Classics and the Western Canon discussion

The earlier book discussions can of course continue, but it's time to open up Book 4 for discussion.

Satan arrives in Eden, and we get our first look at Adam and Eve at home, as it were. What do people think of the way in which Milton presents the founders of the human race?

Francis Hayman depicts Satan's envy at their blissful state:
http://www.paradiselost.org/img/22h-z...
And Hoet the same
http://www.paradiselost.org/img/1-h.html
and John Martin also the same
http://www.paradiselost.org/img/22-ma...

William Blake depicted Satan's envy of Adam and Eve too:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:But...

Milton's vision here owes a lot to Greek mythology and reminds me of the 'beautiful meadow' of Homer's (and Plato's) Elysium fields, where the Immortals and their relatives live and 'where life is easiest for men/ No snow is there, nor heavy storm, nor ever rain..' Ambrosia was the food of the gods [219:] and the Hesperian gardens [250:] are where the legendary golden apples mentioned by Ovid grow. There are several references to Ovid's Metamorphoses, including the legend of Hyacinth, who is associated with resurrection.

'Pandora' [712:] and 'O! too like in sad event, when to the unwiser son/Of Japhet brought by Hermes/she ensnared/Mankind with her fair looks to be avenged/on him who had stole Jove's authentic fire.' [713-17:] are very ominous references.

There is another reference to Mount Niphates here (Assyrian mount, 125), so again to Mount Ararat, Moses, the Flood etc.

Asmodeus [166:] is another reference to the Book of Tobit (I have a Jewish son-in-law called Tobit:)).

Satan pauses at the edge of Paradise and delivers a soliloquy. He is not overcoming any obstacle here, not leading the demons in Hell, not forging his way through Chaos, and he has a moment to reflect. For the first time he seems to admit to himself that his fight against God is doomed, that he is miserable and can only get more miserable by continuing to rebel. Yet he seems to positively argue himelf into continuing. His final argument is that if he repented and was forgiven he would only grow impatient and rebel again. It seems he is perversely willing himself to embrace hopelessness and misery. This is perhaps a corrupt will actively choosing evil.

Yes Roger. I was struck by both of Satan's soliloquies in this book. It reminded me of both Richard III and Iago, who lie whenever they are speaking to others, but reveal themselves when they speak to the audience.

Roger wrote: "Satan pauses at the edge of Paradise and delivers a soliloquy. He is not overcoming any obstacle here, not leading the demons in Hell, not forgin his way through Chaos, and he has a moment to refl..."

Beautifully put, Roger.

Zeke wrote: "Yes Roger. I was struck by both of Satan's soliloquies in this book. It reminded me of both Richard III and Iago, who lie whenever they are speaking to others, but reveal themselves when they speak..."

Good point!

Amanda I found an interesting article on the internet called The Ethics of Gender in Milton's Paradise Lost but it's in pdf format:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=...

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid...

lol I hope this one is the English version...I'm not sure why the Spanish version posted earlier...

I am having a very difficult time taking this as a purely Biblical epic. There is so much of ancient Greco-Roman myth interspersed throughout...

For example:

...
The trembling leaves, while Universal Pan
Knit with the Graces and the Hours in dance
Led on th' Eternal Spring. Not that faire field
of Enna, where Proserpin gathring flours
Her self a fairer Floure by gloomie Dis
was gathered, which cost Ceres all that pain
To seek her through the world; nt that sweet Grove
Of Daphne by Orontes, and th' inspir'd
Castalian Spring might with this Paradise
of Eden strive; nor that Nyseian Ile
Girt with the River Triton, where old Cham,
Whom Gentiles Ammon call and Libian Jove,
Hid Amalthea and her Florid Son
Young Bacchus from his Stepdame Rhea's eye;
Nor where Abassin Kings their issue Guard,
Mount Amara, through this by som suppos'd
True Paradise under the Ethiop Line
By Nilus head, enclos'd with shining Rock,
A whole days journey high, but wide remote
From this Assyrian Garden, where the Fiend
Saw undelighted all delight, all kind
Of living Creatures new to sight and strange:
...

Dianna wrote: "I am having a very difficult time taking this as a purely Biblical epic. There is so much of ancient Greco-Roman myth interspersed throughout...

For example:

...
The trembling leaves, while..."

Exactly, Dianna. Milton is going to "soar above the Aonian mount" and pursue "things unattempted yet in prose or rhyme." To say that he has to be confident that he knows what has already been done in prose and rhyme. He is incorporating things drawn from all of human literature, because he sees all of it as a part of the grand plan of God.

That sounds corny, doesn't it, but I'm too tired now to try to express it better.

But, with some sympathy to Dianna's confusion, he is doing this by a lot of time-shifting. At one point he is describing pre-history, at another using references to what will happen long after his narrative has ended. I am not criticizing this, but, like Dianna, I find it a bit disorienting.

Zeke wrote: "But, with some sympathy to Dianna's confusion, he is doing this by a lot of time-shifting. At one point he is describing pre-history, at another using references to what will happen long after his ..."

It certainly is disorienting. One almost has to know the end from the beginning to keep it all straight.

Dianna wrote: "I am having a very difficult time taking this as a purely Biblical epic. There is so much of ancient Greco-Roman myth interspersed throughout..."

Milton was one of the best read, perhaps the best read, man of his generation, and one of the best of all time. His vision was epic in many ways. Certainly he brought in many references from all the classical reading which educated men of his age knew. We have to recall, first, that most of his educated readers had also been educated in the Greek and Latin classics as well as the Bible, and these references which are obscure to many of us today were mostly very familiar to his readers.

Yes, this is a much richer work than "just" Biblical.

I expect those who have been involved in the American Great Books/Great Conversation can get to grips with Milton's many references better than most. I had a semi-classical education at an old fashioned English grammar school myself so not only read Milton but most of the major works he references. Some of these works, including Milton, are still part of English education today and I have been happy to see my grandchildren embarking upon such studies.

Amanda wrote: "What does everyone think of Eve's speeches in Book IV? She's awfully deferential to Adam- which isn't actually in the Bible anywhere. Based on Milton's description of the pair, why does Satan go af..."

This is a great question. Satan's method is always subversive -- he can't defeat God directly, so he attacks God's loved ones on earth. Maybe a parallel situation can be drawn to explain why he goes after Eve. Milton clearly believes that Adam is the stronger of the two, and more directly aligned with God:

He for God only, she for God in him:
His fair large front and eye sublime declared
Absolute rule;

So maybe it just an opportunistic thing -- he may not be able to corrupt Adam, but he can get to him through Eve.

In #7 Amanda asks what people think about Eve and her deference to Adam. The gender relations in the society that is Eden may be even more difficult than the poem's theology for modern readers. Certainly, there are plenty of wince inducing passages.

For me, it is inescapable that Milton views Adam as closer to God than Eve, and that he takes St. Paul's views on marriage as appropriate. I'm not sure there is much to be gained from getting into a feminist argument with him.

However, as I have been thinking about Amanda's comment, a couple of subtleties occur to me.

First of all, Milton adores Eve--at least at this point of the poem. I don't know what comes later, but there is not a hint of blame or resentment directed towards her. We should remember that Milton is very aware of his own fallen nature. He seems to portray Eve as the mother of us all.

Second, she chooses, and delights in, her submission to Adam. She even feels that she is the more fortunate of the two, since Adam doesn't have the opportunity for a companion as wonderful as hers. She offers her reverence and obedience in the same glad spirit that we are urged to give ours to God.

Third, much is made of the "wildness" and "naturalness" of Eden. (Rodgers goes on a bit too much about Adam and Eve's hairstyles, but the point is a valid one.) There is no artifice in Eden. But, as Rodgers more helpfully points out, Eden is the opposite of Hobbes' state of nature where life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." It is "natural" here as the descriptions point out, but it is also a society; light as the burden is, obedience to authority is the glue that holds it together.

Our first parents' lives not only need not be short; they can live forever. And they will populate the earth through sexual intercourse. But it is coitus unique in history. After the fall, shame becomes part of human consciousness. The sexual act is compared to a rite and, like many rites, has an element of the magical and mysterious about it. There is no need to think that Eve is coerced or reluctant in any way.

And so, in post coital harmony, they sleep. Milton is quite clear that while Adam is Eve's better, they are equally blessed:

Sleep on
Blest pair; and O yet happiest if ye seek
No happier state, and know to know no more.

Of course, that wonderful last line with its puns, also offers food for discussion. But that will have to wait for another day.

Amanda wrote: "From a Biblical perspective, I've heard it said that Satan went for Eve because she had influence over Adam, while the other way around isn't necessarily true. The Bible says it wasn't good for man..."

The stronger/weaker dichotomy does get a bit bristly, and Milton does not use those terms, that I can recall anyway. But it is clear that Eve does submit to Adam, that Satan witnesses this and is envious of their blissful state, and that he vows not to forget what he has learned from this. He has observed their natures and will use that to his best advantage.

It might also be worth noting that Milton is drawing on 1 Corinthians 11 in the passage I quoted above. I'm not sure if that is helpful with regard to Satan's motives though.

Thomas, Zeke, and Amanda (and others) I'm just listening at the door in awe. What a great group to read this poem with!

The Archangel:

The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heaven. (1.254)

Satan:

Which way I fly is Hell; myself am Hell;
And in the lowest deep a lower deep
Still threat'ning to devour me opens wide
To which the Hell I suffer seems a Heaven. (4.75)

Edgar:

....................................the worst is not
So long as we can say 'This is the worst.'
(King Lear 4.1)

Roger wrote: "Satan pauses at the edge of Paradise and delivers a soliloquy. He is not overcoming any obstacle here, not leading the demons in Hell, not forging his way through Chaos, and he has a moment to ref..."

You're absolutely right, Roger, this is a very revealing private musing by Satan. It's an amazing speech for Milton to have created for him.

There is a very Puritan ring to that "till pride and worse ambition threw me down." [40:]

And there's a telling parallel between God in Book 3 saying that he created man able to resist Satan, and Satan's saying in Book 4 at 42
"...he deserved no such return
From me, whom he created what I was
In that bright eminence..."

God created both Man and Satan, and both His creations chose to rebel against Him. What does this say of God's process of creation? And if he foresaw that Man was going to eat of the forbidden tree, so much also he must have seen that Satan and a host of angels would rebel, mustn't he?

Amanda wrote: "What does everyone think of Eve's speeches in Book IV? She's awfully deferential to Adam- which isn't actually in the Bible anywhere. Based on Milton's description of the pair, why does Satan go af..."

Milton was, of course, very much a product of his time and its gender attitudes. Isn't this deference very much what Milton's contemporary readers (almost all male; not many women were sufficiently educated in his day to have read something as complex as Paradise Lost) would have envisioned the Perfect Woman?

There's something coming down the road that will set your teeth even more on edge, but I won't spoil it until we get there.

I love the lines, at 18,
"...horror and doubt distract
His troubled thoughts, and from the bottom stir
The hell within him, for within him hell
He brings..."

Hell is thus, for Milton, not merely the physical place of punishment, but is within him; he brings hell with him in his thoughts wherever he goes. It's a concept of hell that perhaps is somewhat different from that of many Christians.

Zeke wrote: "Yes Roger. I was struck by both of Satan's soliloquies in this book. It reminded me of both Richard III and Iago, who lie whenever they are speaking to others, but reveal themselves when they speak..."

Excellent observation Zeke!

Everyman wrote: "I love the lines, at 18,
"...horror and doubt distract
His troubled thoughts, and from the bottom stir
The hell within him, for within him hell
He brings..."

Hell is thus, for Milton, not merely t..."


Yes, this was heresy in the 17C and is a reiteration of 'The mind is its own place, and in itself/Can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven' in Book I:254-5. The poet John Donne, a contemporary of Milton's, expressed similar thoughts (both attended Christ's College, Cambridge, which may be significant). We are used to the idea of heaven and hell residing only within us but it was a revolutionary one in Milton's day

As a child I believed in a literal heaven and hell, and was terrified by the prospect. After much reflection I concluded that at the moment before dying a person has a flash of insight into what their life had amounted to. And this last conscious awareness would be either ecstatic (heaven) or tormented (hell).

No one would have described me as a care free child!

I was taught to believe in a literal heaven and hell but I don't believe in hell for sure and I believe that if we live on after we die it is in some spiritual form and not physically.

Have you seen the movie What Dreams May Come with Robin Williams? I think that is a great movie that sort of symbolically describes the metaphysical aspects of death. I hope we aren't too much in dangerous territory here because I know there are people here who do still believe in literal heaven and hell and I try to respect everyone's belief. I just can't correlate a loving god with hell.

I am sorry if that is what my belief implies Amanda.

lol well I am blunt sometimes but I do try to make it clear that I am open minded. I don't intend to offend but I often do anyway.

I just want to say I think everyone has done a great job of being open and respectful of the differing religious (and irreligious) viewpoints that we all bring to the table. Given the subject matter, that is one heck of an accomplishment. Kudos to everyone here.

I agree with all the comments about not wanting to cast any aspersions on the beliefs of others. I posted my little childhood anecdote because the quotations I cited in #21 reminded me of it.

Clearly, Milton is --at a minimum--speculating about a metaphysical heaven and hell. I would like to understand his "monism" better. At times it sounds not unlike the New England transcendentalists a couple of centuries later.

Amanda wrote: "What was popular opinion about Milton?..."

The readers and buyers of his books were probably more educated but he also wrote many pamphlets over a period of 20 years, which were widely read amongst the general public who had become accustomed to reading following the printing of the of the Geneva Bible in 1560, the Bishop's Bible in 1568 and the King James' in 1611.

Milton was very famous in his day but whether or not he was popular is difficult to say because he was a stern, 'puritanical' man which perhaps does not lend itself to popularity. Respect may be a better word.

He lived at a time when religious and political ideas of all kinds were being questioned - every other person was a 'Dissenter', so heresy was probably more common than it was in the previous decades when heretics were burned at the stake. Under the first Cromwellian Parliaments there was a fair amount of religious toleration but later, as the revolution began to fail and the Restoration loomed, intolerance reared its head again and Milton, of course, became a fugitive once this happened, although his fame ultimately protected him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_...

One of his famous quotes about heresy is: A man may be a heretic in the truth; and if he believes things only because his pastor says so, or the assembly so determines, without knowing any other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds may become his heresy.'

Amanda wrote: In that vein, I'm interested in the idea that Milton was a heretic. As a political outcast when he wrote PL, and now as a religious outsider, how would the general population of England view him? Did they even know who he was, since most people (I'm assuming) weren't educated?

I think people have been using the word 'heretic' quite loosely. Heretic to what group?

Addenda: Good, Madge. You just cleared up part of what I was concerned about.

Laurele wrote: "I think people have been using the word 'heretic' quite loosely. Heretic to what group?
"

Excellent point. What is true belief to some is heresy to others. Perhaps it's not a word we should use here unless we are using it specifically to refer to Milton, and then to be clear who we contend considered him a heretic.

Also, thanks to those who kept the discussion of personal views of hell from getting into issues of whether some of us are "right" or "wrong." It's entirely natural that PL would raise some of those issues as we all work through not only what Milton meant but also how the work applies to our own lives, which is after all one of the main points of reading the classics. We just need to keep doing this in a way which is sensitive to very differing views and which openly welcomes all participants whatever their beliefs.

Surely we are being unnecessarily sensitive here? Heresies are 'beliefs or practices contrary to the orthodox doctrine of the Christian church' (OEED). We are discussing John Milton's Paradise Lost, which was conceived/written at a time when there was religious turmoil in England, when being a heretic could cost you your life, your job or your reputation. The orthodox doctrine at this period was that of the Protestant Church of England under Charles I and Archbishop Laud. Those, like Milton, who fought on the side of Cromwell against the 'divine' king, and therefore against the established church, were considered heretics. To the catholics, of whom there were still a goodly number, the CofE was a heresy from the time it was established under Henry VIII in 1534 but catholics had not been the established church since the reign of Bloody Mary (1553-1558) so had no power. The CofE at this time, under Laud, had reintroduced a number of catholic rites, like communion, with its belief in transubstantiation:

http://www.allsands.com/religious/new...

These rites were considered heresies to those on the Puritan side who had grown up under the strict Protestantism of James I, when heretics were burned at the stake. Laud and the King were accused of 'popery' and this was what caused the Civil War. At the time Laud was ordained the Calvinists were strong in the CofE (and in the country at large) and they believed in pre-destination and the Trinity - those who opposed these beliefs (and believed in transubstantiation) were considered heretics by the Calvinists.

Because these were extremely sensitive, life threatening issues, much writing about them was in 'code', which is one of the reasons that poetry was popular. As we have seen, much of Milton's writing is obscure and arguments have raged from his time to ours as to whether he believed in predestination or not, whether he believed in the Trinity or not etc and scholars are still writing about it. What we do know for certain is that he did not believe in the Divine Right of Kings and this in itself was the heresy which enabled a large part of the population of England and Scotland to revolt against the King and the Church of England, of which he was the head with Laud as his Archbishop. We also know that Milton was strongly anti-catholic and so was a heretic in catholic eyes, including the crypto-catholic Stuarts.

These are not life threatening issues for us and it seems to me that we should value the freedom we have gained to speak freely about such matters, whether or not WE believe in the Divine Right of Kings, in heaven or hell, in free will or predestination, in The Trinity, in transubstantiation etc. If not, those who have given their lives for religious freedom have given them in vain.

Madge,
I'd always thought that the Puritans and Cromwell were a minority of the population, but that they held control of the military and the parliament which allowed them to govern. Your second paragraph implies that they were, at least initially, more popular than that. My sense of British history is entirely superficial so I have no idea where I got this idea, but which is correct?

It was a popular revolution, in which ordinary people joined, which is why they won so decisively. Cromwell was a Puritan and the New Model Army had heavy contingents of Puritans and those holding Calvinist beliefs. However, once the central control of the CofE was diminished, these majority groups began to break down into 'Dissenters' of various kinds. (Milton's fallen angels.) As you will see from this link (which I also gave above), they were many and varied:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_...

Cromwell's Puritans tried to keep control, and various Dissenters were represented in Parliament but eventually there were so many schisms and disputes within the ruling elite that the need for a more stable government became essential. That enabled the Royalists who had supported the King and Laud to regain their hold and restablish the Church of England under the Restoration. They were helped by the less radical Dissenters.

I think our views of this period have been very much influenced by books and films which show the Royalists as romantic Cavaliers, with their velvet cloaks and plumed hats, and Roundheads as stern, unromantic men in armour or grey/black clothing:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bur...

The deeply felt religious issues, especially those surrounding the Divine Right of Kings and the catholic rites imposed by Laud, tend to be overlooked in such representations. The preceding Bishop's War and Wars of the Three Kingdoms over Charles' 'Personal' rule were the outcome of tensions between the King and the people over religious and civil issues. They laid the ground for the popularity of the Civil War.

What we are seeing here is the emergence of a Right and a Left in politics, for England the beginning of the Whigs (Liberals) and Tories (Conservatives). The Left were descendants of the supporters of the Revolution/Protestant Nonconformism and the Right were descendants of the supporters of the King/(High) Church of England. In turn this became a divide between the working people ('Labour') and the aristocracy. Historians still tend to divide along these lines, as I have explained previously.

It was a popular revolution, in which ordinary people joined, which is why they won so decisively. Cromwell was a Puritan and the New Model Army had heavy contingents of Puritans and those holding Calvinist beliefs. However, once the central control of the CofE had diminished, these majority groups began to break down into 'Dissenters' of various kinds. As you will see from this link (which I also gave above), they were many and varied:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_...

Cromwell's Puritans tried to keep control, and various Dissenters were represented in several different Parliaments but eventually there were so many schisms and disputes within the ruling elite that the need for more stable government became essential. That enabled the Royalists who had supported the King and Laud to regain their hold and restablish the Church of England under the Restoration. They were helped by the less radical Dissenters.

I think our views of this period have been very much influenced by books and films which show the Royalists as romantic Cavaliers, with their velvet cloaks and plumed hats, and Roundheads as stern, unromantic men in armour or grey/black clothing:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bur...

The deeply felt religious issues, especially those surrounding the Divine Right of Kings and the catholic rites imposed by Laud, tend to be overlooked in such representations. The preceding Bishop's Wars and Wars of the Three Kingdoms over Charles' 'Personal' (tyrannical) rule were the outcome of tensions between the King and the people over religious and civil issues and they laid the ground for the popularity of the Civil War.

What we are seeing here is the emergence of a Right and a Left in politics, for England the beginning of the Whigs (Liberals) and Tories (Conservatives). The Left were descendants of the supporters of the Revolution/Protestant Nonconformism and the Right were descendants of the supporters of the King/(High) Church of England. As Blake commented, Milton was 'of the Devil's Party' - liberal. Eventually, this became a divide between the working people ('Labour') and the landed gentry. Historians still tend to divide along these lines, as I have explained previously, and we need to realise this when reading about the period.

To get back to Book 3: The Dartmouth website makes a pertinent point about Milton and Calvinism in III:190 'pray, repent, and bring obedience due', where they say:-

'See the culmination of this in X:1081-1096. Compare to Calvin's sense of human beings as totally incapable of right action (Institutes 3:22.1-3. Perhaps Milton has the Father repeat the point to emphasise this departure from the strict Calvinism typical of his republican associates from the 1640s and 50s.'

On another tack...I find it interesting that Milton writes of 'th'Ecliptic', Ptolemaic view of the cosmos, considering that he actually met Galileo and had learned of Copernicus' theory at Cambridge. Presumably this was because the more 'modern' views had not filtered through to the people who would be his readers. There is another Ptolemaic reference in L482 'And that crystalline sphere whose balance weighs'/the tripidation talked and that first moved;'. Dartmouth comments that Libra, symbolised by the balance, was located in one of the 55 crystalline spheres of Ptolemaic cosmology. In Ptolemaic cosmology, this balance was said to measure the trepidation, or irregular motion, in the sphere. Traditional cosmologists committed to the Ptolemaic model spoke much about 'trepidation' as a way of accounting for otherwise unaccounted for celestial motions...'

In lines 574-75 Milton writes that it is 'hard to tell' whether to believe in either Ptolemaic or Copernican science. Whether this is his own view or whether he is sympathising with his future readers it is equally 'hard to tell':).

We have now seen Milton's view of what Paradise for humans would have been like. How does it strike you?

Several things struck me.

I suspect that many of the women on this board will, as was previously noted, not be excited about the subservient role of women. But I also consider that Adam and Eve were basically teenagers at the time, still being new in their sexuality and working out their relationship, and the way Eve relates to Adam is the way I see many teenage girls relating to boys. Not all, certainly, and maybe not our children, who we have raised to be more independent, but many. Is Milton reflecting something that is more universal than we today would like to admit?

On another note, although Genesis suggests that one consequence of being expelled from Paradise is that man shall earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, we see Adam and Eve doing work, albeit perhaps not of a very sweaty level, in their garden. But he sees them having work to do even before the fall.

Knowing what I know now, I'm not sure that their Paradise would be very much a paradise for me. No books. No Bach or Mozart. No Keemun tea. Nobody but Eve to talk to. I suppose if I had never known any of those things I wouldn't miss them, but I do, so I would.

I haven't been able to work out Milton's cosmos (some of it seems Ptolemaic, some of it ancient Greek, some of it biblical) but however it all works it is definitely ordered. Milton takes great pains to show that the universe operates by virtue of divine law, whatever that may be. I think that this extends to Adam and Eve's relationship as well. "Subservience" was not a derogatory thing, it was necessary for the harmony of the relationship. Eve's submission is a demonstration of natural harmony; Satan's "non serviam" is an attempt to subvert it.

I'm curious about the science in PL because it is at least partly this that I think about when Satan says "Knowledge forbidden? Suspicious, reasonless. Why should their Lord envy them that? Can it be sin to know, Can it be death?" I wonder if there is something besides God's injunction against it that it is inherently dangerous about knowledge.

Everyman: We have now seen Milton's view of what Paradise for humans would have been like. How does it strike you?

Milton's heaven seems a pretty dull place to me. It's interesting that the glories of heaven are not described anywhere near as vividly as the horrors of hell.

I recall reading a story by Julian Barnes in which a character finally receives his heavenly reward and finds himself bored to death. I believe it was in a collection call A History of the World in 9 1/2 Chapters, but I could be mistaken.

What do folks think of Satan's second soliloquy. I feel he is still speaking honestly here, but he also reveals the depth of his depravity. Basically, if I read it correctly, he claims he could love Adam and Eve, seeks common cause with these Godly creations, and blames God for his problems.

This reminded me of one of the most audacious scenes in all of Shakespeare: Act 1 Scene 2 of Richard III. For those who may not know the play, Richard has killed Henry VI's son, Edward the Prince of Wales, and now, shortly after he is wooing Edward's widow, Lady Anne.

Could Milton have had this scene in mind as he conceived Satan's soliloquy?

A couple of the exchanges that make me speculate:

Duke of Gloucester. I know so. But, gentle Lady Anne,
To leave this keen encounter of our wits, 295
And fall somewhat into a slower method,
Is not the causer of the timeless deaths
Of these Plantagenets, Henry and Edward,
As blameful as the executioner?

Lady Anne. Thou art the cause, and most accursed effect. 300

Duke of Gloucester. Your beauty was the cause of that effect;
Your beauty: which did haunt me in my sleep
To undertake the death of all the world,
So I might live one hour in your sweet bosom.

.....
Lady Anne. It is a quarrel just and reasonable,
To be revenged on him that slew my husband.

Duke of Gloucester. He that bereft thee, lady, of thy husband,
Did it to help thee to a better husband.

Lady Anne. His better doth not breathe upon the earth. 320

Duke of Gloucester. He lives that loves thee better than he could.

Lady Anne. Name him.

Duke of Gloucester. Plantagenet.

Lady Anne. Why, that was he.

Duke of Gloucester. The selfsame name, but one of better nature. 325

Lady Anne. Where is he?

Duke of Gloucester. Here.

Amazingly, Richard succeeds and she marries him! Of course, Satan will also successfully seduce Eve.

Thomas wrote: "Eve's submission is a demonstration of natural harmony; Satan's "non serviam" is an attempt to subvert it."

Interesting point! That gives further meaning to "he for God, she for God in him."

Although God's universe is indeed ordered, as you say, there is also Chaos in the universe. It's in its place in the ordered universe, but Satan travels through it to get to Earth.

The symbolism in this poem just keeps emerging like those Russian matryoshka dolls, doesn't it?

Everyman wrote: "We have now seen Milton's view of what Paradise for humans would have been like. How does it strike you?

Several things struck me.

I suspect that many of the women on this board will, as was pr..."

Why do you suppose that Adam and Eve were teenagers Everyman? If sex was one of the things they were being forbidden doesn't this hint at adulthood and the possibility of having children etc? I see them as a grown man and woman and they always seem to have been portrayed as such. Milton is merely reflecting the views about women's subservience as they have come down through the ages, as reflected in the Bible and elsewhere. There was a glass ceiling in Heaven too.

Later, when Adam and Eve divide their labour they also metaphorically part from each other, setting apart 'that which God has joined together'. In Genesis they are always portrayed as embracing so the first stage of the Fall seems to me to be when that close embrace is destroyed by Eve's suggestion. Adam later acknowledges (as Marx would:):)) that there is strength in numbers:-

But other doubt possesses me, lest harm [IX:250-59]
Befall thee sever'd from me; for thou know'st
What has been warn'd us; what malicious Foe
Envying our happiness, and of his own
Despairing seeks to work us woe and shame...
His wish and best advantage, us asunder,
Hopeless to circumvent us join'd, where each
To other speedy aid might lend at need.'

I think that Milton is arguing, as with Mammon earlier, against the idea of love of material wealth. Productivity is a virtue but not if it is gained by selling ones soul to Satan. Milton might also have been espousing some of the ideas of the early Levellers/Diggers, proto-communists who believed land, produce and wealth should be shared.

Whatever makes you think that there would be no Keemun tea in heaven?! Surely God and the Angels drink it? Or no Bach - he was quite a good man, although Mozart probably wouldn't qualify. And surely there would be books too - except for naughty ones but I am sure you wouldn't read those anyway:).

Everyman wrote: "Thomas wrote: "Eve's submission is a demonstration of natural harmony; Satan's "non serviam" is an attempt to subvert it."

Interesting point! That gives further meaning to "he for God, she for Go..."

Not only is Eve's submission and subservience what people then (and some now!) thought was the correct role for women but it was also Milton's firmly held personal view, as when he has Eve say in IV:635-38: 'My author and disposer, what thou bidst unargued I obey; so God ordains, God is thy law, thou mine: to know no more is woman's happiest knowledge and her praise.' He is reported as saying as much to his first wife, from whom he sought divorce because of her 'disobedience'.

The difficulty which women have had in breaking 'the glass ceiling' has to some extent been because the idea of women's equality went against the grain of the Bible and was associated with Satan and The Fall. We have a lot to overcome girls - more bras need to be burned! :)

Why do you suppose that Adam and Eve were teenagers Everyman? If sex was one of the things they were being forbidden doesn't this hint at adulthood and the possibility of having children etc? I see them as a grown man and woman and they always seem to have been portrayed as such.

Lewis speaks to this point, noting that many people falsely associate Adam and Ev's innocence with childishness. He says that he wanted to patronize them himself, at first, but that Milton won't allow this.

The main point, to him, is not that they are young, but that they will never grow old.

However, Madge, I think you overstate two things.

First, unless it is a typo, you suggest they are forbidden to have sex. I think they clearly have sex and Milton goes to great pains to portray it as a mysterious and, presumably, holy ritual. As I noted earlier their coitus in the garden of Eden is presented as the unique example of sex with no shame in human history.

Second, Lewis asks us to imagine that our first parents had never fallen. In that case, we would see them as he thinks Milton intends them to be: not naive children, but the "great Father, Priest and Emperor of the Planet Tellus (Earth)." Yes, Eve prostrates herself in spirit to Adam, but "as an Emperor might kneel to a Pope, or a Queen curtsies to a King." Were we to travel to an unfallen Eden and see her, we "should very quickly learn what it is to speak to the 'universal Dame.' "

As a result of the Fall sex was made shameful, hence the fig leaf etc. or as Milton puts it in Book IX 1093-1100:

The parts of each from other, that seem most
To shame obnoxious, and unseemliest seen;
Some tree, whose broad smooth leaves together sewed,
And girded on our loins, may cover round
Those middle parts; that this new comer, Shame,
There sit not, and reproach us as unclean.
So counselled he, and both together went
Into the thickest wood; there soon they chose
The fig-tree;

If sex was part of 'the tree of knowledge/life' then weren't they forbidden it if they were told by God not to eat from it? Knowledge of sex was knowledge of how to create life themselves, which would usurp God's right - as presumably Satan knew.

I therefore cannot see it as a 'unique example of sex with no shame' since they had coitus after eating the apple and immediately afterwards they felt shame. Genesis 2 ends with 'they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed' but Genesis 3 introduces Satan, the apple, and shame: 'And the eyes of them both were opened and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.'

The Bible does not mention coitus but in PL IX 1034-1042 Milton has Adam 'of amorous intent' after eating the apple and 'Eve's eye darted contagious fire' so 'they had their fill of love and love's disport/Took largely of their mutual guilt the seal/The solace of their sin...'. (The first mention of coitus is in Genesis 4:1 when 'Adam knew his wife; and she conceived and bore Cain...'. This again equates knowledge with sex.)

Later Milton writes 'Bad fruit of knowledge, if this be to know;/Which leaves us naked thus, of honour void/Of innocence, of faith of purity.' (IX 1072-74)

In Genesis (after the eating of the apple): 'Unto the woman [God:] said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.' (Genesis 3) I see no Queen curtsying to a King as an equal here. I think Lewis is romanticising.

From my reading of the Paradise Lost story, Milton makes sex a natural part of the pre-fall life of Adam and Eve:

"Fair couple, linkt in happie nupital League,..."

"So spake our general Mother, and with eyes of conjugal attraction unreprov'd,
And meek surrender, half inbracing lend
On our first Father, helf her swelling Brest
Naked met his under the flowing Gold
Of her loose tresses hid: he in delight
Both of her Beauty and submissive Charms..."

"With Flowers, Garlands, and sweet smelling Herbs
Espoused Eve deckt first her Nupital Bed,
And heav'nly Quires the Hymenaean sung..."

"Handed they went; and eas'd the putting off
These troublesom disguises which wee wear,
Strait side by side were laid, nor turnd I weene
Adam from his fair Spouse, nor Eve the Rites
Mysterious of connubial Love refus'd:..."

"our maker bids increase, who bids abstain
But our destroyer, foe to God and Man?
Haile wedded Loe, mysterious Law, true sourse
Of human ofspring, sole proprietie,
In Paradise of all things common else...'

MadgeUK wrote: Why do you suppose that Adam and Eve were teenagers Everyman? If sex was one of the things they were being forbidden doesn't this hint at adulthood and the possibility of having children etc?

Where does it saw that they were forbidden sex?

I have explained above - if the notion of sex was 'contained' in the fruit of the tree of knowledge and they were forbidden that fruit, then it follows (to my mind) that they were forbidden sex). I was also assuming that because Milton had studied and written about St Augustine, that he was taking the Augustinian position on sex.

http://www.patriarchywebsite.com/bib-...

I was in general referring to the Biblical ideas about sex, not the Miltonian ones, and to Genesis 2/3 not the prelapsarian Fall (a word which isn't mentioned in the Bible) . Sorry to have confused everyone. As an atheist, I have a lot of difficulty coping with these ideas.

I find it romantic - fanciful - of both Lewis and Milton to talk about Adam and Eve's relationship before the Fall because these are just assumptions, there is no basis for these prelapsarian ideas, whereas Satan's temptation of Eve, the eating of the apple and the 'shame' which followed are in Genesis 3.

Nor can I get my head around the notion that they may have been ashamed of something which happened before the Fall since that time was supposed to be perfect.

I think I'll give up on this one:)>