't
> >>>
> >>> you already stacked the deck as to motive?  To fail at a trial is not
> >>>
> >>> necessarily to sin, but to demonstrate weakness.  To fail in resisting
> >>>
> >>> temptation is always to sin.  I'm going to very briefly argue below
> >>>
> >>> that temptation and trial are equivalent in the text of PL, that Eve
> >>>
> >>> did not seek temptation, but that her willingness to be left alone
> >>>
> >>> proceeded from other motives / reasons.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Ultimately, Eve's desire to be left alone is an expression of her
> >>>
> >>> faith in God, not her faith in herself:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> And what is Faith, Love, Vertue unassaid [9:335 ]
> >>>
> >>> Alone, without exterior help sustaind?
> >>>
> >>> Let us not then suspect our happie State
> >>>
> >>> Left so imperfet by the Maker wise,
> >>>
> >>> As not secure to single or combin'd.
> >>>
> >>> Fraile is our happiness, if this be so, [ 340 ]
> >>>
> >>> And Eden were no Eden thus expos'd.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Or, rather, her faith in herself is an expression of and follows from
> >>>
> >>> her faith in God.  And note that both Adam and Eve have to validate
> >>>
> >>> the perfection of God's creation to validate the perfection of God:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> To whom thus Adam fervently repli'd.
> >>>
> >>> O Woman, best are all things as the will
> >>>
> >>> Of God ordain'd them, his creating hand
> >>>
> >>> Nothing imperfet or deficient left [ 345 ]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> As a result, a fall can only proceed from deception, not from a
> >>>
> >>> misdirection of the will or improper desire:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Least by some faire appeering good surpris'd
> >>>
> >>> She dictate false, and misinforme the Will [ 355 ]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> And, of course, the text itself equates temptation with trial:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Seek not temptation then, which to avoide
> >>>
> >>> Were better, and most likelie if from mee [ 365 ]
> >>>
> >>> Thou sever not: Trial will come unsought.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> But perhaps temptation is a species of trial rather than equivalent to
> >>> it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Ultimately, we see in the passage below that Eve leaves Adam because
> >>>
> >>> she believes:
> >>>
> >>> 1. That because they are expecting to be tempted at any time, the
> >>>
> >>> temptation won't come -- she expects it to come when they are not
> >>>
> >>> expecting it.  I am taking the words "when least sought" here to mean
> >>>
> >>> "when least expected and least prepared," which I think is justified
> >>>
> >>> by the context of her conversation with Adam.
> >>>
> >>> 2. That Satan will tempt Adam before he tempts Eve, because he is
> >>>
> >>> proud and she is the weaker partner -- it would be a more humiliating
> >>>
> >>> failure to fail to tempt Eve.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> With thy permission then, and thus forewarnd
> >>>
> >>> Chiefly by what thy own last reasoning words
> >>>
> >>> Touchd onely, that our trial, when least sought, [ 380 ]
> >>>
> >>> May finde us both perhaps farr less prepar'd,
> >>>
> >>> The willinger I goe, nor much expect
> >>>
> >>> A Foe so proud will first the weaker seek,
> >>>
> >>> So bent, the more shall shame him his repulse.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So Eve is willing to be left alone because she trusts her Creator, is
> >>>
> >>> not expecting to be tempted when she is ready for it, and because she
> >>>
> >>> believes Satan is too proud to tempt her first.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Jim R
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Schwartz, Louis<lschwart at richmond.edu
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > I think that Harold may be conflating two different arguments here.
> >>>  One concerns whether or not Eve can be said to be "seeking" temptation
> or
> >>> trial at the end of the dialogue with Adam.  The other concerns what it
> >>> means if she can be said to have that motive.  I say this because I
> believe
> >>> that it is possible to accept the first without jumping to the
> conclusion
> >>> (as Bell did in the essay Caroll Cox has recently mentioned) that this
> >>> motive is "fallen."  The presence of such a motive--or at least a
> version of
> >>> it--need not be, in other words, a violation of the poem's theological
> logic
> >>> (its presentation of the free will defense).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>>
> >>> 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/
> >>> -------------- next part --------------
> >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> >>> URL:
> >>>
> http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20090907/12375b73/attachment-0001.html
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Message: 2
> >>> Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 12:28:55 -0400
> >>> From: "Harold Skulsky" <hskulsky at smith.edu>
> >>> Subject: RE: [Milton-L] Eve's curls (reply to William Moeck)
> >>> To: "John Milton Discussion List" <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
> >>> Message-ID: <4AA4FC93.7D51.00DA.1 at smith.edu>
> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> >>>
> >>> Many thanks to Louis for his remarks on what I now see is a
> possibility:
> >>> that on M's showing Eve makes her separate gardening proposal with the
> >>> intention of "seeking" temptation — in a version of that intention
> >>> that leaves Eve blameless and even does her credit.
> >>>
> >>> The scare quotes around "seek" above are Louis's, and (at least for me)
> >>> they illuminate the complexity of what is at stake in this notoriously
> >>> challenging passage. The pregnant ambiguity and even paradoxicality of
> >>> "seeking" (i.e., "trying to find") is well known in the intellectual
> >>> tradition M inherits (see the *Meno*and the literature it generates).
> >>>
> >>> The ambiguity is intensified where what one is trying to find is not a
> >>> person, place or thing,  but an event or experience (in the current
> >>> case, "temptation"; or, in the *Meno*, "knowledge"). What is it to
> >>> "find" temptation? For that matter, what is it to TRY to "find"
> >>> temptation? What is it, above all,  for Eve, as M presents her to us
> >>> here and elsewhere in PL, to do these things?
> >>>
> >>> I am not free to pursue these questions at the moment. But I look
> >>> forward to Louis's argument. And it now seems to me that I was
> overhasty
> >>> in my original posting.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Message: 3
> >>> Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 10:22:15 -0700
> >>> From: "Arlene Stiebel" <amstiebel at verizon.net>
> >>> Subject: RE: [Milton-L] Is Eve seeking temptation?
> >>> To: "'John Milton Discussion List'" <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
> >>> Message-ID: <0KPM0034R2X7GLU4 at vms173015.mailsrvcs.net>
> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Poor Eve. No one has ever lied to her before, and she doesn't yet have
> >>> the experience to determine when someone (the father of lies) does.
> >>> Certainly she has the strength to "stand" but lacks the perspicacity to
> >>> discern temptation when it presents itself.  (It's easy for Jesus in
> the
> >>> desert -- he knows what he's looking at.)
> >>>
> >>> How sadly ironic that only having the wisdom provided by the fruit of
> the
> >>> tree could have provided her the knowledge needed to withstand the
> >>> "temptation" to eat the fruit of the tree. Her innocence makes her
> >>> credulous, not proud nor disobedient.  Carol might "know" not to eat
> >>> chocolates, but Eve has no concept of temptation. If she had recognized
> >>> it,
> >>> she probably would have been able to resist.  Who among us has not been
> >>> lied
> >>> to by someone we thought we could trust -- and acted on it.  If we want
> >>> to
> >>> "blame" someone, blame the God who created her innocent and then
> >>> instituted
> >>> a prohibition she was not equipped to maintain.
> >>>
> >>> Try as he might to "justify", Milton cannot get around the old origins
> of
> >>> evil argument.  And so, it seems, neither can we.
> >>>
> >>> --Arlene
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu
> >>> [mailto:milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu] On Behalf Of
> >>> srevard at siue.edu
> >>> Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 6:21 AM
> >>> To: John Milton Discussion List
> >>> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Is Eve seeking temptation?
> >>>
> >>> I do not deny that the question of temptation comes into the
> >>> argument, but I still think it is a mistake to say that Eve
> >>> is seeking temptation when she separates from Adam. What she
> >>> is countering after Adam brings up the question of temptation
> >>> is the question whether she, should a tempter appear, would
> >>> be strong enough to resist him.  She says she would be, and
> >>> further argues that both must be sufficient, whether together
> >>> or alone, to resist temptation, should it come.
> >>> That to me is not to seek temptation--even that is what Adam
> >>> accuses her of doing.
> >>> Indeed, when she goes off to prop up those rose, the whole
> >>> notion of temptation or a tempter goes right out of her head.
> >>> She should not have forgotten Adam's warnings, but she does.
> >>> If she were seeking temptation, she should have been more
> >>> alert when the serpent starts to spin his arguments.
> >>> She has the opportunity to resist temptation, as she says
> >>> she would do, and she blows it.
> >>>
> >>> Stella Revard
> >>>
> >>> Quoting John Leonard <jleonard at uwo.ca>:
> >>>
> >>> > Stella says that "Eve is not seeking trial," to which Gardner replies
> >>> "I
> >>> > think she is."  When two very fine Miltonists disagree on a question
> as
> >>> > fundamental as this, we can sure something interesting is happening
> in
> >>> the
> >>> > text.  My own view is halfway between Stella and Gardner.  I do not
> >>> think
> >>> > that Eve is initially seeking temptation when she proposes to work
> >>> > separately.  She just wants to get the work done more efficicently.
> >>>  Satan
> >>> > is not even on her mind in her first speech (9.205-225).  But when
> Adam
> >>> > suggests that she might be wiser to stay by his side. . . . THAT is
> the
> >>> > turning point.  Eve is hurt:
> >>> >
> >>> > But that thou shouldst my firmness therefore doubt
> >>> > To God or thee, because we have a foe
> >>> > May tempt it, I expected not to hear. (9.279-81)
> >>> >
> >>> > >From this moment on Eve is seeking temptation.  But she wasn't
> before.
> >>> >
> >>> > John
> >>> >
> >>> > _______________________________________________
> >>> > 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/
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -------------------------------------------------
> >>> SIUE Web Mail
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Milton-L mailing list
> >>> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
> >>> Manage your membership and access list archives at
> >>> http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
> >>>
> >>> Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
> >>>
> >>> End of Milton-L Digest, Vol 34, Issue 19
> >>> ****************************************
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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/
> >>
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20090907/1bd74e95/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Milton-L mailing list
> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
> Manage your membership and access list archives at
> http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
>
> Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
>
> End of Milton-L Digest, Vol 34, Issue 25
> ****************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20090909/c2c9a070/attachment-0001.html


More information about the Milton-L mailing list