[Milton-L] Bk 3

J. Michael Gillum mgillum at ret.unca.edu
Thu Oct 31 12:02:05 EDT 2013


It seems to me that the characterization  of the Son is also a mixture of
allegorical and mimetic elements. He is an allegorical character insofar as
he represents, or actually is, the external agency of the Father as
creator, ruler of the angels, victor in battle, and judge. Of course he
must also seem to display personal agency in order to embody perfect
obedience; his volunteering to die must feel to the reader like a free
choice.  But, in the Book 3 dialogue in Heaven, he is trying to follow and
anticipate the Father's thought, not to express notions of his own. (The
Father has already decreed mercy for mankind before the Son takes up that
theme.) On the other hand, his claim that victory in battle would be matter
of glory for himself is a
a mimetic element.


On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:02 AM, JD Fleming <jfleming at sfu.ca> wrote:

> Esoteric readers like esoteric readings precisely because they are
> unfalsifiable. And thus interminable. JD Fleming
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Richard A. Strier" <rastrier at uchicago.edu>
> *To: *"John Milton Discussion List" <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
> *Sent: *Wednesday, 30 October, 2013 18:17:08
>
> *Subject: *Re: [Milton-L] Bk 3
>
> "And my question: how would we determine that Milton is pretending -
> especially pretending to himself as well as the world? That is, what would
> count as evidence for the claim that Milton is pretending to be a "normal
> Christian" (what is that, by the way?) both to himself (especially to
> himself) and the world?"
>
>  That is indeed the question, Samuel.  I wish I knew.  Requires a whole
> set of subtle judgments.  Not the kind of thing that allows for being
> settled once and for all!
>
>
>     ------------------------------
> *From:* milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu [
> milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu] on behalf of
> samuelsmith112 at comcast.net [samuelsmith112 at comcast.net]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 30, 2013 6:58 PM
> *To:* John Milton Discussion List
> *Subject:* Re: [Milton-L] Bk 3
>
>   Richard,
>
>  This evokes your earlier comment:
>
>  My overall point is that God's speech at the beginning of the Book -- a
> > purely rationalistic, legalistic, and philosophical speech -- actually
> takes
> > care of the problem of the fate of mankind.  I would hold that this
> speech is
> > how M actually thinks, and the rest is M pretending -- perhaps to
> himself as
> > well as to the world -- that he is a more normal sort of Christian than
> he
> > actually was.  If M wrote CD -- which most Miltonists now seem to agree
> that
> > he did -- then it's pretty clear that M was NOT a normal Christian.
>
>  And my question: how would we determine that Milton is pretending -
> especially pretending to himself as well as the world? That is, what would
> count as evidence for the claim that Milton is pretending to be a "normal
> Christian" (what is that, by the way?) both to himself (especially to
> himself) and the world?
>
>  "If Milton wrote CD" - we find both orthodox doctrine (substitutionary
> atonement for sin effected through the blood of Christ at the crucifixion)
> and unorthodox doctrine (non-Trinitarianism, ex Deo creation) in CD. So
> sometimes "Milton" is "normal" and sometimes he is not. My Evangelical
> (orthodox) minister father would find most of CD quite compatible with his
> orthodox theology, only stumbling over the Arianism and the ex Deo
> creationism. He might be surprised by Milton's mortalism, and disagree with
> it, but his respect for Luther would allow for it.
>
>  Samuel
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Richard A. Strier" <rastrier at uchicago.edu>
> *To: *"John Milton Discussion List" <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
> *Sent: *Wednesday, October 30, 2013 7:02:11 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [Milton-L] Bk 3
>
> I am a bit puzzled by one thing in Michael B's remarks-- the very opening.
>  If M was so committed to "uttering freely," why would he have not wished
> to reveal his own heretical views?  Perhaps something more complicated is
> going on here -- perhaps he was not quite willing to admit to himself what
> an odd sort of Christian he was. Or perhaps he genuinely wanted to seem
> orthodox (for whatever reason).
>
> Best,
> RS
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu [
> milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu] on behalf of Bryson, Michael E [
> michael.bryson at csun.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:42 PM
> To: John Milton Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Bk 3
>
> I think Milton did not wish to reveal, in his epic, how non-Christocentric
> his "Christianity" was. This seems obvious to me, coming as it does from a
> man who regarded knowledge as the path to being like God, who regarded the
> liberty to know and utter freely according to conscience (not *Christian*
> conscience, merely conscience) as the axiomatic liberty from which all
> others took their origin, and who showed Paradise being regained through
> will and adherence to principle, not blood and crucifixion. I have often
> thought, that after "On the Morning of Christ's Nativity," that Milton had
> little use for the traditional figure of Christ, and even less use for the
> ransom sacrifice theory of Christian redemption.
>
> And the Chariot of Paternal Deity story strikes me as Milton's sly way of
> working in a reference to the old story of Edward III giving the16-year-old
> Black Prince the opportunity to win his spurs at Crecy, while using that
> story to comment on the absurdity and ultimate futility of war. For what,
> exactly, is it that wins the war in heaven? Right? Principle? Correct
> understanding of Christian doctrines largely worked out as political
> compromises in the 4th-century? No. Power is what wins the war. Might makes
> "right" in that scenario. The scene--if taken seriously/literally--has a
> certain Thrasymachean or Euthyphro-esque quailty to it, arguing that
> justice is determined by the stronger, and that the just is so because the
> gods love it, not because it is just in itself. So much of Paradise Lost
> seems to hinge on issues of force, and the conquests that are
> achieved/enabled by the possession and wielding of greater force--military
> force (Book 6), persuasive force (Book 9), that it continually amazes me
> that any reader can take seriously the notion that Adam and Eve (or the
> heavenly powers) can be in any other than the most narrowly legalistic
> sense be described as "sufficient to stand."
>
> As for Milton needing the Son to provide the occasion for Satan's envy, I
> wholly agree, and I think that is made evident in M's borrowing of the
> rhetorical structures and geopolitical realities reflected in Psalm 2
> (where the "kings of the Earth" take up arms against Yahweh and his
> anointed in an historically henotheistic context perhaps best explained
> with reference to the Moabite stone, with its commemoration of Mesha of
> Moab praising Chemosh for giving him the victory over Omri of Israel, and
> his god Yahweh) in order to tell the story of how conflict in the universe
> first comes into being. He takes the frame of pre-existing conflict assumed
> by Psalm 2 and uses it to narrate the *creation* of conflict and division
> in Book 5 of PL. What this implies about the Son has always interested
> me--was he, like David, a lowly sheep herder among the "Israelites" of
> Milton's Heaven? A relative nobody? And is *that* the provocation that
> effects the transformation of a peaceful Heaven into a martial one, while
> also transforming Lucifer into Satan?
>
> Finally, it also seems to this reader, anyway, that an insistence on
> reading Sin and Death as *merely* allegorical serves very nicely to remove
> the difficulties the present in the basic plot of a poem that puts Satan in
> a securely locked dungeon, only to put the key into the hands of his own
> "creation" ("daughter/lover/mother-of-child"), *and* place her *inside* the
> gates. Allegory, yes, but a nasty and deliberate piece of plotting and
> characterization (of the *placer* not the *placed*).
>
> Michael Bryson
> ________________________________________
> From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu [
> milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu] On Behalf Of Richard A. Strier [
> rastrier at uchicago.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 1:48 PM
> To: John Milton Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Bk 3
>
> Needless to say, I agree with Mr. Campbell as cited by Mr. Schwartz.  I
> have the great advantage of coming to Milton (and Shakespeare and the whole
> period) from first having spent ten years in deep engagement with George
> Herbert's poetry.  To come to Milton from GH is to feel strongly how
> utterly different they are as sensibilities, and how different M is from a
> poet to whom the atonement and our profound need for it are central.  I do
> not need Carter and Stella to remind me of these doctrines; I think that
> they need to acknowledge how far from central they are to Milton.  Not to
> see how utterly characteristic of Milton's thought God's speech --
> brilliantly modeled on one by Zeus early in The Odyssey (where Zeus notes
> that the gods are blamed by mortals for outcomes that mortals bring on
> themselves) -- is, I think, not to confront the deep rationalism and
> ethical axis of his thought.  The issue of free will and its misuse is his
> obsession (for better or worse).  God's speech deals with this directly,
> and explains how justice can be done in the face of misuse of free will by
> man.  Nothing further is needed for man to, as He says, "find grace."
>
> The question then becomes why M put in the Son's sacrifice.  Certainly it
> was meant to contrast with Satan's taking on his mission in Book 2.  But
> whether this works is another matter (Satan's mission seems to me more
> truly motivated in the story [diegetically]-- which is not to say that the
> values involved are more admirable).  I think that M either wasn't prepared
> to face up to how utterly non-Christocentric his version of Christianity
> was, OR, he did not wish to reveal this to the public who would read his
> great poem -- that I do not know, and would be interested in hearing other
> folks thoughts about.  But in my view that is what we should be discussing.
>
> And just to add another point along these lines, the Son's role in the War
> seems to me entirely contrived -- dad letting the son do something that
> could easily have been done without him.  Dad let's the son mow down the
> actually harmless enemies in dad's souped up car.  Simply greater power
> being exercised -- no moral dimension there.
>
> From my point of view, the only real importance the Son has in the poem is
> to provide the occasion for Satan's envy.  That M needs for the story.
>
> Cheers,
> RS
>
> ________________________________
> From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu [
> milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu] on behalf of Schwartz, Louis [
> lschwart at richmond.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 11:34 AM
> To: John Milton Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Bk 3
>
> Steve Fallon says:
>
> “On top of this is the oft-noted fact that Milton does not emphasize the
> passion in the epic (and that he is unable to finish the early poem on the
> passion).  He seems more interested in the Son as an exemplar of heroic
> obedience, a model for us, than as a God whose blood saves us.”
>
> I think this is the crux of the matter (so to speak).  I’d suggest also
> that he simply did not have much in the way of artistic genius for the
> representation and engagement with the passion and its associated
> doctrines.  As my friend Gardner Campbell once pointed out to me with
> characteristic incisiveness, if you want a great poet of the passion, you
> need to look at a poet like Herbert, not at Milton.  Even if, as Steve
> suggests, Milton did not reject “the orthodox doctrines of resurrection and
> atonement,” his greatness as an artist was for other aspects of
> Christianity, and its borderlines with certain heresies.
>
> Louis
>
>
>
> ===========================
> Louis Schwartz
> Professor of English
> English Department
> University of Richmond
> 28 Westhampton Way
> 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] On Behalf Of Steve Fallon
> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 12:20 PM
> To: John Milton Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Bk 3
>
> Carter,
>
> I have agreed with virtually everything you have posted in recent days,
> but I think that Richard Strier has the inside track on the Father's
> speeches in Book 3. The Father does, as you say, outline the Resurrection
> and the Atonement, but the Father is required by justice to produce the
> mechanics of salvation.  Eating the fruit, humankind enthralls itself, the
> ironic result of the misuse of the free will irrevocably granted by God.
>  The Father indicates that, given the circumstances of Adam's and Eve's
> fall, mercy and justice require that "man therefore shall find grace."
> Mercy and justice so dictating, the question for the Father is how to
> engineer the process.  The answer will be the orthodox doctrines of
> resurrection and atonement, doctrines that Milton supports in Christian
> Doctrine I.xiv-xvi.  But even before the Father articulates the stumbling
> block, "Die he or justice must," he has made the case for man finding
> grace.  That case, in my view, is logically as well as temporally prior.
>
> On top of this is the oft-noted fact that Milton does not emphasize the
> passion in the epic (and that he is unable to finish the early poem on the
> passion).  He seems more interested in the Son as an exemplar of heroic
> obedience, a model for us, than as a God whose blood saves us.
>
> Steve Fallon
>
> On Oct 27, 2013, at 8:14 PM, <srevard at siue.edu<mailto:srevard at siue.edu>>
> wrote:
>
>
> Time to herd you cats, who are all singing in the dark of Book Two, out
> into the
> Holy Light of Book Three, which none of you appears to have read with
> either
> interest or understanding. Richard, my brilliant and scholarly friend, I
> have
> to try and explain why you need to consider what God and the Son say more
> carefully:  they outline for us two central Christian doctrines, that of
> the
> Atonement (the Son will die for mankind) and the Resurrection (the Son
> vanquishes Death), which Milton found in Paul and James and other New
> Testament
> texts, which are not only orthodox but commonplace and I think common to
> all
> Christian sects.  God begins by explaining that he knows Satan will get
> out,
> bamboozling Sin and bribing Death:  this is a point that most of our
> colleagues
> who are discussing this seem unaware of (one of us even said he had not
> yet gone
> on to look at Book 3!).
>
> I know it is supererogatory, but I will try to write out as briefly as
> possible
> and post separately an explanation of what I have just obstreperously
> asserted
> above.  Meantime, I hope you all get many treats for your tricks this
> Halloween.
>
> I should acknowledge here that Stella has been the scholar who made ME
> read Book
> 3, beginning when we were at Yale Grad School and used to go up into the
> dim
> stacks and like Adam and Eve taste of the Tree of Knowledge, not unmixed
> perhaps with amorous thoughts and oeillades. It behooves me therefore to
> pass
> along to colleagues some of what she has taught me, which you are all of
> course
> free to partake of or to abstain from.
>
> Carter Revard
>
>
> Quoting "Richard A. Strier" <rastrier at uchicago.edu<mailto:
> rastrier at uchicago.edu>>:
>
>
> SUPPOSED PROBLEM FOR MY VIEW:   "at line 202 [the Father] goes on to say
> HOWEVER, even though by grace-given penitence he [man] may live obediently,
> nevertheless justice demands that he and all his posterity shall
> die--UNLESS ..."
>
> MY RESPONSE:  The problem of "justice" has already been taken care of when
> the Father explains why man can be forgiven, but Satan not.  His point is
> that justice does NOT require that mankind be condemned to death, etc.
>
> My overall point is that God's speech at the beginning of the Book -- a
> purely rationalistic, legalistic, and philosophical speech -- actually
> takes
> care of the problem of the fate of mankind.  I would hold that this speech
> is
> how M actually thinks, and the rest is M pretending -- perhaps to himself
> as
> well as to the world -- that he is a more normal sort of Christian than he
> actually was.  If M wrote CD -- which most Miltonists now seem to agree
> that
> he did -- then it's pretty clear that M was NOT a normal Christian.  The
> critique of the Trinity there is thoroughly rationalistic, as is the
> critique
> of Calvinism (see my piece in the New Milton Crit volume, or the earlier
> longer version of it in Milton Studies 38).
>
> RS
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:
> milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu>
> [milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu] on behalf of srevard at siue.edu
> <mailto:srevard at siue.edu>
> [srevard at siue.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2013 4:27 AM
> To: John Milton Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Bk 3
>
> But Richard, you seem to have stopped reading Book III at line 202.  Up to
> that
> point God has explained why he through grace will forgive Man; but at line
> 202
> he goes on to say HOWEVER, even though by grace-given penitence he may live
> obediently, nevertheless justice demands that he and all his posterity
> shall
> die--UNLESS "for him/ Some other able, and as willing, pay/ The rigid
> satisfaction, death for death./ Say, heavenly powers, where shall we find
> such
> love,/ Which of you will be mortal to redeem/ Man's mortal crime, and just
> the
> unjust to save:/ Dwells in all heaven charity so dear?" (lines 210-16)
>
> And here of course is where the Son volunteers to die for Man, saying
> (241ff):
> "On me let Death wreak all his rage;/Under his gloomy power I shall not
> long/
> Lie vanquished..../ But I shall rise victorious, and subdue/ My vanquisher,
> spoiled of his vaunted spoil;/ Death his death's wound shall then receive,
> and
> stoop/ Inglorious,/ Of his mortal sting disarmed..../ While by thee raised
> I
> ruin all my foes,/ Death last, and with his carcass glut the grave."
>
> You do notice that Milton here personifies (OOOH, Allegory, that serpent of
> the
> Nile, rears its ghastly head!!!) Death, gives him a "sting" that is the
> same
> one he held in Book Two?  And if you would like to see where Milton found
> Death
> with a sting, and found him and Sin personified, you might want to read
> Paul's
> Epistle to the Romans, especially for instance Chapter 5, verses 12 etc.
>
>
> Quoting "Richard A. Strier" <rastrier at uchicago.edu<mailto:
> rastrier at uchicago.edu>>:
>
> SUPPOSEDLY KNOCK-DOWN POINT:  "not JUST granting humans "forgiveness" but
> redeeming them from Death."
>
> It's not clear to me that these are different.  What else could divine
> forgiveness mean?
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:
> milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu>
> [milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu] on behalf of srevard at siue.edu
> <mailto:srevard at siue.edu>
> [srevard at siue.edu]
> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 7:11 PM
> To: John Milton Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Bk 3
>
> Aieee!  you not only stepped in it, but as Molly Bloom said of a somewhat
> different activity, "up to the neck almost"!
>
> I think if you go back and READ the dialogue between Father and Son (which
> I
> have just done), you will see that the issue is not JUST granting humans
> "forgiveness" but redeeming them from Death, which is what the Son steps up
> to
> do by suffering death for them. Let fellow listers correct me if I am
> wrong,
> but this, I think, is hardly sham Christian; I think it is doctrine shared
> by
> Puritans and Catholics, Laudians and Calvinists. God does explain this
> quite
> clearly and the Son echoes and amplifies it (and incidentally, that other
> lion
> named Aslan illustrates how it works, if you want to reread the Narnia
> stories
> where C. S. Lewis invents another female version of Sin). Milton draws here
> on,
> among other narrative traditions, the Harrowing of Hell, a story that
> quivers
> within the Sin/Death/Satan episode but is not "realized" until God and the
> Son
> explicitly evoke it.
>
>
> Quoting "Richard A. Strier" <rastrier at uchicago.edu<mailto:
> rastrier at uchicago.edu>>:
>
> OK, now I'll really step in it.
>
> About Book 3:  as far as I can tell, the Son's offer to bear death, etc,
> is
> completely unnecessary to Milton's conception (further proof of how far
> he
> is/was from traditional, normal Christianity).  It's all a sham, and
> another
> case (like moments that sound Calvinist) of M trying to appear/sound
> orthodox.  Here's why it's a sham:  Milton has already, at the very
> beginning
> of Bk 3, had God the Father (the only real God) explain that He intends
> to
> forgive man's fall on purely moral/philosophical grounds -- man was
> misled
> by
> another -- and contrasting this with Satan's fall, which He will not
> forgive.
> No further mechanism or explanation for man's forgiveness is needed.
> And
> it's all decided  on that basis.  Already.
>
> It seems to me that the normal reading of Bks 2 and 3 in this regard has
> it
> backwards -- Satan's heroism is real (he really doesn't know what's going
> to
> happen), while the Son's is totally superfluous.  I'm not saying that
> Satan
> doesn't indulge in some manipulation and theatrics, but that he his doing
> something that, from the point of view of the fallen angels, really
> can't/won't be done otherwise.  But this is less important than the point
> above.  And I'm not saying that M doesn't get some of the normal
> experience
> of Christianity from the episode, just that it is not actually needed for
> his
> story and his overall position.
>
> Coeur de Lion
>
> ________________________________________
> From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:
> milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu>
> [milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu] on behalf of srevard at siue.edu
> <mailto:srevard at siue.edu>
> [srevard at siue.edu]
> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 3:41 PM
> To: John Milton Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] oops, I forgot one
>
> Well asked, Alan. For instance, how about Hypocrisy, who shows up when
> Satan
> is
> disguising himself as a stripling angel in order to bamboozle Uriel?
>
> Does everyone agree that Milton carefully placed the Death/Sin/Satan
> drama
> near
> the end of Book II in order to set up the opening of Book III, the poem's
> doctrinal center in which the dramatic encounter of God and Son so
> precisely
> and on so many levels contrastingly parallels that between Satan and
> Death?
>
> Quoting alan horn <alanshorn at gmail.com<mailto:alanshorn at gmail.com>>:
>
> Is all the figurative language to be stripped from the poem or just
> this
> one episode?
>
> I want to second Jim R’s suggestion to look back at Harold Skulsky’s
> series
> of posts from a couple of years ago explaining the genre and function
> of
> the passage in question and citing precedents in classical epic for
> Milton’s use of this convention.
>
> Alan Horn
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> SIUE Web Mail
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> SIUE Web Mail
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> SIUE Web Mail
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> SIUE Web Mail
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 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/
>
>
>
> --
> James Dougal Fleming
> Associate Professor
> Department of English
> Simon Fraser University
> 778-782-4713
>
> "Upstairs was a room for travelers. ‘You know, I shall take it for the
> rest of my life,’ Vasili Ivanovich is reported to have said as soon as he
> had entered it."
> -- Vladimir Nabokov, *Cloud, Castle, Lake*
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131031/7a07dae0/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Milton-L mailing list