[Milton-L] on not imagining in paradise lost

Tony Demarest tonydemarest at hotmail.com
Fri Apr 4 16:31:44 EDT 2014


Dear All-
I have been attending this discussion since it began- and I will miss the immediacy of this list as I am retiring in May in my 48th year of education. Having been literally raised by Jesuits, I began to question and doubt after my first year of HS- my introduction to PL was in senior year at Regis HS with frequent revisits in University and grad school- though none of the teachers and/or professors ever tried to "explicate" PL, I have always felt that for Milton, the whole tree thing was a prop in the more significant drama of exercising free will- a gift from the Father that Milton, I think, (like Dante) believed that it was a more profound gift than even the immortal soul. So, I think and have believed that had the tree (and its accompanying prohibition) not been in Genesis, Milton might have used another prop- after all- as humans we have a tendency to disobey at times of such prohibition- I know my 3 sons turned disobedience into a competition (my thanks to Carol for reminding us parents)- and her analogy is apt because A&E are still genuine children- even given their ability to understand complex issues.
Tony

From: cbartonphd1 at verizon.net
To: milton-l at lists.richmond.edu
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 16:11:42 -0400
Subject: Re: [Milton-L] on not imagining in paradise lost






A little less frivolously:
 
I think what might be getting in our way, on the subject 
of the specific identity of the forbidden Fruit, is that for Milton, the poem is 
not about the malus--it's about "Man's First Disobedience" (emphasis on 
the disobedience). When we had a discussion similar to this some time 
ago, I made the "one Easie prohibition" analogous to a parent telling his or her 
16 year-old that she was not to date a man of 25: you don't want to have to 
explain to her why you're commanding her not to do it, and you don't 
want to argue with her about whether your proscription is fair or 
reasonable--you just want her to trust your judgment, and your love for her, and 
obey.
 
I think it might have been Fish who argued that God's 
commandment was purposefully arbitrary--why this one fruit, out of all the 
things that grew in abundance in the Garden? Those of you who are parents know 
the answer to that one: "Because I said so!"  The point is that 
Adam and Eve had free access to anything they pleased, with that one 
exception--they didn't need it, they didn't have any reason (until Satan put 
ideas in Eve's head) to want it, and they certainly could have foregone it 
without disrupting their happy life in any way. What matters is not what they 
ate (except that it was the one thing that God asked them not to touch), but 
that they broke that "one Easie prohibition." If we focus on the Fruit, we can't 
see the forest for the tree: there are no Trees of Knowledge or Trees of Life in 
our fallen world, so to speculate what it looked like or what kind of fruit it 
bore is a foolish, idle fancy of the kind that Raphael specifically warns Adam 
against when he wants to know how angels have sex. Think about things that are 
important (how to be obedient) not things you can't possibly know, that wouldn't 
be useful to you even if you did find them out.
 
Best to all,
 
Carol Barton
 

_______________________________________________
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/20140404/8dcadc43/attachment.html>


More information about the Milton-L mailing list