[Milton-L] Fallen vs. Unfallen Sex

Tony Demarest tonydemarest at hotmail.com
Wed Jul 20 18:06:45 EDT 2011


Carol- "retail relationship"- love it!And one can only wonder how much sinister delight Milton enjoyed when he created the seduction and sin scene- the serpent (the ancient phallic symbol) brings back with a roar the catalogue of demons- there is so much unwritten weight in this scene, so the reader feels that weight of countless demons and idols dragging Eve down to her post-lapsarian state. Like hitching a ride on a Harley through the backroads of Arkansas. As Frost said, "Nothing gold can stay."Joni Mitchell's "Woodstock" with its refrain, "we have to get ourselves back to the garden"- a fine 1960's revel in the comfort of believing one can swap the "post" for the "pre."

Tony

> From: cbartonphd1 at verizon.net
> To: milton-l at lists.richmond.edu
> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Fallen vs. Unfallen Sex
> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:39:28 -0400
> 
> I think the distinction between fallen and unfallen sex might be 
> easier for women to comprehend, Richard (and that's 
> not--intentionally--a sexist comment). There is a real distinction for 
> most women between making love (unfallen sex, if you will) and the 
> sort of wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am engagement that occurs between casual 
> partners (or those involved in a retail relationship).
> 
> Nudity and nakedness are different? I had no idea . . . but with a 
> heat index of 102F and climbing (around 35C for those who don't 
> Fahrenheit) I think I'd welcome being either one . . .
> 
> Best to all,
> 
> Carol Barton
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "richard strier" <rastrier at uchicago.edu>
> To: "John Milton Discussion List" <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 3:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] It's Confirmed!
> 
> 
> Well, I don't hold the view (which some philosophers--e.g. Roger 
> Scruton) hold
> that great art can't be erotically stimulating.  Seems like a silly 
> view.  Lots of
> great Renaissance art is very sexy.  MIlton insists -- surely with his 
> male readers
> in mind (but not only, of course) -- on Eve's gorgeousness and her 
> absolute
> nakedness. No reason for us, or her, to feel ashamed, and no reason 
> for us (or
> her, or Adam) not to feel erotically aroused.
> 
> And, to say something that will surely invite/incite some responses, I 
> think the
> supposed contrast between the fallen and unfallen sex of A and E to be 
> quite
> unconvincing.
> 
> And, finally, I think the supposed distinction between nudity and 
> nakedness
> (Kenneth Clark) also to be bogus (let's all pretend to be very 
> high-minded!).
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110720/9f4c5a6b/attachment.html


More information about the Milton-L mailing list