[Milton-L] Revisionism and Civil Wars

Crystal L Bartolovich clbartol at syr.edu
Thu Oct 31 12:11:57 EDT 2013


I think that you might be thinking of the final chapter of Robert
Brenner's Merchants and Revolution, where he gives a lengthy critique of
revisionism?

On 10/31/13 12:02 PM, "milton-l-request at lists.richmond.edu"
<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: Revisionism and the British Civil Wars (Matthew Jordan)
>   2. Re: Bk 3 (J. Michael Gillum)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:00:35 +0000
>From: Matthew Jordan <matthewjorda at gmail.com>
>To: John Milton Discussion List <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Revisionism and the British Civil Wars
>Message-ID:
>	<CACjXXDr_Uv30dDEmgtrA_SHO2et_dKicbQLHG_kKniZarBT-3Q at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>I think one place this argument is made is in Richard Cust and Anne
>Hughes's Introduction, "After Revisionism," to the volume they edited
>called Conflict in Early Stuart England  (1989).
>
>Best
>
>Matt
>
>
>On 31 October 2013 15:39, Gregory Foran <gregory.foran at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear list members,
>>
>> I'm working on a brief lit review of the debate over the causes of the
>> British Civil Wars for an article and could use your help tracking down
>>a
>> reference. I recall reading somewhere an account of the "revisionist"
>> movement in Tudor/Stuart historiography in which it is pointed  out that
>> revisionists so strongly stated the case for broad ideological consensus
>> right up to the eve of conflict that they made it almost impossible to
>> imagine a civil war could have happened at all. Does this ring a bell
>>with
>> anyone?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Greg Foran
>> Assistant Professor
>> Dept. of English
>> Nazareth College
>> Rochester, NY
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20131031/4e78055
>0/attachment-0001.html>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:02:05 -0400
>From: "J. Michael Gillum" <mgillum at ret.unca.edu>
>To: John Milton Discussion List <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Bk 3
>Message-ID:
>	<CAAfO+0rMgQGGMfRLba-ipPG35s0=z-qisNeQBbS1NdQ0-Eh8-A at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
>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/20131031/7a07dae
>0/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 83, Issue 79
>****************************************




More information about the Milton-L mailing list