[Milton-L] Fallen and unfallen language

Richard Strier rastrier at uchicago.edu
Sat Mar 31 17:31:36 EDT 2012


I do not believe that there is, in fact, in the actions and attitudes,  
any significant difference between fallen and unfallen sex.  I am sure  
that there was intended to be such but think that here, as so often in  
the poem, Milton was saved from his conscious intentions by his poetry.

And I do not believe that there is any difference in language as such  
between before and after the fall.  The things A &E say are different  
(A is especially bad in his misogyny) but that is a different matter.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 31, 2012, at 4:01 PM, Roy <royflannagan at gmail.com> wrote:

> Must we be as complicated as this? Of course we need well-defined  
> terms and support from Milton's other works for what, say,  
> "hypocrisy" meant to him.  But we can say with some certainty that  
> fallen sex is nasty, and that unfallen sex had been beautiful and  
> good.  The language of Adam and Eve follows the same pattern.
>
> Roy
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 31, 2012, at 4:42 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: Milton-L Digest, Vol 64, Issue 24 (Harold Skulsky)
>>
>>
>> --- 
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 16:41:57 -0400
>> From: Harold Skulsky <hskulsky at smith.edu>
>> To: John Milton Discussion List <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Milton-L Digest, Vol 64, Issue 24
>> Message-ID:
>>   <CAHUg9Vagey3=dc88o4pgBkJdK1jWSDdYQYxbuXpo-8tFVd1- 
>> ww at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> 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.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 26
>> ****************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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