Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Man has fallen. Now what?

Now what, it turns out, is a whole lot of things. From Heaven to Earth to Chaos to Hell things are happening all over in rapid succession. The fall was like a stone falling into a lake from a height; it made a great splooch, but now we have to look at the waves it generated going out in all directions. The waves wash over not just Adam and Eve, but so many other places and characters.

And if all this is to be believed, it is still making one h*** of a splooch! :O

In light of what is to come, LOL at Everyman's choice to use watery metaphors here!

Whether I believe it or not, it is still making one h*** of a splooch Amanda:):):).

It is sad to think too, Zeke, that there is a terrible Flood taking place in Pakistan at the moment but no dove with an olive branch has yet made an appearance:(.

There have been some reports that a deluge did in fact take place in an area around the Black Sea which may have given rise to the story of Noah:

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1207/features/...

Many religions/cultures have stories of a catastrophic flood (the Epic of Gilgamesh, for instance) so it is more likely that these stories are an amalgamation of several of them. In time to come no doubt stories of the present flood in Pakistan will become part of an epic.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/noa...

I am moving to the tea room to respond Madge.

Amanda wrote: "I don't know if Milton was into the trinity or not, but he certainly seems to be ok with the idea that Jesus is God, at times."

I had the exact same thought as I was reading it. I made several marginal notes about that.

In addition to the lines you quoted, there is also 159ff when Adam and Eve are talking to Jesus,italics also mine:

"To whom sad Eve with shame nigh overwhelm'd,
Confessing soon, yet not before her Judge
Bold or loquacious, thus abasht repli'd.
The Serpent me beguil'd and I did eate.
Which when the Lord God heard, without delay
To Judgement he proceeded on th' accus'd..."

There's also 121ff:

"that thou art naked, who
Hath told thee? hast thou eaten of the Tree
Whereof I gave thee charge thou shouldst not eat? "

I? Wasn't it God who told them not to eat?

I agree with you that in this part of the poem Milton seems to make no distinction between God the Father and God the Son.

Zeke wrote: "In light of what is to come, LOL at Everyman's choice to use watery metaphors here!"

I wondered who would be first to pick up on that!

Oh my - here we go again!:O

In his lectures Rogers is fairly critical that Sin and Death are the only overtly allegorical characters in the epic. And he is derisive about their joint "public works" project, where they engineer a true highway across chaos.

I thought the allegory worked rather well, with their connection to Satan. however, I suppose, as a unique instance of allegory in the poem maybe it is incongruent. As for the highway, I took it as part satire, and no worse than many of the other things we're asked to believe happened.

Amanda wrote: "I don't know if Milton was into the trinity or not, but he certainly seems to be ok with the idea that Jesus is God, at times.

I also found Adam's thoughts about death really fascinating. He says he desires death:

"how gladly would I meet
Mortality my sentence, and be Earth
Insensible, how glad would lay me down
As in my Mother's lap?" lines 775-779"

The multiple God source is indicated in Hebrew as the use of Elohim, which is plural. Milton as a Hebrew master would have read it this way. Regardless of whether Milton includes the Holy Spirit, he at least clearly includes Christ and God as one in PL. Some of us have reason to believe that this indicates all three, but grammatically it refers to more than one.

As to the beautiful lines you quote, I wish to add the etymology of Adam's name to which Milton is referring. The etymological source of his name is essentially a reddish clay or earth, which is how he was formed. While it is true that there are alternative suggestions for the etymology, I suggest that it is this one to which Milton refers. It calls in mind the phrase, "ashes to ashes, dust to dust" which derives from Gen 3:19 of the KJV.
These lines by Milton are beautiful. After all, no other man could say that his mother was truly the earth from which he was formed.
In expressing this, I believe that Adam is suggesting that he no longer deserves the miracle of life which he was given. Returning to the earth would be, for him, a matter of justice, having failed God.
As to punishment, I wish to suggest, without much contextual evidence, that Milton believed that a proper definition of hell was being separated from God. Certainly Adam's words echo this kind of thinking.
One last point (and I mention this because I was kicked out of a religion class when I was young for mentioning it,) it seems cogent to point out that while God told Adam of the tree of knowledge, Eve got the knowledge second hand from Adam. Whether true or not, I have always felt that this exchange of information, coming from a far less glorious source, was key in Eve's decision to eat of the fruit of the tree.

I was wondering if anyone thought that when God "clothed Adam and Eve with skins" maybe he gave them a fleshly body when before maybe they were just spirits. I am trying to remember, did they eat and have other bodily functions before the fall or was it just the angels that had bodily functions? In that case the fleshly body would be the cause of death. I think I remember reading in this chapter how Adam thought he was going to be immediately to death but then he realized that the sentence would linger for a period of time.

My other question concerns the serpent. Why did God curse the serpent when Satan used that form as a disguise and it really wasn't the reptile itself that did anything wrong. I Know that in many other cultures outside the Western World the serpent is revered as having great wisdom.

Finally, Why does it say "sorrow by conception" when talking about Eve's punishment? I got a little confused by that because I thought the sorrow was meant for the birth process itself (pain and such).

These are my questions for the first few pages of Chapter Ten.

The Dartmouth link makes mention of Satan's exploration of the garden being an allegory for a critique of the European colonisation of the Americas. J M Evans in Milton's Imperial Epic suggests that the poem as a whole is a 're-enactment of many of the central events that took place during the conquest of the New World; the voyage of discovery. the initial encounter with naked innocents...the establishment of the colony, the search for gold, the cultivation of the land, the conversion of the natives, the dispossession of the indigenous population, the triumphant return home.' He sees the power struggle between God and Satan in terms of the 'ongoing contest between Spain and England for control of the New World'. He shows how Milton weaves both pro-colonial and anti-colonial narratives together so that, on the one hand, we can see the Spanish conquest as an example of a corrupt and power hungry adventurer [Satan who:] discovers the New World, enslaves its inhabitants, and takes possession of their land, and to to justify the English conquest, as someone who is a sly and treacherous [Native:] Indian who deceives a pair of honest planters and is subsequently punished by their vengeful sponsor'. Evans finds every kind of possible permutation of the 17C attitudes towards the colonial experience in PL.

There is no doubt that these colonial and anti-colonial arguments were raging during Milton's time and that they had a theological basis which was tied up with a pre-lapserian view of the world which supposed that explorers might have discovered another Eden where naked people were living in exotic landscapes, free of sin and temptation. Folks might like to browse through Chapter 2 (America as 'this nether Empire') and 4 ('this new happie race of men') of Evan's book, some of which is online:-

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aU...

This short extract of an article gives David Quint's opposing argument and also explains some of the theological arguments behind these ideas.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1316831

Dianna wrote: "I was wondering if anyone thought that when God "clothed Adam and Eve with skins" maybe he gave them a fleshly body when before maybe they were just spirits. I am trying to remember, did they eat ..."

In Book V, 433-450, I think it's clear that both Adam and Raphael are eating. Also, the prelapsarian Eve and Adam must be able to eat, for it was in that state that they ate the apple!

I don't know why the poor dumb serpent gets punished. It's in the Bible, so Milton had to include it, I guess. I think it would have beem better if Milton had given the beast some culpable cooperation to justify it though.

On the sorrow of conception, I think the meaning is that conception, itself a cause of joy, will now lead to pain and sorrow.

MadgeUK wrote: "The Dartmouth link makes mention of Satan's exploration of the garden being an allegory for a critique of the European colonisation of the Americas. J M Evans in Milton's Imperial Epic suggests tha..."

I say this is too clever by half. If Satan can equally well stand for the enslaving conquistador robbing the Indians, and the sneaky Indian robbing the peaceful settler, that seems to me to be excellent evidence that Milton never intended either.

Amanda--Unless I misread, Adam and Eve cover themselves with what we would call large banana leafs.

Dianna wrote: "I was wondering if anyone thought that when God "clothed Adam and Eve with skins" maybe he gave them a fleshly body when before maybe they were just spirits. "

That's an interesting possible interpretation, but do you think Milton would have intended it to be read that way? Not that we can't make our own reading of his work, but I think first we have to understand what he intended, and only then seek possible interpretations beyond that. (Actually, that's how I think any work of literature should be approached, personally.)

Dianna wrote: "I was wondering if anyone thought that when God "clothed Adam and Eve with skins" maybe he gave them a fleshly body when before maybe they were just spirits. I am trying to remember, did they eat ..."

Dianna wrote: "Finally, Why does it say "sorrow by conception" when talking about Eve's punishment? I got a little confused by that because I thought the sorrow was meant for the birth process itself (pain and such). "

Well, birth only comes after conception, so the sorrow now comes automatically with the conception, doesn't it? (Ignoring miscarriages.)

Amanda wrote: "I always though the being clothed with animals thing must have been sad for Adam and Eve, who have never (as far as we know) killed another living being.
"

And I don't want to think where Jesus got the skins from. Unresolved (to me) question: did animals die before the fall? If so, perhaps Adam and Eve did know more about death than has been suggested here. Or were animals, like A&E, exempt from death as long as they lived in Eden, and only became subject to death because of the Fall, which means that by eating A&E brought death not just to themselves but to the entire world.

But since Angels can't die, and Adam and Eve couldn't before the fall, why was Death born when he or she was? (I forget whether Milton gave Death a gender.)

Zeke wrote: "As for the highway, I took it as part satire, and no worse than many of the other things we're asked to believe happened. "

I didn't take it as satire, but as fulling Matthew where he writes "You can enter God's Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way." This seemed to me to be the creation of the broad way, since it is only needed after the fall, but now there needs to be a nice wide broad highway for those who can't make the narrow path up to heaven.

Natalie, I am sorry but I don't see the snake as a co-conspirator there but just a suitable candidate as judged by Milton's Satan.

Just as a side thought...I am glad Satan didn't use the Polar Bear because he would have been like Frosty the Snowman (out of his natural habitat). ;)

God curses the serpent in a curious way:

The Serpent me beguil'd and I did eate.

Which when the Lord God heard, without delay
To Judgement he proceeded on th' accus'd
Serpent though brute, unable to transferre [ 165 :]
The Guilt on him who made him instrument
Of mischief, and polluted from the end
Of his Creation; justly then accurst,
As vitiated in Nature: more to know
Concern'd not Man (since he no further knew) [ 170 :]
Nor alter'd his offence; yet God at last
To Satan first in sin his doom apply'd
Though in mysterious terms, judg'd as then best:
And on the Serpent thus his curse let fall.

I don't understand why God punishes the serpent here -- what does it mean that He is unable to "transfer the guilt"? Why not? He knows that Satan is ultimately responsible, but the poor serpent must stand in for him.

On the heels of this passage is the first time (if I'm not mistaken) that Jesus is mentioned by name in PL:

So spake this Oracle, then verifi'd
When Jesus son of Mary second Eve,
Saw Satan fall like Lightning down from Heav'n,
Prince of the Aire; then rising from his Grave [ 185 :]
Spoild Principalities and Powers, triumpht
In open shew, and with ascention bright
Captivity led captive through the Aire,
The Realm it self of Satan long usurpt,
Whom he shall tread at last under our feet; [ 190 :]
Eevn hee who now foretold his fatal bruise,
And to the Woman thus his Sentence turn'd.

Is this a parallel set up between the serpent, who must stand in for Satan, and Jesus, who stands in for Man? Is this what is going on here, or am I reading too much into this?

"Dianna wrote: "Why did God curse the serpent........"

The ancient symbolism of the serpent is that of deceit, perhaps because of its forked tongue. It is also connected with vindictivness. They represent both good and evil and are androgynous. There are also several mythologies where the serpent is found guarding a secret tree. These may be some of the reasons the serpent was chosen when Genesis was written.

Roger wrote: "I say this is too clever by half....."

Nevertheless, there are many commentators who have seen references in PL to the colonial expansion which was taking place at the time Milton was writing. As the other link shows, it was thought to have religious significance and it worried the Puritans. As it was part of the political scenario of the times Milton's political background makes it likely that he would comment upon it, just as he commented upon the outcome of the Civil War. The passage in PL 9 where Adam and Eve cover themselves has often been likened to Columbus' description in his journal of the Taino people: 'Such of late Columbus found th'American so girt/With feathered cincture, naked else and wild/Among the trees on Isles and woody Shores' (9:1115-19). Adam and Eve are earlier described as having 'native righteousness' in their nakedness (9:1055).

Four out of Five of Milton's references to a New World in PL are negative. In Book 10: 'Over this main [sea:] from Hell to that New World/Where Satan now prevails... In Book I Satan asks 'Whom shall we send in seach of this world..the dark unbottomed, infinite abyss... In Book IV: 'Of this New World at whose sight all the stars hide their diminished heads..' and in Book VII the New World is described as a 'Vast immeasurable abyss/Outrageous as the sea, dark, wasteful wild...'

Other famous writers have used a colonial theme in their work - Thomas More in Utopia, Shakespeare in The Tempest and Spenser in the Fairie Queen, so Milton had provenance.

Here is an interesting review of Evan's book showing some more analogies, and although I agree with the writer than he is 'stretching it a bit' in some instances, I do not think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. The review also mentions some other books on this topic:-

https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~cr...

Anyone else have any comments on this aspect of PL? Could these lines also be Milton's thoughts on the voyage from England to America, given his negativity about the New World:-

Then both from out Hell-gates, into the waste [10:282:]
Wide anarchy of Chaos, damp and dark,
Flew diverse; and with power (their power was great)
Hovering upon the waters, what they met
Solid or slimy, as in raging sea
Tost up and down, together crouded drove,
From each side shoaling towards the mouth of Hell;...
Came to the sea: and, over Hellespont
Bridging his way, Europe with Asia joined,
And scourged with many a stroke the indignant waves.
Now had they brought the work by wonderous art
Pontifical, a ridge of pendant rock,
Over the vexed abyss, following the track
Of Satan to the self-same place where he
First lighted from his wing, and landed safe
From out of Chaos, to the outside bare
Of this round world...

Is there any significance in Satan being called a 'great adventurer'{10:440) searching 'foreign worlds', voyaging the 'unreal, vast, unbounded deep/Of horrible confusion' {10:471-2)?

Thomas wrote: "God curses the serpent in a curious way:

The Serpent me beguil'd and I did eate.

Which when the Lord God heard, without delay
To Judgement he proceeded on th' accus'd
Serpent though brute, unable..."

I think the meaning is that it is the serpent who cannot "transferre/The Guilt on him who made him instrument/Of mischief" by accusing Satan, because he is "brute," i.e. unable to speak. But the serpent is "polluted from the end/Of his Creation" and "vitiated in Nature" by the Satanic possession, albeit unwillingly, and therefore "justly . . . accurst." Milton realizes that this doesn't seem quite right, but says "more to know/Concern'd not Man," so I guess we're supposed to accept it as an impenetrable mystery.

But the punishment of the serpent is somehow connected with the punishment of Satan and his angels, who are transformed into hissing snakes at the moment of celebrating their victory.

Roger: But the punishment of the serpent is somehow connected with the punishment of Satan and his angels, who are transformed into hissing snakes at the moment of celebrating their victory.

This may be my favorite (which is not the same as "most important," or "most artful," moment in the poem. It caught me by surprise (not as much as Satan!) and I laughed out loud when the delectable fruit turned out to be ashes.

More significantly, I think this incident is one which really shows the reader God's power. Until now, we have been told how awesome God is, and his deeds have been related in rather clinical terms. But, here, we feel his overarching might--or, at least, I do.

The symmetric relationship to Satan's triumphal speech in Hell when he rallies the troops was wonderful also.

I loved that part too! I liked it when he is giving a speech all Hitler like and expects the demons to applaud him and all they do is hiss!

Here is Satan talking:
"True is, mee also he hath judg'd, or rather
Mee not, but the brute Serpent in whose shape
Man I deceav'd: that which to mee belongs,
Is enmity, which he will put between
Mee and Mankinde; I am to bruise his heel;
His Seed, when is not set, shall bruise my head:
A World who would not purchase with a bruise,
Or much more grievous pain? Ye have th' account
Of my performance: What remains, ye Gods,
But and enter now into full bliss.

(I like the part where he says, so what, I get bruised on the head but I get to rule the whole world!)

So having said, a while he stood, expecting
Thir universal shout and high applause
To fill his eare, when contrary he hears
On all sides, from innumerable tongues
A dismal universal hiss, the sound
Of public scorn; He wondered, but not long
Had leasure, wondring at himself now more;

(Quite the egotist, that Satan!)

I was wondering if anyone else thought of Pandora's Box during this passage where the demons all turn to snakes? I also thought of Medusa who is supposed to have snakes all over her head and if you look at them you will turn to stone I think.

The book I have gives the name Megaera who I had never heard of and I looked that up and found this at Wiki:

"Megaera (Ancient Greek: Μέγαιρα, English translation: "the jealous one") is one of the Erinyes in Greek mythology. She is the cause of jealousy and envy, and punishes people who commit crimes, especially marital infidelity. Like her sisters Alecto and Tisiphone, she was born of the blood of Uranus when Cronus castrated him. In modern French (mégère) and Portuguese (megera), derivatives of this name are used to designate a jealous or spiteful woman. In Italian and Russian, the word megera indicates an evil and/or ugly woman".

This is definitely the best chapter as far as I am concerned.

When I started reading the following passage I thought of the horses in the book of Revelation:

"Mean while in Paradise the hellish pair
Too soon arriv'd, Sin there in power before,
Once actual, now in body, and to dwell
Habitual Habitant; [nice alliteration!:]behind her Death
Close following pace for pace, [it's a horse race!:]not mounted yet
On his pale Horse: to whom Sin thus began..."

Zeke wrote: "Roger: But the punishment of the serpent is somehow connected with the punishment of Satan and his angels, who are transformed into hissing snakes at the moment of celebrating their victory.

This..."

Me too, Zeke. I love those hisses! Another favorite image of mine is seeing Satan "squat like a toad" beside the sleeping Eve. (I think that's where he is, anyway--can't look it up right now.) Our view of Satan keeps getting worse and worse.

Dianna wrote: "This is definitely the best chapter as far as I am concerned.

When I started reading the following passage I thought of the horses in the book of Revelation:

"Mean while in Paradise the helli..."

Good catch, Dianna.

Roger wrote: "I think the meaning is that it is the serpent who cannot "transferre/The Guilt on him who made him instrument/Of mischief" by accusing Satan, because he is "brute," i.e. unable to speak."

Thanks, that makes more sense. The punishment of the serpent seems unfair, but all creatures on earth will ultimately suffer for Eve and Adam's transgression. Milton does seem inordinately fond of the serpent trope though.

Perhaps it would help to think of the purpose of sacrifice in Jewish theology which requires a certain amount of study to understand the details, (even if that study results in a disagreement.) Although it become complicated, the principle is that the sins of other is transferred to the innocent animal which is sacrificed.
The one who has sinned against God brings the innocent animal to take his place, knowing full well that he should be sacrificed instead. Some sources indicate that this is especially fitting as the one sacrificing acknowledges through the sacrifice that he as acted with an animal's nature.
In the case of the snake, although there is considerable about his original nature which seems capable of artifice by nature,(Gen 3:1) God exacts the sacrifice himself. As Milton says elsewhere, Subtle he needs must be, who could seduce Angels.
As to the justice of this, Milton also states Just are the ways of God,
And justifiable to men;
Unless there be who think not God at all.
Samson Agonistes


Additionally in the curse of the sepent, Milton alludes to the prophecy: Genesis 3:15  And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
The concept of the serpent is echoed in Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 as well as in Job 26:13. The entire chapter of Job 41 is devoted to his description upon which Milton draws freely.
As others have suggested it is wonderfully poetic that the one who appeared at first the most noble, reasonable and majestic is transformed along with his minions through his own actions, which is to say through their own individual wills. The one who was once described as the most beautiful angel has forced the transformation upon himself.
One last comment is how Milton draws in his descriprion on the Latin root of the English "brute" as ugly and lacking in understanding.

Zeke wrote: More significantly, I think this incident is one which really shows the reader God's power. Until now, we have been told how awesome God is, and his deeds have been related in rather clinical terms. But, here, we feel his overarching might--or, at least, I do."

I hadn't thought about it that way, but I think you have a good point. This is really the first time we see God acting right before our eyes. He lets Jesus carry the burden of defeating the rebel angels. He creates earth, but we don't see it happening, but just see the completed deed; similarly with Adam and Eve. But here we actually see in real time, as it were, him reaching all the way down to hell and personally imposing this punishment.

I was, for some reason, particularly struck on reading the lines quoted below with the realization that this was a blind man calling up all these esoteric names of serpents and classical references, not from books he could refer to but out of the recesses of his mind, and not only could conjure these into his immediate memory, but could arrange them into blank verses.

It brought freshly to me what a prodigious feat of genius this poem is.

With complicated monsters head and taile,
Scorpion and Asp, and Amphisbæna dire,
Cerastes hornd, Hydrus, and Ellops drear,
And Dipsas (not so thick swarm'd once the Soil
Bedropt with blood of Gorgon, or the Isle
Ophiusa) but still greatest hee the midst,
Now Dragon grown, larger then whom the Sun
Ingenderd in the Pythian Vale on slime,
Huge Python, and his Power no less he seem'd
Above the rest still to retain; they all
Him follow'd issuing forth to th' open Field,

Rhonda wrote: "Perhaps it would help to think of the purpose of sacrifice in Jewish theology which requires a certain amount of study to understand the details, (even if that study results in a disagreement.) Al..."

This is indeed helpful, but I still have trouble with the "mysterious terms" whereby an innocent stand-in takes the blame and the punishment for another. I suppose the idea is that punishment is the fulfillment of the law, and as long as the punishment is meted out, even if it is visited upon an innocent, the law will be satisfied.

Adam is willing at the end of Book X to accept the punishment for both his and Eve's transgression, but he knows that he cannot dictate the punishment of God.

If Prayers
Could alter high Decrees, I to that place
Would speed before thee, and be louder heard,
That on my head all might be visited, [ 955 :]
Thy frailtie and infirmer Sex forgiv'n,
To me committed and by me expos'd.

That to me is more understandable, because Adam is a responsible party. How the serpent, or the Son, can receive the blame for others' sins makes less sense to me. I understand it is by divine decree, on mysterious terms, so maybe it is a matter of faith rather than understanding.

MadgeUK wrote: "Roger wrote: "I say this is too clever by half....."

Nevertheless, there are many commentators who have seen references in PL to the colonial expansion which was taking place at the time Milton wa..."

Prof. Rogers's lecture on Books IX-X is interesting in this regard. Colonial expansion could be seen, in a limited sense, as the kind of "wandering" that was innocent in a prelapsarian Paradise. After the fall, wandering becomes blameworthy. The best way to stay out of trouble after the fall is to stay home, mind your manners, and hope there's something decent on television. (In other words, forget it. You're going out anyway.)

I'm thinking everyone is working too hard at this snake business. Milton, like many many other people, probably instinctively found snakes loathsome, so he played up the negative press the poor creatures already had in the bible (thanks for the references Rhonda). Humans have an apparent natural antipathy toward snakes, which makes it very easy to attribute all kinds of nasty behavior to them.

why we fear snakes (and spiders)

In an earlier book Milton used the word "wanton" to describe the way Eve's hair flows down her back. Of course, the word is used in its more pejorative sense in these later books. Rogers goes to some lengths to identify other words that Milton also enjoys using in their original, different meanings--"error" comes to mind--as if making a little joke for the reader.

This leads to a larger point I want make in connection with Madge's comments about colonialism. In addition to being the first human "society", Eden is also, as Rogers explains, the first place of cultivation; Adam and Eve tame the natural growth of the garden.

"Cultivate," "culture," and "cult," all derive from the same old Frence verb for "to till." Not being a Yalie, some of what Rogers was talking about went over my head. But, on reflection, I don't recall any order from God directing A&E to till the garden of Eden.

There are many instances in the poem of Earth responding anthropomorphically, in pain, to events in the poem. Also, as others have noted, there are examples of plundering the earth for its riches.

I'm wondering if an argument could be made that it was the impulse to "work" and to cultivate the garden--instead of living in partnership with nature--that gets A&E in trouble? Such an impulse would be pretty distinctly "western" and would also characterize much of the motivation for and history of colonization. Exercising the "dominion" given by God, rather than the "free will" might be found to be the precipitating source of the fall.

Zeke wrote: "I'm wondering if an argument could be made that it was the impulse to "work" and to cultivate the garden--instead of living in partnership with nature--that gets A&E in trouble? Such an impulse would be pretty distinctly "western" and would also characterize much of the motivation for and history of colonization."

Every culture everywhere that is beyond the hunter-gatherer stage works and cultivates. Aztecs built pyramids. Cambodians built huge temples. There's nothing particularly "western" about it.

I wasn't referring to temples or grave sites. I was thinking more of the contrast between subsistence and participation in "wildness," as contrasted with cultivation (changing it) and dominance (using it). Of course, we take this for granted and it is not solely western, but the west (and north) took it farther than any other peoples.

Many people think Thoreau used the word "wilderness" in his essay Walking. Sierra Club types wish he did. What he really said was, "In wildness is the preservation of the world."

That is what I had in mind when reflecting on the consequences of Adam and Eve's taming the wildness of Eden.

Genesis 3:22-24 (King James Version)

22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to TILL the ground from whence he was taken.

24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

I think you are right Zeke. I don't believe "till the ground" came up until after the fall.

Zeke wrote: "In an earlier book Milton used the word "wanton" to describe the way Eve's hair flows down her back. Of course, the word is used in its more pejorative sense in these later books. Rogers goes to so..."

Good points Zeke. Some commentators have pointed to this urge to work, to tame the wilderness, as against living in harmony with Nature, as the beginning of capitalism and of course, as we have discussed elsewhere, Weber, Tawney and others have also linked Puritanism with the rise of capitalism. Which side of this argument do you think Milton is? Is he suggesting that taming God's wilderness was a bad thing or is he taking a Puritan stand and saying that the land must be tilled?

And of course sending people out to tend the colonial wilderness is the despoilation of other 'Edens', hence the criticism of colonialisation.

Thomas wrote: "...but I still have trouble with the "mysterious terms" whereby an innocent stand-in takes the blame and the punishment for another. I suppose the idea is that punishment is the fulfillment of the law, and as long as the punishment is meted out, even if it is visited upon an innocent, the law will be satisfied.

This is indeed a difficult point of study, but one which comes up often in discussion of the Torah especially. Scholars pore over the meanings of these words with great care in order to understand this. Without belaboring the point, the snake, which God might have removed from existence, continues to exist (in an altered state without legs) for two reasons, both as a symbol of Satan (eating the dust of despair continuously, according to Isaiah) and as a reminder to mankind concerning the A&E's fall. Recall too that the land was cursed… and it certainly didn't do anything wrong. Satan, by fleeing the scene admits his guilt but delays his punishment (which is prophesied.) God is the potter and uses the clay for his own purpose.
Where either an item or an animal is involved in a sin, it was common for the animal or implement to be destroyed also. Think of the example of a father breaking the sword over his knee which was used to murder his son and this is understandable. As to the animal sacrifice, it is necessary for the one who intends to atone to recognize the sacrifice of an otherwise innocent animal as part of that atonement, the idea that something else had to die in order to cover one's sins. God covers sin because he is pure and cannot address one who is attempting to cover his own sin. Thus it is the atonement for sin which erases the distance between God and man (created by man in sin.)

Kierkegaard discusses at length how God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac on what would later be temple mount. God stops Abraham because he does not require that any of us sacrifice so great a gift. God provides a ram as substitute. However, the paschal lamb which was God's own son, submitted himself to become the Passover sacrifice for our sins. Thus it is as Milton says in Book 10, we shall have a new Eve:

So spake this Oracle, then verifi'd
When Jesus son of Mary second Eve,
Saw Satan fall like Lightning down from Heav'n,
Prince of the Aire; then rising from his Grave [ 185 :]

It follows accordingly for Milton that Christ must then become the new Adam (1 Cor. 15:45)

I don't understand Mary being the second Eve. Wouldn't that make her Christ's wife instead of his mother?

Thomas wrote: How the serpent, or the Son, can receive the blame for others' sins makes less sense to me. I understand it is by divine decree, on mysterious terms, so maybe it is a matter of faith rather than understanding.

Exactly, Thomas. This is where faith must step in--believing God instead of human reasonings. It's a tiny step, but the view from the other side is amazing. This was the step that Eve did not take, choosing to heed the serpent's reasonings instead.

Thomas wrote: Prof. Rogers's lecture on Books IX-X is interesting in this regard. Colonial expansion could be seen, in a limited sense, as the kind of "wandering" that was innocent in a prelapsarian Paradise. After the fall, wandering becomes blameworthy. The best way to stay out of trouble after the fall is to stay home, mind your manners, and hope there's something decent on television. (In other words, forget it. You're going out anyway.)

Well, not exactly. After the Deluge, humankind was told to spread out over all the earth. Instead, they decided to stick together and build an observation tower. That led to all sorts of confusion. But Milton tells that story is in Book 11 or 12.

Zeke wrote: "Cultivate," "culture," and "cult," all derive from the same old Frence verb for "to till." Not being a Yalie, some of what Rogers was talking about went over my head. But, on reflection, I don't recall any order from God directing A&E to till the garden of Eden.

There are many instances in the poem of Earth responding anthropomorphically, in pain, to events in the poem. Also, as others have noted, there are examples of plundering the earth for its riches.

I'm wondering if an argument could be made that it was the impulse to "work" and to cultivate the garden--instead of living in partnership with nature--that gets A&E in trouble? Such an impulse would be pretty distinctly "western" and would also characterize much of the motivation for and history of colonization. Exercising the "dominion" given by God, rather than the "free will" might be found to be the precipitating source of the fall.

Genesis 2:

" 4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

"5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

"15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it."

Dianna wrote: "I don't understand Mary being the second Eve. Wouldn't that make her Christ's wife instead of his mother?"
I fully understand how you feel especially for the reasons you say; at first glance it just seems wrong somehow. Moreover, I said in an earlier post that this is predominantly Roman Catholic position, but it is important to acknowledge that Milton picks it up.
However it has a long history beginning in the second century with Justin Martyr.
Consider first that Adam (see his etymology) was formed by God from clay and so had no human mother. Eve's etymology, while still an arguable source, means "living." Further, while Eve is the virgin mother of all, (virgin while in the Garden,) she conceived disobedience and brought death to mankind. Mary, also a virgin, conceived in obedience brought forth the Word of God and thus overturned the curse of death. When you compare each in this way, it is easier to understand Milton's position.

Rhonda wrote: "Thomas wrote: "...but I still have trouble with the "mysterious terms" whereby an innocent stand-in takes the blame and the punishment for another. I suppose the idea is that punishment is the fulf..."

Beautiful explanation, Rhonda. Also, I don't think serpents seem to mind at all having to slither around on the ground (and up in trees, where they can pounce on one). It wasn't really much of a punishment for them, but mostly a symbol for us.

Amanda wrote: "Dianna wrote: "I don't understand Mary being the second Eve. Wouldn't that make her Christ's wife instead of his mother?"

I'm with you there. I don't think that's scriptural- I mean, Jesus being ..."

I agree. I don't think that's in the Bible. I think Milton means that since she is the mother of the Christ, she is the mother of all Christians, just as Eve was the mother of all humans.