From:	Cbartonb@aol.com
Sent:	Wednesday, January 12, 2000 6:22 PM
To:	milton-l@richmond.edu
Subject:	Re: Achilles Innamorato. Achilles Santo

I agree with Derek in every point he made, except one, to wit:

> John Rumrich wrote:
>  
>  > "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven"

That was John MILTON, Derek -- not John Rumrich!

Happy New Year to all, from Virginia!

Carol Barton

Discendo discimus . . . primum est non nocere


From:	Carrol Cox [cbcox@ilstu.edu]
Sent:	Wednesday, January 05, 2000 6:27 PM
To:	milton-l@richmond.edu
Subject:	Re: Oikos (was Achilles, was Hero in Paradise Lost)



Cobelli@aol.com wrote:

> P.S. And speaking of a sex goddess, does anyone remember that moving passage
> in the Iliad in which we get a glimpse of Helen on the walls of Troy
> remembering her homeland? How does this fit in with oikos? Such an added
> dimension, almost a "modern" psychological approach to a character, seems
> unusual for the Homeric poet.
>

Yes -- it's wonderful. I don't know whether an older analysis --
that the Homeric poems refracted and kept fragments of a defeated
matrilinear culture -- can still be defended or not. It made sense both
of passages like this *and* of the real indignation of the suitors in
the *Odyssey* at Penelope's refusal to select a new mate. But I
don't know whether there is any real evidence for it.

Incidentally, when I speak of ripping Aeneas or Adam from
context, I don't mean that a reader should but only that readers
addicted to such a process can do so more easily with most
characters than they can with either Achilles or Fanny, who are
utter caricatures when so separated. Shakespeare's Odysseus
has some sort of link to the original -- but not his Achilles. Even
some fairly sophisticated critics adopt a tone towards Aeneas
or the Son in PR that would be more appropriate directed at
a "real person." You just CAN'T do that with Achilles or with
Austen's Fanny. They turn into monsters.

Carrol




From:	Derek Wood [dwood@stfx.ca]
Sent:	Tuesday, January 11, 2000 3:15 PM
To:	milton-l@richmond.edu
Subject:	Achilles Innamorato. Achilles Santo


John Rumrich wrote:

> "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven"
>
> In saying this Satan distinguishes himself from the shade of
> Achilles, who tells Odysseus that it would be better to live as the
> servant of a slave than to reign over all the exhausted dead.
>
> Milton is discriminating, subtle, and comples, in his references the
> classical epic and in his allusions to Achilles, Odysseus, Aeneas,
> and the rest.  F. Blessington, who like Stella is exceedingly well
> versed in the Greek classics, in his fine little book on the subject
> made this case compellingly, twenty odd years ago, when it was
> commonly and reductively thought that Milton considered classical
> heroism merely diabolic.
>
> Achilles does express affection for Briseis, by the way....John

>



> Apologies for coming back to this topic but I just can't leave Achilles
in the
> sanctified state he seems to have achieved in this discussion. I've just dug
> myself out from under a mountain of, first, essays and exams, then Christmas
> wrapping paper.  I was more than a little facetious when I first mailed
in my
> version of the Satan - hero, certainly so when I was teasing Stella. My main
> suggestion seems to have been misunderstood and nothing that has been
said  that
> replies to the points I made subsequently.

>         On the question of Achilles' affection for Briseis, he does speak
of it
> at 9.340 but he is so obsessed there with prizes of honour and so
> proportionately little with affection that one one must wonder if  that
> affection is not for her as a portion of his arete. I think the
definitive proof
> here is that he refuses her when he is offered her, untouched!  He
prefers to
> make his bride an Achaian girl from the land of Hellas or Phthia. Not a very
> warm affection, surely. Hardly Achilles Innamorato! Soon afterwards, the
bully
> boy even threatens Phoinix, after Phoinix's long weeping and loving
> supplication. And Phoinix is his caring, proxy father. I really wasn't
> suggesting that Homer was imitating Milton's Satan in his Achilles. Of
course,
> Achilles has splendid moments. He is splendid with Priam but even then
there is
> the flash of anger when Priam doesn't obey him obsequiously, in a minor
detail.
> Let's not sanctify Achilles. Besides his splendid moments, he also has a
> surprising number of features that we find in Satan. I too have noticed that
> Milton is "discriminating, subtle and complex" in his references to
Achilles and
> others. For instance, when he speaks of his sad task's being "Not less
but more
> heroic than the wrath Of stern Achilles on his foe pursued Thrice
fugitive about
> Troy wall," he is slily referring to the incident which Aristotle thought
was
> essentially absurd and would be ludicrous in any other genre. Achilles is
absurd
> at times.

>      Of course, Milton's Satan does not replicate or even closely imitate
> Homer's Achilles; Milton always metamorphoses or works alchemy on the
figures or
> forms he "imitates." The original question was, "Who is the hero in PL?"
Like
> all such questions, it has a special complexity when asked of the work of a
> thinker like Christian Milton.. For one reason among many, there is no
clear,
> absolute distinction here as in Homer between human beings and the
Immortals.
> There are no mortals in the epic until Book 9.  One strange paradox is
that Adam
> and Eve give up immortality, like Odysseus, and lose their home, and they
choose
> a short life and early death, in a way like Achilles. But that does not make
> them heroes.  They do have their heroic moments but a moment does not a hero
> make; Telemakos and Nisus have their heroic moments but are not "the
heroes" of
> their poems.

        What do Achilles and the other heroic figures of epic have in common:
Hektor, Odysseus, Aeneas, Turnus, Roland, Arthur, Sir Gawain, Orlando,
Goffredo,
Tancredi? I don't know if all these are "individuals" but there are huge
differences between them. What they have in common is that they excel in wars,
whose "long and tedious havoc" Milton dismisses contemptuously as he dismisses
"races and games" and the "skill of artifice or office mean." They live by
a human
heroic code which requires the physical destruction of the enemy. The only one
really like them in this epic is Satan. He is the destroyer. War is futile
as the
good angels find when they act out their duty as fools of God. "War wearied
hath
performed what war can do." Not much. No old heroic code can oppose the
power of
God and his Logos. When the Son of God drives out the rebels, "he meant
Not to
destroy." It is in Satan we find the closest example of some one who lives
by the
old heroic code: "by strength they measure all, of other excellence Not
emulous."
Milton, the Christian, tells us he is going to celebrate a different kind of
heroism, "the better fortitude Of patience and heroic martyrdom." This new
kind of
hero must be willing to die, not try to kill. To do that he must become
human and
mortal. There, at last I've been honest about the real hero of PL.
            Best wishes,
            Derek Wood,
            St. Francis Xavier University.


> >Stella Revard wrote:
> >
> >  > Derek,
> >  >
> >  > You are rather hard on Achilles....
> >
> >     Stella,
> >              I think you are too gentle towards Achilles. Agamemnon speaks
> >much less venomously at first than Achilles, who begins the insulting talk.
> >He is much more affectionate towards Chryseis than Achilles is to Briseis -
> >he prefers her to Clytemnestra. Achilles does sorrow in his heart for
> >Briseis but it is not a question of affection. She is a prize, a
recognition
> >of his achievement in a winning battle, a token of his honour. He grieves
> >that she is being taken against his will and that now he will be left
> >without any prize. So there will be no sign that his arete is being
> >honoured. Agamemnon is being greedy. When Thetis comes, it is his injured
> >honour that Achilles complains to her about. This is what she complains to
> >Zeus about, asking him to honour her son.
> >         I wouldn't think of demonising or satanising Achilles. I don't
think
> >Homer does. It's more important that Milton reads Satan in terms of the
> >self-focussed, militaristic warrior, the time-honoured hero of epic poetry
> >as it once was.  This kind of hero equates honour with the ability to kill
> >and destroy. Mind you, Achilles does hate and abuse the supreme Overlord
and
> >Ruler, believes he is superior to him,  rebels against him and is prepared
> >to attack and harm him. He is also driven by pride like Satan, he too has a
> >"fixed mind And high disdain," he is bitter from a "sense of injured
merit."
> >He too gets satisfaction from the misfortunes of the Supreme Lord and
gladly
> >sees that Lord's achievements in ruins.
> >         Is Hector really not "beloved" of thee?
> >         Best wishes,
> >         Derek.




From:	Roy Flannagan [flannaga@oak.cats.ohiou.edu]
Sent:	Wednesday, January 05, 2000 5:46 PM
To:	milton-l@richmond.edu
Subject:	Re: Martin illustrations [EXPIRED TRIAL LICENCE]

At 05:07 PM 1/4/00 -0800, you wrote:
>Tell me more about the Martin illustrations, for, not being familiar with
>them, I would like to see them.

Some of them are available on-line.  George Klawitter has put them up at 
www.stedwards.edu/hum/klawitter/martinindex.htm

John Martin was a master of what he did with etching, severe and arresting 
chiaroscuro effects that make "darkness visible" a pictorial reality.  He 
was also original enough to depict hell and pandemonium in terms of sewers 
and train stations, making heroic or damning the grand monuments of the 
industrial revolution.

Roy Flannagan