[Milton-L] Milton-L Digest, Vol 64, Issue 24

Harold Skulsky hskulsky at smith.edu
Sat Mar 31 16:41:57 EDT 2012


Don't we need specifications of the following to evaluate these claims?

(1) WHETHER "language" for current purposes =  the sum of: (i) syntax +
(ii) lexicon + (iii) truisms of "common sense" and "common knowledge"
[defeasible assumptions of the language community or relevant
sub-community] + (iv) pragmatics [rules for using items in (iii) to adapt
items in (ii) to context of utterance];

(2) whether the prelapsarian option of choosing to deceive, defame, insult,
confuse, etc.--that is, the option of choosing to abuse "language" as
defined in 1A above--is an aspect of free will (the possibility of "doing
otherwise"), and hence a prerequisite rather than a result of the Fall);

(3) whether "fallen imagery" includes figurative expressions (see 1 (iv))
that presuppose the brute facts of the Fall, and that arise naturally from
the need to discuss those facts (in which case even God will suffer from
the burden of thinking fallenly if his thinking is to include plans for
putting the postlapsarian mess to rights);

(4) whether the claims in question are "New Critical"--i.e., whether they
are to be understood as unaffected by available information about Milton's
actual working distinction, if any, between pre- and postlapsarian language
(as spelled out in his treatise on logic and other works, or as implied by
his treatment of prooftexts in CD and other works);

Please don't get me wrong. It seems to me that a version of the Fallen
Language Thesis, suitably narrowed down in accord with (1)-(4), might well
be right. And, right or wrong, I don't see how that version could be
overlooked in any critically interesting discussion of the prime candidates
for divorce we have to listen to in PL 9 and part of PL 10--and perhaps
also in discussing the reconciled and "justified" but not yet "sanctified"
husband and wife who surprise us later in PL 10 and the beginning of PL 11,
and whom we eventually see off, with hope and missgivings, at the end of PL
12.

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Roy Flannagan <royflannagan at gmail.com>wrote:

> I believe that fallen language is quite different from innocent language,
> and that as soon as Adam and Eve begin talking after the Fall they betray
> themselves by crudity, by fallen imagery, and most of all by lying.
>
> I believe as well that their language becomes Satanic: they start to
> imitate him rather than God, in behavior and speech.
>
> Roy Flannagan
>
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:29 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: Help my foggy brain (Sara van den Berg)
>>   2. Re: Help my foggy brain (Jameela Lares)
>>   3. Re: Help my foggy brain (Michael Gillum)
>>   4. Re: Help my foggy brain (Sara van den Berg)
>>   5. Re: Help my foggy brain (Horace Jeffery Hodges)
>>   6. Re: Help my foggy brain (LEEJACOBUS at aol.com)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 11:36:43 -0500
>> From: Sara van den Berg <vandens at slu.edu>
>> To: John Milton Discussion List <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Help my foggy brain
>> Message-ID:
>>        <CAE4vJYftaoBmdKXM8i7OMwX5wzTeSoRDRua2vGztJeSCJh0K=
>> w at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Robert Entzminger, in *God's Word*, offers a detailed and persuasive
>> account of Milton's ideas about fallen and redeemed language.
>>
>> Sara van den Berg
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>> http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20120330/e69e4540/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:07:49 -0500
>> From: Jameela Lares <Jameela.Lares at usm.edu>
>> To: John Milton Discussion List <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Help my foggy brain
>> Message-ID:
>>
>>  <4A593B57C2A1A948B04891C5B8F0F26B12BB6E45E2 at CCRMBX01.usmexchange.loc>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> Sara, by that title do you mean, _Divine Word: Milton and the Redemption
>> of Language_?
>>
>> Jameela Lares
>> Professor of English
>> The University of Southern Mississippi
>> 118 College Drive, #5037
>> Hattiesburg, MS  39406-0001
>> 601 266-4319 ofc
>> 601 266-5757 fax
>> ________________________________________
>> From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu [
>> milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu] On Behalf Of Sara van den Berg [
>> vandens at slu.edu]
>> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 11:36 AM
>> To: John Milton Discussion List
>> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Help my foggy brain
>>
>> Robert Entzminger, in God's Word, offers a detailed and persuasive
>> account of Milton's ideas about fallen and redeemed language.
>>
>> Sara van den Berg
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:42:11 -0400
>> From: Michael Gillum <mgillum at unca.edu>
>> To: John Milton Discussion List <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Help my foggy brain
>> Message-ID:
>>        <
>> CAMwPjHLGXMGwUtACSi-4kUt+0SmcSOSFf_dskB+Z+zVVj2OwpA at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>>
>> I just reread Millicent Bell's 1953 article and enjoyed its lucidity
>> (marvellous by today's standards). The argument--highly original as far as
>> I know--can be summed up by these snippets:
>>
>> *?what Milton has shown us throughout the action is fallen Man. . . .? *
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *If ?the Fall is only the climax of self-realization reached by human-
>> kind
>> already fallen, then it was not only inevitable, but necessary. Once the
>> sinfulness of Adam and Eve is established, it is only along this road
>> followed to its bitter terminus that they may pass to redemption.?***
>>
>> *
>> *
>>
>> Contrary to my hazy recollection, she doesn't discuss the question of God
>> bearing blame for the faulty creation. She takes the already-fallen
>> condition as a given. There is nothing in the article about
>> fallen/unfallen
>> language or about the environment of Paradise.
>>
>>
>> To what extent does the text support her reading? Well, the narrator
>> describes Eve as "yet sinless" on the morning before the Fall. If we
>> attend
>> to the speeches and behavior of Eve and Adam before and after their
>> "technical" falls (Bell's expression), we see in both cases a radical
>> change in their moral natures for the worse. (I take Adam's fall to occur
>> at 9.507, "Certain my resolution is to die," so that his subsequent speech
>> is a fallen speech even though he has not yet tasted the fruit.)
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>> http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20120330/9530e96b/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:31:24 -0500
>> From: Sara van den Berg <vandens at slu.edu>
>> To: John Milton Discussion List <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Help my foggy brain
>> Message-ID:
>>        <
>> CAE4vJYdCb80f-QpGaN7X3My41vGS8MfYRRP1FGZ0jFisqjo_zw at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Hi Jameela,
>>
>> Yes, that's the correct title.  I regret
>>  the error of my (fallen) memory.
>>
>> Sara
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Jameela Lares <Jameela.Lares at usm.edu
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > Sara, by that title do you mean, _Divine Word: Milton and the Redemption
>> > of Language_?
>> >
>> > Jameela Lares
>> > Professor of English
>> > The University of Southern Mississippi
>> > 118 College Drive, #5037
>> > Hattiesburg, MS  39406-0001
>> > 601 266-4319 ofc
>> > 601 266-5757 fax
>> > ________________________________________
>> > From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu [
>> > milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu] On Behalf Of Sara van den Berg [
>> > vandens at slu.edu]
>> > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 11:36 AM
>> > To: John Milton Discussion List
>> > Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Help my foggy brain
>> >
>> > Robert Entzminger, in God's Word, offers a detailed and persuasive
>> account
>> > of Milton's ideas about fallen and redeemed language.
>> >
>> > Sara van den Berg
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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/20120330/80b0be23/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: Horace Jeffery Hodges <jefferyhodges at yahoo.com>
>> To: John Milton Discussion List <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Help my foggy brain
>> Message-ID:
>>        <1333139965.79933.YahooMailNeo at web160901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Thanks for the explanation, Carrol. I finally understand your argument
>> about no fallen and unfallen language in Paradise Lost.
>> ?
>> On the 'apple,' however:
>> ?
>> "How do we know that eating the apple is a sin (and hence a Fall from
>> Innocence)? Milton (the narrative) tells us so."
>> ?
>> Except that -- as shown by Robert?Appelbaum and supported by my article
>> from 2008 -- the 'apple' is actually a peach, and sin is therefore peachy
>> keen.
>> ?
>> Jeffery Hodges
>> ?
>> From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
>> To: 'John Milton Discussion List' <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 12:15 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Help my foggy brain
>>
>> Some years ago on this list I argued that neither 'fallen' nor 'unfallen'
>> language exists: both are artifacts of Milton's plot. That is, there is
>> nothing in a given speech by Satan or Eve or Abdiel to indicate its
>> 'fallen'
>> or 'unfallen' nature. It has to be implicitly or explicitly labelled in
>> the
>> text as such. (The argument is analogous to the argument that there is no
>> linguistic sign in irony that establishes it as irony.)? Similarly,
>> "fallen"
>> and "unfallen" behavior are artifacts of the text: neither exist 'in the
>> world,' where we find, simply, human behavior.
>>
>> "The Fall" itself then becomes an artifact, not a mimesis of the actual
>> world itself.? How do we know that eating the apple is a sin (and hence a
>> Fall from Innocence)? Milton (the narrative) tells us so. Only 'inside' PL
>> is it a fall, and there it is an arbitrary premise of the poem.
>>
>> Carrol
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu
>> [mailto:milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu] On Behalf Of John Leonard
>> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 7:41 AM
>> To: John Milton Discussion List
>> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Help my foggy brain
>>
>> It's only fair to add that Empson himself refuted the notion of a Fall
>> before the Fall--but then Empson came at the problem in a novel way by
>> denying any validity to the notion of a Fall. In other words, Empson
>> pushes
>> innocence forward rather than sin back.
>>
>>
>> John Leonard
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Carrol Cox" <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
>> To: "'John Milton Discussion List'" <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 6:19 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Help my foggy brain
>>
>>
>> > Blake, Shelley, Raleigh, Bell, Empson: All refuted and then refuted
>> again
>> > and then refuted again and then .....
>> >
>> > And still they pop up to be refuted once more, and then ....
>> >
>> > Interesting.
>> >
>> > Carrol
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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 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 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/20120330/ae078830/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 6
>> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:28:50 -0400 (EDT)
>> From: LEEJACOBUS at aol.com
>> To: milton-l at lists.richmond.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Help my foggy brain
>> Message-ID: <6fd8a.24c74987.3ca77f92 at aol.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> On a strictly personal note, I want to mention that I read Milton with
>> Millie Bell at Brown when I began graduate school.  She was a marvelous
>> teacher of Milton, although now she is a remarkable scholar of American
>> literature, with a fine book on James, among other things.  She never
>> once  mentioned
>> her article on Eve and let us fumble our way through PL without  coercion.
>> She is still a good friend.
>>
>> _http://literatureartandideas.blogspot.com_
>> (http://literatureartandideas.blogspot.com/)
>> _http://www.leejacobus.com_ (http://www.leejacobus.com/)
>> _http://www.hammonassethouse.com_ (http://www.hammonassethouse.com/)
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 3/30/2012 4:40:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>> jefferyhodges at yahoo.com writes:
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the explanation, Carrol. I finally  understand your argument
>> about no fallen and unfallen language in Paradise Lost.
>>
>> On the 'apple,' however:
>>
>> "How do we know that eating the apple is a sin (and  hence a Fall from
>> Innocence)? Milton (the narrative) tells us so."
>>
>> Except that -- as shown by Robert Appelbaum and  supported by my article
>> from 2008 -- the 'apple' is actually a peach, and sin is therefore peachy
>> keen.
>>
>> Jeffery Hodges
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Carrol Cox  <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
>> To:  'John Milton Discussion List' <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 12:15  AM
>> Subject: Re: [Milton-L]  Help my foggy brain
>>
>>
>> Some years ago on this list I argued  that neither 'fallen' nor 'unfallen'
>> language exists: both are artifacts of  Milton's plot. That is, there is
>> nothing in a given speech by Satan or Eve  or Abdiel to indicate its
>> 'fallen'
>> or 'unfallen' nature. It has to be  implicitly or explicitly labelled in
>> the
>> text as such. (The argument is  analogous to the argument that there is no
>> linguistic sign in irony that  establishes it as irony.)  Similarly,
>> "fallen"
>> and "unfallen" behavior  are artifacts of the text: neither exist 'in the
>> world,' where we find,  simply, human behavior.
>>
>> "The Fall" itself then becomes an artifact, not  a mimesis of the actual
>> world itself.  How do we know that eating the  apple is a sin (and hence a
>> Fall from Innocence)? Milton (the narrative)  tells us so. Only 'inside'
>> PL
>> is it a fall, and there it is an arbitrary  premise of the poem.
>>
>> Carrol
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 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 John Leonard
>> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 7:41 AM
>> To: John  Milton Discussion List
>> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Help my foggy  brain
>>
>> It's only fair to add that Empson himself refuted the notion of a  Fall
>> before the Fall--but then Empson came at the problem in a novel way  by
>> denying any validity to the notion of a Fall. In other words, Empson
>> pushes
>> innocence forward rather than sin back.
>>
>>
>> John  Leonard
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Carrol Cox" <_cbcox at ilstu.edu_ (mailto:cbcox at ilstu.edu) >
>> To: "'John Milton  Discussion List'" <_milton-l at lists.richmond.edu_
>> (mailto:milton-l at lists.richmond.edu) >
>> Sent:  Thursday, March 29, 2012 6:19 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Help my foggy  brain
>>
>>
>> > Blake, Shelley, Raleigh, Bell, Empson: All refuted and  then refuted
>> again
>> > and then refuted again and then  .....
>> >
>> > And still they pop up to be refuted once more, and then  ....
>> >
>> > Interesting.
>> >
>> > Carrol
>> >
>> >  _______________________________________________
>> > 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/
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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_
>> (http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l)
>>
>> Milton-L  web site: _http://johnmilton.org/_ (http://johnmilton.org/)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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_
>> (http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l)
>>
>> Milton-L  web site: _http://johnmilton.org/_ (http://johnmilton.org/)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20120330/a7ba35a6/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 64, Issue 24
>> ****************************************
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120331/67294f97/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Milton-L mailing list