From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 5:40 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton's politics In a message dated 4/7/00 5:17:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dithw@ttacs.ttu.edu writes: << Although he opposed the Papacy, Milton did not support the outright censorship of Catholic writers as such. He noted that the government "suffered the Idolatrous books of Papists. . . to be sold & read as common as our own. Why not much rather of Anabaptists, Arians, Arminians & Socinians? There is no Learned man but will confess he hath much profited by reading Controversies, his Senses awakt, his Judgment sharpn'd, and the truth which he holds more formly establish't" (_Of True Religion_, 437-38). In _On Liberty_, John Stuart Mill makes a similar argument. Hugh Wilson >> That was a good quote, Hugh, thank you. The Milton the wrote Areopagitica didn't seem capable of making such a statement, but the idea expressed in your above quote is a natural outgrowth of his position in Areo. Jim From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 5:42 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton in 20th Century In a message dated 4/7/00 5:21:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, a.t.gulden@iba.uio.no writes: << the odd thing is that the atmosphere created by the film seemed exactly right. The satanic hyena stalks alone in his own desolate landscape. It may be of use, as a short cut, lasting no more than a few minutes. >> I think it would be more accurate to draw parallels between Lion King and Hamlet -- the king is killed by his brother, who takes his place -- the king's son suffers psychic disturbance then goes into exile, returning to avenge his father. The only difference is that Disney had to have a happy ending... but the influences behind individual scenes...those were interesting parallels. Jim From: Milton-L Moderator [owner-milton-l@richmond.edu] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 5:07 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu; milton-digest@richmond.edu From: Cbbronte@aol.com Message-ID: <3e.24004ee.261e68f7@aol.com> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 18:25:59 EDT Subject: Re: Milton in 20th Century To: milton-l@richmond.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Hello, I know that Spenser's Faery Queen was a huge influence on Milton as well as Shakespeare's Tempest. As far as contemporary authors I'm not sure. You might want to look at some books with Satan in them, such as "the devil and daniel webster". There are also several poetic references to Milton in contemporary poetry. You could look through Eliot's canon as well as Pound's. For examples of sin and redemption I would recommend Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. The Milton Quarterly would also be a great starting place for references and critical links to the past and present. Hope this helps. Chris B. From: Tmsandefur@aol.com Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 5:21 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton's politics Re. Areopagitica and toleration, Hugh Wilson points out << In _On Liberty_, John Stuart Mill makes a similar argument. >> Indeed. And it is interesting to note the similarity also to Friedrich Hayek, Karl Popper, and their followers, most recently Virginia Postrel, (THE FUTURE AND ITS ENEMIES). Hayek's concept of "spontaneous order" is quickly brought to mind--as is Popper's "open society" by such passages in AREOPAGITICA as-- [T]here must be many schisms and many dissections made in the quarry and in the timber, ere the house of God can be built. And when every stone is laid artfully together, it cannot be united into a continuity, it can but be contiguous in this world; neither can every piece of the building be of one form; nay rather the perfection consists in this, that out of many moderate varieties and brotherly dissimilitudes that are not vastly disproportional arises the goodly and the graceful symmetry that commends the whole pile and structure. $ From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 5:38 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton's politics In a message dated 4/7/00 5:13:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rumrich@mail.utexas.edu writes: << But the point is that good behavior was hardly encouraged for its own sake. John >> Yeah...it's hard to argue with experience, and yours sounds common. You see the same thing in Joyce's Portrait. But the basis for moral behavior within a Christian context depends on the brand of Christianity you're talking about. In some movements fear is seen as a bad thing in itself and to be outgrown A.S.A.P. -- the ideal being that we're supposed to be motivated solely by love. Jim From: William B. Thompson [WBThompson@sjs-sc.org] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 5:55 PM To: 'milton-l@richmond.edu' Subject: RE: Milton in 20th Century "Chorus for the Untenured Personnel," by Edgar Bowers. Wonderful poem by an underappreciated poet. It's in his collected poems. Bill Thompson -----Original Message----- From: Margaret Thickstun [mailto:mthickst@hamilton.edu] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 8:08 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton in 20th Century Alice Mathews--try Louise Gluck's volume, Wild Iris, which is gorgeous and very complex. For smaller things, Donald Justice's poem "The Wall," Frost's "Never Again Would Bird Song Be the Same," and several poems about the serpent in Virginia Hamilton Adair's recent volume, "Ants of the Melon."--Margie Thickstun >Can any of you suggest authors and titles that reflect either Milton's >direct influence or his major themes--Eden, the fall, and redemption? >Linking Milton with earlier writers, such as Blake, Byron, Yeats, and >Conrad, has >worked quite well, but I'd like to include more contemporary authors. From: gardner campbell [gcampbel@mwc.edu] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 5:37 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton in 20th Century Two more that spring to mind: Terry Gilliam's *Time Bandits* features a Satan figure called "The Evil Genius" who at one point yells irritably that no one created him. (God gets his word in too, later on: "I am the Supreme Being; I'm not entirely dim," he says, and then has a few choice theodicial words to share as well.) Phillip Pullman's magnificent books *The Golden Compass* and *The Subtle Knife* (the latter riffing, I think, on Donne's "subtle knot that makes us man") are part of a trilogy called *His Dark Materials* that has as its epigraph *PL* 2.910-919. Miltonic considerations leaven the entire series so far. Gardner Campbell Mary Washington College From: Carrol Cox [cbcox@ilstu.edu] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 5:50 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Satan and other adversaries huntc@cofc.edu wrote: > Imagine her surprise when her professor in a graduate Milton > course poured scorn on her earlier effort, _on the grounds that > "everyone knows" Satan is based on Charles I_! See Joan S. Bennet, "God, Satan and King Charles: Milton's Royal Portraits." PMLA 92 (1977), 441-57 I believe Merritt Y. Hughes may suggest the connection in several of his essays as well. Carrol From: Carrol Cox [cbcox@ilstu.edu] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 9:28 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Request Carol Barton wrote: > John Creaser makes an excellent point, below, and one that has been studied > from a sociological perspective via Kohlberg's levels of morality. It is > not what you choose, but why you choose it: Why this need to judge people? Replace this endless judging with a historical understanding of solidarity (social relations) as (in Marx's phrase) the human essence and the assumed need for "morality" of various forms simply disappears. This, of course, takes us back to the heart of PL, which I characterized in my original post as "the reduction of history to the choices made by isolated individuals." What I would call a lust for judgment flows from this premise of the isolated ("abstract") human invidiual -- a lust so magnificently dramatized in PL (and explicated at length in the criticism of that poem).flow on choice (what I call compulsory free -- that is free floating, unattached, hence meaningless, choice) as the defining feature of humanity and the (consequent?) emphasis on judgment. This bears on my original point. Once one escapes this moralism (this need to judge people and actions) it becomes easier (I think) to see the tremendous achievement reflected in dramatizing this absurd world of endless choice and judgement. > "what's in it for me" (because > society would approve/ disapprove, the neighbors would be scandalized, my > mommy or daddy wouldn't like me, my husband/wife wouldn't love me anymore) > is at the lowest end of the spectrum, and "because I can do no other" (pace > Luther) is at the other. "Because I could not do other" is a start -- if, that is, one sees it not as an explanation of human action (I presume "because mommy wouldn't like me," etc. are just special cases of this general category) but as naming what needs to be explained. How, historically, does one account for the fact that humans (invariably) act on the principle "Because I could not do other"? > > Fear of punishment/hope of reward have no place in true ethical > considerations, so to me the question is moot. Being an atheist, or being an > every-Sunday-in-your-best-suit churchgoer does not make you a moral being: > apprehending the Good, and wanting to participate in it *for its own sake* > (whether your name for it is Buddah or Jesus or YHVH or Allah or simply > "what's right") is what makes you moral . . . not your belief in hell or > heaven. > > He (or she) least deserves my trust who is motivated only by reward or > punishment: remove the carrot (or the stick), and that paragon of virtue > will do whatever would have come naturally, had the incentive/disincentive > not been there to deter him. > > Best to all, > > Carol Barton > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J W Creaser" > To: > Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 3:33 PM > Subject: Re: Request > > > Presumably the question which ends the message below--Why not be selfish, > > if you're an atheist?--is coat-trailing. One answer well worth considering > > was given long ago, by George Eliot in the closing section of her essay > > `Worldliness and Other-Worldliness: the Poet Young' (1857). For example: > > > > `I [the representative unbeliever] am just and honest, not because I > expect > > to live in another world, but because, having felt the pain of injustice > > and dishonesty towards myself,I have a fellow-feeling with other men, who > > would suffer the same pain if I were unjust or dishonest towards them.... > > It is a pang to me to witness the suffering of a fellow-being, and I feel > > his suffering the more acutely because he is mortal.... And in opposition > > to your theory that a belief in immortality is the only source of virtue, > I > > maintain that, so far as moral action is dependent on that belief, so far > > the emotion which prompts it is not yet truly moral--is still in the stage > > of egoism, and has not yet attained the higher development of sympathy.' > > (Essays, ed. T. Pinney,1963, pp. 373-4). There is much more on these lines > > in the magnificent concluding pages (371-85). > > > > On another point in play: the `wisest fool' statement is attributed to > > Henri IV of France or his minister Sully. > > > > John Creaser > > > > At 15:19 27/03/00 EST, you wrote: > > >Very good elucidation, Carol, the only thing I would suggest is that you > > >read Max Stirner's critique of both Marx and Feuerbach in The Ego and > His > > >Own (he's an atheist like yourself). > > > > > >I'd also like to know when the IMF started running around with guns > killing > > >tens of millions of people. . . > > > > > >:) > > > > > >or is it that they're just being selfish? Why not, within an atheist > > >framework? > > > > > >Jim > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Sara Vandenberg [saravdb@u.washington.edu] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 10:48 PM Cc: milton list Subject: Re: Milton in 20th Century MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu You might also check Eva Figes' novel, _The Tree of Knowledge_ (about Milton's daughter). A number of contemporary poets have their own responses to Biblical texts (e.g., Lucille Clifton) that might be useful, though not directly Miltonic. Sara van den Berg From: Dan Knauss [tiresias@juno.com] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 9:49 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton in 20th Century On Thu, 6 Apr 2000 21:15:39 -0500 tomdill@wc.stephens.edu (TOM DILLINGHAM) writes: > On the other hand, I prefer to spend time during the > semester reading *twice* through _Paradise Lost_ itself. > This has had remarkable success (it's a trick I learned > from my dissertation director, except that he applied > it to _The Prelude_). > Tom Dillingham Good grief, how do you pull that off? Do you have students read it twice, back to back? What's the pedagogical purpose--what is the "success" you are looking for? Dan Knauss - ICQ#41102114 tiresias@juno.com - daniel.knauss@marquette.edu Fær-spel Studios: http://www4.ncsu.edu/~dpknauss =//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\= From: Dan Knauss [tiresias@juno.com] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 10:10 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Cc: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton in 20th Century You could also add the film Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, which returns to the "Space Seed" TV episodes. There you have the literary Khan again--I recall him quoting Captain Ahab in a Miltonic moment just before his death. The film also introduces the "Genesis device," which has the power to create an Edenic world on a barren planet or moon. Khan wants to use it to destroy worlds, and the story is continued in Star Trek III. After this one, Star Trek films get increasingly worse to the point of self-parody. Dan Knauss - ICQ#41102114 tiresias@juno.com - daniel.knauss@marquette.edu Fær-spel Studios: http://www4.ncsu.edu/~dpknauss =//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\= On Thu, 06 Apr 2000 19:03:40 -0500 Mike Felker writes: > > While it may be stretching the definition of "literature" a bit, > your > mention > > of film calls up an example I use in my World Literature I class. > I often > > start the course with an episode of the classic Star Trek series, > titled > > "Space Seed." This is the episode which introduces Ricardo > Montalban as > Khan, > > the genetically-"improved" leader of the Eugenics War on > Earth. Awakened from > > suspended animation, Khan rebels against Kirk and crew in an > attempt to make > > himself captain of the Enterprise. Defeated, he is placed on > trial, only to > > have Kirk dismiss the charges, offering him the chance to be left > behind > with > > his followers to try to tame a harsh planet. Khan responds by > asking Kirk, > > "Have you ever read Milton?" Kirk nods and says, "Yes. I > understand." > > Unfortunately, he must then explain the reference to other crew > members by > > quoting Satan's "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven." > > It may not be classic literature, but Star Trek (and all its sequel > movies and > t.v. series) was far more literary than most non-watchers realize, > often, as in > this case, drawing the plot as well as the allusions from Milton, > Shakespeare, > Gilgamesh, Beowulf, and elsewhere. > > Mike Felker > Chair, English and Philosophy > South Plains College From: Robert Appelbaum [r_appel@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2000 12:00 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton's politics A problem with this discussion, it seems to me, is that neither Milton nor Williams used the idea of "tolerance" in quite the way we did. I will try to check this this afternoon (why is there no Milton Concordance on-line yet), but I don't recall Milton ever advocating "tolerance." I remeber learning somewhere that the first exponent of "religious tolerance" in our sense was John Toland. It bears remebering too that the first English advocate of Latitudinarianism (name escapes me--he was harried on his deathbed by Francis Cheynell) was a Royalist and to some extent a Laudian. The real test for"religious tolerance" in our sense in 17th-century England was whether Catholicism would be allowed or suffered (tolerated) to exist, and on that score none of our Puritans and Parliamentarians were successful. > Robert Appelbaum English Department University of Alabama at Birmingham Birmingham, AL 35294-1260 (205) 934-8571 on the web: www.geocities.com/r_appel/Robert.html My apologies for the commercial intrusion below: --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. From: Tmsandefur@aol.com Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 5:15 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Request << how limited your rhetoric is.... You have to have a soul to desire to improve it >> No, it is not that I have limited rhetoric, it is that you have a limited imagination, that you believe that one can only have a soul if that soul is somehow supernatural. That doesn't follow. $ From: Richard Watkins [watkins39@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2000 5:03 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: UPenn conference I have accidentally deleted the recent message regarding the 'Wrinkles in Time' conference forthcoming at U.Penn. Please could someone forward it to me? Many thanks, Richard ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From: John Hale [John.Hale@stonebow.otago.ac.nz] Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2000 10:09 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton Read on April Fool's Day--no kidding Dear Jameela: Your reading sounds very good fun! Somehow I had never thought of reading out the Arguments; yet why not? Role for a particular voice throughout, perhaps? I'm warming up to another all-day do, on May 6. Teams will again compete, but this time with expert imported judges. But why do we do it?! I gave a paper at the Australasian earlymodern assoc conference, about the reasons why we do read Pl aloud. Understanding of particular passages mainly,i thought, but also don't we hear strange unpredictable 'echoes' across the poem, because each reader defamiliarises something for themselves and listeners? Best wishes John Hale From: J W Creaser [creaser@holl.u-net.com] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 5:03 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Compassion Jim (of Anti-Utopia) feels that atheism is limited because where, under atheism, `can an individual DEMAND compassion of others?' I don't think we can, or should, DEMAND compassion. We can demand, say, care of doctors and nurses when ill or injured; young children have a right to care from their parents. Doctors and nurses who fail to give care can be struck off; parents who fail to give care can lose their children. A doctor may disdain a patient and yet do everything he can as a professional to save his life. But compassion is something distinct: it is a spontaneous fellow-feeling which cannot be worked up, or demanded as of right. This, I think, is what George Eliot meant by `the higher development of sympathy', and, when felt, it is stimulated by our shared plight of mortality and vulnerability. A law attributed to a presumed divine authority may prick the consciences of believers so that they give the best care of which they are capable in their personal and professional lives. But compassion cannot be legislated for. John Creaser From: Carol Barton [cbartonphd@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 6:10 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: New Light on Ted Hughes I forward this to the list because (1) it is of general interest, even = to Miltonists, and (2) it's a shame Milton didn't leave a stack of = letters about his daughters. [Thanks to Elisa Vandernoot via Jack Kolb for forwarding this. -- CB] http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/2000/04/08/timfnffnf01002.html April 8 2000=20 WORLD NEWSFEATURES =20 Hughes papers reveal devotion to Plath FROM JAMES BONE IN NEW YORK A VAST collection of Ted Hughes's personal papers go on view today. They = suggest that, far from driving Sylvia Plath to suicide, the late Poet = Laureate offered her support in her literary career and handled much of = the couple's childcare.=20 The exhibition at an American university includes previously unknown = poems, essays and comments on the couple's relationship. Details of = their daily life show that Hughes was constantly writing about his wife = even before the publication of Birthday Letters, the cycle of poems that = he dedicated to their two children.=20 Stephen Enniss, the curator of the collection at Emory University in = Atlanta, Georgia, said: "In terms of the biographical story, the archive = does demonstrate just how mutually supportive Ted Hughes and Sylvia = Plath were of each other's work.=20 "While there is great public interest in the dissolution of their = marriage, they were engaged in a joint literary enterprise. Over and = over again, it makes that point."=20 The archives reveal, for example, that Hughes used a 3ft by 3ft hallway = for his study while his wife used the living room and bedroom for hers. = Hughes built a writing desk for Plath.=20 In a letter to her mother in the early 1970s, Hughes writes: "The main = talk and business of our days was how Sylvia should get to the point of = at last writing what she wanted to write. We did nothing that wasn't = meant to promote that. We assumed that my writing would carry on anyhow, = somehow."=20 While it is already known that the American poet typed her husband's = manuscripts and sent them to publishers, the archive records Hughes = helping Plath by promoting her to his editors, even after her death.=20 "It was not simply Sylvia engaged in secretarial work for Ted," Mr Ennis = said. "Ted was doing things for her."=20 Before Plath proposed to him, Hughes had planned to sail around the = world as a writer and adventurer. After their marriage, he apparently = took considerable responsibility for looking after their babies.=20 Among those attending today's opening ceremony at the university's = Woodruff Library will be Frieda Hughes, the couple's daughter, Lucas = Meyers and Daniel Weissbort, the poet's longstanding friends, Paul = Muldoon, Professor of Poetry at Oxford University, and many other = scholars.=20 Diane Middlebrook, Professor of English at Stanford University, = California, who has seen portions of the archive while it was being = catalogued, believes the papers will enhance Hughes's reputation in = America, where he is reviled by feminists who consider him a "murderer" = who killed their heroine.=20 "It has been so influenced by the fact that she was dead and he was = not," Professor Middlebrook said. "The living do deserve privacy. He was = resistant to curiosity, but it has had the result of there being acres = of speculation about Plath and reserve on him. The sale of his papers to = an American university seems to indicate that he will go the same way. I = think he had posterity in mind."=20 She predicted that the release of the archive would generate new = scholarly and popular interest in Hughes in America. "To the degree that = Plath is a figure of great cultural importance, everybody has read her = and nobody has read him. The opinion is that he was responsible for her = misery," she said. "It's bound to make it possible to look at him as a = poet."=20 Noting that Plath became a feminist icon with the rise of the women's = movement in the 1960s, Professor Middlebrook suggests a new way of = looking at Hughes. "In the year 2000, I do not know what his position is = going to be: it might be that he was the 'recipient of feminism'."=20 When the archive was moved from Hughes's home in Devon, it filled 86 = crates; if it were piled up in a single stack of papers, it would stand = 108ft high. Even scholars such as Professor Middlebrook, who have = already had limited access, are excited over what further finds await = them in the full collection.=20 Among the treasures are a manuscript of Hughes's translation of Ovid, = which shows the rapidity with which he worked, and some notes by Plath, = on the back of another Hughes manuscript, about her lost novel, Falcon = Yard, which she destroyed.=20 Mr Ennis said the collection contains innumerable comments on Plath, = both in poetry and in extended, neverpublished pieces of prose. "It = really is a myth that Ted maintained a silence about Sylvia," he said. = "He wrote about Sylvia at length, not only in Birthday Letters but also = long prose pieces which are in the archive."=20 Not all Hughes's secrets will be revealed immediately. When the poet = sold his papers to the university, he stipulated that one trunkload = should remain sealed for 25 years after his death.=20 All Hughes and Plath scholars are eagerly seeking Plath's lost journal. = After her suicide in 1963, Hughes said that he had destroyed one of her = diaries written in the final months of her life to prevent their = children seeing it, and had misplaced another. Mr Ennis says that the = missing journal is not among the collection being made public this = weekend but may be in the sealed chest.=20 Copyright 2000 Times Newspapers Ltd. This service is provided on Times = Newspapers' standard terms and conditions. To inquire about a licence to = reproduce material from The Times, visit the Syndication website.=20 Carol Barton discendo discimus . . . primum est non nocere From: Elizabeth Skerpan [ES10@swt.edu] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 1:48 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton in 20th Century Several years ago, one of my MA students wrote a fascinating thesis on Milton and Sergei Eisenstein, arguing on very sound grounds that the Satan of Paradise Lost was the model for Ivan the Terrible in Eisenstein's films of the same name. Eisenstein's notebooks credit PL--especially the descriptions of the war in Heaven--as the inspiration for his montage. Elizabeth Skerpan-Wheeler From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 5:44 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Martin Luther on IMF / WorldBank In a message dated 4/7/00 5:21:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cbcox@ilstu.edu writes: << And since we break on the wheel, and behead highwaymen, murderers, and housebreakers, how much more ought we to break on the wheel and kill ... hunt down, curse, and behead all usurers'" (Marx quoting Luther, Capital, vol. 1, p. 740) >> Pretty good indictment of the IMF from within a Christian framework :) Jim From: Derek Wood [dwood@stfx.ca] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 11:39 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton in 20th Century Dylan Thomas's "Fern Hill" for a short poem and William Golding's "Free Fall" for a novel about the loss of innocence. Perhaps Huxley's "Island" for a satanic attempt to corrupt a paradisal retreat. dw. From: Ann Gulden [a.t.gulden@iba.uio.no] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 6:40 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton in 20th Century Philip Pullman's bestseller for children, Northern Lights, cites a chunk of PL in the preface, and has several allusions to the epic themes throughout. Ann Gulden, Oslo At 17:43 06.04.00 -0400, you wrote: > Probably many on the list have notice the twenty-line citation of >Paradise Lost in *The English Patient*--the novel, not the film. >--Margaret Dean >Eastern Kentucky University > > > From: Timothy Burbery [burbery@MARSHALL.EDU] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 11:34 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Mary Groom's PL Illustrations Fellow Listers: I am seeking high-resolution reproductions of Mary Groom's 1937 woodcut illustrations for PL. I know that *Milton Studies* has reproduced some of them, but wondered if they'd been published in any "art" books, or on post-cards, slides, etc. Thanks in advance. Tim Burbery Marshall University From: Robert Appelbaum [r_appel@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 2:00 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton in 20th Century An obvious connection, which I am assigning to my students this spring as we prepare for PL: The Rolling Stones, "Sympathy for the Devil." I think the power of this particular attempt to deal with the heroics of evil must still seem threatening today, since so few of my students are familiar with the song. Yeah, it's an oldie, but they know lots of oldies, just not this one. Too hot to handle. I think the Stones were themselves inspired by Bob Dylan when they wrote this song (and also trying as hard as possible to distance themselves from the feel-good all-you-need-is-love morality of the Beatles)--but I don't have my Bob Dylan songbook anymore and can't recall particular titles apart from "Lile a Rolling Stone." I think if you look at some of Dylan's early stuff you'll find a lot about lost paradises and the seductiveness of evil. Maybe some of his recent stuff too. Robert Appelbaum English Department University of Alabama at Birmingham Birmingham, AL 35294-1260 (205) 934-8571 on the web: www.geocities.com/r_appel/Robert.html My apologies for the commercial intrusion below: --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. From: Chris Hair [crhair0@pop.uky.edu] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 10:32 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton in 20th Century Bob Dylan--Gates of Eden. I also have a question about the point that Carol Cox disagrees with--reducing history to individual choices. Doesn't it all come down to the choices/actions of the individual agents in any historical movement. I know that a movement may take on a momentum of its own, but does it really move beyond individual choice? What other forces would act upon history? Chris Hair ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Appelbaum To: Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 1:59 PM Subject: Re: Milton in 20th Century > > An obvious connection, which I am assigning to my students this spring as > we prepare for PL: The Rolling Stones, "Sympathy for the Devil." > > I think the power of this particular attempt to deal with the heroics of > evil must still seem threatening today, since so few of my students are > familiar with the song. Yeah, it's an oldie, but they know lots of oldies, > just not this one. Too hot to handle. > > I think the Stones were themselves inspired by Bob Dylan when they wrote > this song (and also trying as hard as possible to distance themselves from > the feel-good all-you-need-is-love morality of the Beatles)--but I don't > have my Bob Dylan songbook anymore and can't recall particular titles apart > from "Lile a Rolling Stone." I think if you look at some of Dylan's early > stuff you'll find a lot about lost paradises and the seductiveness of > evil. Maybe some of his recent stuff too. > > > > > Robert Appelbaum > English Department > University of Alabama at Birmingham > Birmingham, AL 35294-1260 > (205) 934-8571 > > on the web: www.geocities.com/r_appel/Robert.html > > My apologies for the commercial intrusion below: > > > > --------------------------------- > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 8:03 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Request In a message dated 4/10/00 6:25:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Tmsandefur@aol.com writes: << No, it is not that I have limited rhetoric, it is that you have a limited imagination, that you believe that one can only have a soul if that soul is somehow supernatural. That doesn't follow. $ >> It's a rare thing to see a purely materialist concept of the soul -- the only place I've seen it really thought out is in Robert Corrington's ecstatic naturalism. Otherwise people generally use the word "soul" in a sentimental, almost meaningless fashion...one that refers to nothing more than our "highest" impulses as traditionally defined by theist value systems to begin with. . . <> This coming from a person who accused the IMF of killing millions of people? <> That was my point, John. Remember I was responding to a discussion in which the IMF was being accused of killing millions of people. An individual, so motivated, can find one of a million reasons to be compassionate. Never denied that. You don't need to be either a theist or an atheist to choose compassion. But once you step outside the arena of personal choice -- to the point where you place expectations upon others for specific behavoirs and attitudes -- you step into a view of the world and of human relations that depends upon a specific hierarchy of values, and one that almost always leads to a kind of theism...even if it's just a theism that makes a god out of collective humanity. I've argued the matter with quite a number of atheists and philosophical egoists, and the only rational arguments I've heard are those that define morality either in theist terms or purely selfish terms. Very little, if any, rational ground in between. Jim From: John Ulreich [jcu@u.arizona.edu] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 8:56 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton's politics At 05:39 PM 04/07/2000 EDT, you wrote: >In a message dated 4/7/00 5:17:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >dithw@ttacs.ttu.edu writes: > ><< Although he opposed the Papacy, Milton did not support the outright > censorship of Catholic writers as such. He noted that the government > "suffered the Idolatrous books of Papists. . . to be sold & read as common > as our own. Why not much rather of Anabaptists, Arians, Arminians & > Socinians? There is no Learned man but will confess he hath much profited > by reading Controversies, his Senses awakt, his Judgment sharpn'd, and the > truth which he holds more formly establish't" (_Of True Religion_, 437-38). > In _On Liberty_, John Stuart Mill makes a similar argument. > > Hugh Wilson >> > >That was a good quote, Hugh, thank you. The Milton the wrote Areopagitica >didn't seem capable of making such a statement, but the idea expressed in >your above quote is a natural outgrowth of his position in Areo. > >Jim > I'm not sure that Milton's remarks in "Of True Religion" can in fact be construed as a plea for tolerating papist writings. I wish it were so, but the gist of the argument seems to be: 'Since we have [unwisely] shown ourselves willing to tolerate pernicious writings (i.e., to "suffer . . . the Idolatrous books of Papists," we have no reasonable grounds for refusing the valuable work of "our own" controversialists.' Milton's all-too-familiar use of "Idolatrous" and "Papists" ("I mean not tolerated popery and open superstition.") does not suggest to me that he has changed his mind about the extent of toleration. On the contrary, the shape of his argument in OTR looks like this: 'If we can tolerate garbage, SO MUCH THE MORE ought we to tolerate wholesome food.' John C. Ulreich Professor of English Dept. of English - Modern Languages Bldg. #67 University of Arizona (520) 621-5424 Tucson, AZ 85721-0067 FAX: (520) 621-7397 From: tomdill@wc.stephens.edu Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 9:37 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton in 20th Century Dan Knauss raised a question about my effort to persuade students to read PL twice in the same semester. I assume that as many readings as one can manage in a lifetime are intrinsically preferable to none, one, or any fewer than the maximum number possible. Some of my students don't believe that I am reading along with them ("But you already read it, you know that stuff already, don't you?"), but each of my too rare opportunities to teach Milton is a treasured opportunity to re-visit the complete work (as well as many of the "lesser" works, especially PR). Because we are a very small department with a small "audience," the Milton course only occurs every third year (of course I do not live Milton-less years in between, but other teaching requires attention). Anyway, to answer the question--I begin the semester with a very rapid race through PL--we meet three times a week and I insist that they should read rapidly and without concern for notes or background reading, though I am sure many check the annotations; usually I spend the first three weeks (actually that becomes four) on this breakneck reading. We spend each class period going over the assigned portions, reading aloud as much as we can, discussing the sound, the imagery, the story, of course,, and whatever attracts their attention. I particularly read aloud because I want them to hear (and to say, when we get to their reading aloud) the glory of Milton's verse. Clearly at this point I am hoping to hook them aesthetically, to assure that they have some feeling for the power and beauty of the poetry. I make it clear to them that we will come back to PL later in the course, after we have read the'minor' works and some prose, with more systematic historical context and critical discussion. When we return to PL, usually for the final 5 weeks of the semester, I give them a number of small focused assignments that require them to read more carefully and in depth and we move more slowly (though still too quickly for many, of course) through the books, discussing what used to be called cruxes;because my students are all women, we inevitably encounter the issues raised by feminist criticism and those offer many opportunities for discussion, but the assignments I give are almost all in the realm of "close reading," and require the students to do some work with the concordance, with a variety of reference books, and so on. (I might add that by no means are all the students English majors, so I have no guarantee that they will have a literary foundation for this work, but usually that is not too severe a problem.) I have used this strategy each time I have taught the course, which now adds up to a total of 12 tiems (in earlier years, it came up more frequently when our major had a different structure and more students to draw in); while some students have wondered whether it was a good idea, I have never had an open rebellion against the expectations. I can't claim to have convinced every student that Milton is the greatest English poet, though I freely tell them that I think so and try to show them why. I can claim that many students have (perhaps just to humor the poor fellow) at least affirmed (pretended? lied outright?) that they were converted to be fans of Milton. That is the success I have hoped for; on a slightly less exalted level, some have at least expressed satisfaction that they can claim to have read PL and survived it. (I had a colleague who told me, when I was preparing to teach the class for the first time, that he firmly believed no one in the 20th century had ever actually read PL all the way through--he seemed unaware that he was merely echoing G.B. Shaw, but he also seemed actually to believe he was right. I simply assured him that he was wrong. Why argue?) So I hope this answers the question. Of course, I have the luxury of a full semester course in which to do this. If I were teaching a period or survey course, it would be a very different matter. Tom Dillingham From: Norman T. Burns [nburns@binghamton.edu] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 1:30 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton's politics Robert Appelbaum wrote, in part: > >It bears remebering too that the first English advocate of >Latitudinarianism (name escapes me--he was harried on his deathbed by >Francis Cheynell) was a Royalist and to some extent a Laudian. The real >test for"religious tolerance" in our sense in 17th-century England was >whether Catholicism would be allowed or suffered (tolerated) to exist, and >on that score none of our Puritans and Parliamentarians were successful. Bob, I believe you are trying to recall William Chillingworth, who wrote __The Religion of Protestants a Safe Way to Salvation__(1638), where he argued that it was safe for honest differences of opinion to coexist if they were based on one's understanding of Scripture. He thus attracted the doctrinaire Calvinist Cheynell to his deathbed. Well before Toland the Anglican Jeremy Taylor's __The Liberty of Prophesyng__(1647) argued that the Apostle's Creed was a sufficient summary of essential truths and that articles and confessions of belief, that typically went beyond the Creed, were unnecessary and divisive. The __de facto__ toleration existing in some of the 17thC.'s important sectarian assemblies should not be overlooked. We all know how intolerant the New England Congregationalists could be, but the General Baptists [Roger Williams seems to have been one, at least for a time] had great strength in England throughout much of the seventeenth century; their respect for "tender consciences" led their several churches for most of their heyday to refuse to issue a statement of their doctrines or even to meet in a general conference. The General Baptists required adult baptism and immersion, however, and were surpassed in openness by the Friends, who repudiated all sacraments, creedal statements, and rituals and had no interest in establishing a ministerial class. Not until almost the third generation of Quakers was a formal declaration of Quaker doctrines issued, and that one, written by Robert Barclay, remained only his personal statement, never having been submitted to the Society for its consideration, sanction, or correction. As a result, it was not a simple thing for General Baptists and especially Quakers to know who was a member of their sect, who was deviating from true belief, and the like. The Quakers have had their schisms, certainly, but they have never had a doctrinal test for membership, no doctrinal statement to be subscribed to. In some of the sects the life of a free conscience could to some considerable degree be lived decades before the Latitudinarian movement began within the state church late in the century. --Norm Burns From: Phillip Sidney Horky [phorky@umich.edu] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 11:48 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton in 20th Century Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu Some 20th Century responses to Milton: 1. Music: the late 90's English group Belle and Sebastian in "The Boy Done Wrong Again" (From 1997's _If You're Feeling Sinister_) sing of a Satan-Book4-esque narrator: "On Saturday I was an angel shining fair / You shone louder, longer, you put my shine to shame / You put me to shame now / What is it I must do to pay for all my crimes?" 2. Music: Smashing Pumpkins: "Geek, USA" from 1993's "Siamese Dream." Billy Corgan dismisses any fortunate fall: "In a dream we are connected / Siamese twins at the wrists / and then I knew we had been forsaken / expelled from Paradise / I can't believe them when they're saying it's all right" and then he launches into a really really angry guitar solo. This may not be specifically Miltonic, but it's worth mentioning. Great song too. There are more than passing references to _Paradise Lost_ in the excellent films _Time Bandits_ and _The Devil's Advocate_ (keep your EYES open in this one; there are tons of little things going on in the background; e.g. Cerberus at the entrance to the slum basement, scene where box with "Halo Light" is placed spatially between Keanu Reeves and Al Pacino) and rent two brilliantly-written films of screenwriter Andrew Niccol in _Gattaca_ and _The Truman Show_ which question the deification on Man. A poor version of the Fall exists in _Pleasantville_. Finally, if you read between the lines well enough, you will see that Tarantino's masterpiece _Pulp Fiction_ is a moral tale about saving souls (specifically the soul of Marcellus Wallace, in the suitcase, taken out of his body where his skull meets his spine; remember the bandage on his neck in his first scene!). Sorry this is so long. Off to bed to prepare for tomorrow's Petronius lesson on dinner parties with freedmen. Yours, Phillip Horky _____________________________________________________________________ "The first and wisest of them all profess'd To know this only, that he nothing knew." -The Son, _Paradise Regain'd_ "For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another." _Galatians_5:13 "Dim as the borrowed beams of moon and stars To lonely, weary, wandering travellers, Is reason to the soul...." -John Dryden, _Religio Laici_ ____________________________________________________________________ Phillip Horky Student, LS&A Honors The University of Michigan Ann Arbor From: nick [nickhay1@email.msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 9:58 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: RE: Milton's politics > It bears remebering too that the first English advocate of > Latitudinarianism (name escapes me--he was harried on his deathbed by > Francis Cheynell) was a Royalist and to some extent a Laudian. The real > test for"religious tolerance" in our sense in 17th-century England was > whether Catholicism would be allowed or suffered (tolerated) to > exist, and > on that score none of our Puritans and Parliamentarians were successful. > > Robert Appelbaum I do not think that it is as simple as that. You cannot divorce "religious tolerance" from political realities in the 17th Century and especially not where Catholicism is concerned. The inter-mixture between Catholicism and absolutism, between Catholicism and the dominant Continental powers of Spain and France means that Catholicism was a deadly (literally) political enemy to England at this time ( as for a long time before and afterwards). This is apart from its ideological or religious abhorrence to Puritans A better test of "religious" tolerance might be the attitude to Quakerism which posed a purely religious threat - and here we have the fascinating accounts of Cromwell's confrontation with Fox - though I have to admit that reading Fox I think he must have been a difficult man to tolerate :). Nick. From: John Rumrich [rumrich@mail.utexas.edu] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 10:25 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton's politics It was Wm. Chillingsworth. He was persecuted on his deathbed for advocating toleration and the role of reason in religious belief--considered sure signs of socinianism at the time by Cheynall et al. Locke (who reiterated the arguments against granting Catholics toleration) considered Cheynall's memoir on the matter truly vile. The assertion that "the real test for relig tolerance in our sense in 17th cent was whether Catholicism would be allowed . . ." strikes me as being unjustified--and misleading. >A problem with this discussion, it seems to me, is that neither Milton nor >Williams used the idea of "tolerance" in quite the way we did. I will try >to check this this afternoon (why is there no Milton Concordance on-line >yet), but I don't recall Milton ever advocating "tolerance." I remeber >learning somewhere that the first exponent of "religious tolerance" in our >sense was John Toland. > >It bears remebering too that the first English advocate of >Latitudinarianism (name escapes me--he was harried on his deathbed by >Francis Cheynell) was a Royalist and to some extent a Laudian. The real >test for"religious tolerance" in our sense in 17th-century England was >whether Catholicism would be allowed or suffered (tolerated) to exist, and >on that score none of our Puritans and Parliamentarians were successful. > > > > > > > >Robert Appelbaum >English Department >University of Alabama at Birmingham >Birmingham, AL 35294-1260 >(205) 934-8571 > >on the web: www.geocities.com/r_appel/Robert.html > >My apologies for the commercial intrusion below: > > > >--------------------------------- >Do You Yahoo!? >Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. From: colin cartwright [colcris@dircon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 6:51 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Cc: colcris@dircon.co.uk Subject: Re:Request At the end of a fascinating debate about the motivation for doing good or evil, John Creaser rightly argues that 'compassion cannot be legislated for'. This is exactly what Jesus taught and demonstrated so powerfully. Which is why I believe Jesus is the best inspiration for good which the human race has. Learned debates on Milton, the IMF or whatever, cannot ignore Jesus and the events of Easter. Colin. From: Carrol Cox [cbcox@ilstu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 12:41 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Apology, was Re: Request The last post I submitted under this heading was sent by mistake -- it is unfinished, and in addition I was actually thinking of it as a draft for a post on a quite different list. I didn't even know I had sent it until I got it back. Carrol From: rwill627 [rwill627@camalott.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 11:58 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton's politics >A problem with this discussion, it seems to >me, is that neither Milton nor Williams used >the idea of "tolerance" in quite the way we did. Perhaps not, in the sense that Williams was a committed Christian. He did say, however, the following: "It is the will and command of God, that a permission of the most paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or Antichristian consciences and worships be granted to all men in all nations and countries and they are only to be fought against with that sword which is only in soul matters able to conquer: to wit, the sword of God's spirit, the Word of God." Evidently he agreed with the famous Voltaire quote (which many scholars insist Voltaire did not actually say) "I cannot agree with what you say, but will defend with my life your right to say it." Rose Williams From: t.n.corns@bangor.ac.uk Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 9:31 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Milton Marathon for Mozambique Bangor Marathon Reading We've just done our first marathon reading of Paradise Lost -- probably the first in Wales, possibly (open to correction) the first in the UK. And it went surprisingly well. The readers were principally drawn from a PL special subject seminar, aided by faculty and friends. Peter Kitson, who is just moving to Dundee, read Satan. I read Michael. Jim Daems Raphael. Students took other major parts and the general narration. I was really looking to have the poem dusted off for me, and generally I think it was worthwhile. So many large and small points one notices. To my amazement, it proved quite easy to read, even for those fairly unfamiliar with the text. Generally the student readers read nimbly and with precision. Collectively we had decided to use the event through sponsorship to raise funds for Mozambique Flood Relief -- it looks as though we'll be at least into the low hundreds of pounds. The reading took from 9 am to 7.30 pm, with breaks; about 9 hours 45 mins net reading time. Tom Corns From: tom bishop [tgb2@po.cwru.edu] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 8:26 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton's politics In response to Robert Applebaum's and Norm Burns' fine posts on toleration, I note also William Walwyn's plea in "The Power of Love" in 1643, in which he advocates toleration, and indeed active listening and conversation, for all except "such as make the blood of Christ ineffectual or such as will destroy all that will not submit to their opinions". Later he again suggests that "Such opinions as are not destructive to humane society, nor blaspheme the work of our redemption may peacefully be endured and considered in love." Roman Catholics seem, for Milton and Walwyn and others of the period, to have fallen under the category of "such as will destroy all that will not submit to their opinions", though not to exhaust that category. The latter exclusion may be intended to cover Ranter opinions such as Clarkson's, but it's hard to tell. Tom Bishop From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 7:21 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton's politics In a message dated 4/11/00 5:27:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jcu@u.arizona.edu writes: << On the contrary, the shape of his argument in OTR looks like this: 'If we can tolerate garbage, SO MUCH THE MORE ought we to tolerate wholesome food.' John C. Ulreich Professor of English >> Well now, that's interesting...I have to read OTR myself now. Would like to hear what Hugh says. Jim From: Dan Knauss [tiresias@juno.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 6:28 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton in 20th Century Tom, Thanks for the detailed description. It sounds great; maybe I'll get the chance to try it myself sometime. Dan Knauss On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 20:37:09 -0500 tomdill@wc.stephens.edu (TOM DILLINGHAM) writes: > Dan Knauss raised a question about my effort to persuade students to > read PL twice in the same semester. I assume that as many readings > as > one can manage in a lifetime are intrinsically preferable to none, > one, > or any fewer than the maximum number possible. Some of my students > don't believe that I am reading along with them ("But you already > read it, you know that stuff already, don't you?"), but each of > my too rare opportunities to teach Milton is a treasured opportunity > to re-visit the complete work (as well as many of the "lesser" > works, > especially PR). Because we are a very small department with a small > "audience," the Milton course only occurs every third year (of > course > I do not live Milton-less years in between, but other teaching > requires > attention). > Anyway, to answer the question--I begin the semester with a very > rapid > race through PL--we meet three times a week and I insist that they > should > read rapidly and without concern for notes or background reading, > though > I am sure many check the annotations; usually I spend the first > three > weeks (actually that becomes four) on this breakneck reading. We > spend each class period going over the assigned portions, reading > aloud > as much as we can, discussing the sound, the imagery, the story, of > course,, > and whatever attracts their attention. I particularly read aloud > because > I want them to hear (and to say, when we get to their reading aloud) > the glory of Milton's verse. Clearly at this point I am hoping to > hook them aesthetically, to assure that they have some feeling for > the > power and beauty of the poetry. > I make it clear to them that we will come back to PL later in the > course, > after we have read the'minor' works and some prose, with more > systematic > historical context and critical discussion. When we return to PL, > usually for the final 5 weeks of the semester, I give them a number > of small focused assignments that require them to read more > carefully > and in depth and we move more slowly (though still too quickly for > many, of course) through the books, discussing what used to be > called cruxes;because my students are all women, we inevitably > encounter > the issues raised by feminist criticism and those offer many > opportunities > for discussion, but the assignments I give are almost all in the > realm > of "close reading," and require the students to do some work with > the concordance, with a variety of reference books, and so on. > (I might add that by no means are all the students English majors, > so I have no guarantee that they will have a literary foundation > for this work, but usually that is not too severe a problem.) > I have used this strategy each time I have taught the course, which > now adds up to a total of 12 tiems (in earlier years, it came up > more frequently when our major had a different structure and more > students to draw in); while some students have wondered whether it > was a good idea, I have never had an open rebellion against the > expectations. I can't claim to have convinced every student that > Milton is the greatest English poet, though I freely tell them that > I think so and try to show them why. I can claim that many students > have (perhaps just to humor the poor fellow) at least affirmed > (pretended? lied outright?) that they were converted to be fans > of Milton. That is the success I have hoped for; on a slightly > less exalted level, some have at least expressed satisfaction that > they can claim to have read PL and survived it. (I had a colleague > who told me, when I was preparing to teach the class for the first > time, that he firmly believed no one in the 20th century had ever > actually read PL all the way through--he seemed unaware that he was > merely echoing G.B. Shaw, but he also seemed actually to believe he > was right. I simply assured him that he was wrong. Why argue?) > So I hope this answers the question. Of course, I have the > luxury of a full semester course in which to do this. If I were > teaching a period or survey course, it would be a very different > matter. > Tom Dillingham From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 7:31 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Request In a message dated 4/11/00 5:35:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, colcris@dircon.co.uk writes: << At the end of a fascinating debate about the motivation for doing good or evil, John Creaser rightly argues that 'compassion cannot be legislated for'. This is exactly what Jesus taught and demonstrated so powerfully. Which is why I believe Jesus is the best inspiration for good which the human race has. Learned debates on Milton, the IMF or whatever, cannot ignore Jesus and the events of Easter. Colin. >> What I think John was arguing was that an "external moral law" of any kind -- one imposed by the God of a theist system -- cannot produce morality. The question that could put to you is, Why would I be obedient to Christ to begin with? There's a whole lot that has to happen prior to this kind of a decision and we're light years away from it in this discussion. But I think that the belief that theist moral systems are purely externally motivated is a misreading of theism on this point. I agree that theist often misread atheists, and it is a common assumption in some theist apologetics that atheists are unmotivated to be "moral" or "compassionate." That's not a statement I've ever made. My experience was that prior to holding any specific belief system -- when I myself was an atheist, in fact -- I had deep intuitions for compassion, tolerance, and understanding. When I encounted the teachings of Christ I didn't find an external law being imposed upon me, but a validation of some of my deepest intuitions. The moral teachings were validated by my intuitions, rather than in opposition to them. So it's pretty odd for the atheists on this list to complain about external moral laws on the one hand and then argue for self-motivated compassion on the other...especially since centuries of this external moral law has been such a large contributing factor in the high valuation western culture places upon compassion. Jim From: Marc Ricciardi [marccr@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 9:16 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Request colin cartwright wrote: > > At the end of a fascinating debate about the motivation for doing good or > evil, John Creaser rightly argues that 'compassion cannot be legislated > for'. This is exactly what Jesus taught and demonstrated so powerfully. > Which is why I believe Jesus is the best inspiration for good which the > human race has. Learned debates on Milton, the IMF or whatever, cannot > ignore Jesus and the events of Easter. > Colin. Amen. From: Carol Barton [cbartonphd@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 7:32 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton's politics This responds to Nick Hay's message, which is short, and therefore appears intact below: The religious antipathy between the Puritans (who, as we all learned in grade school, "left England to escape religious persecution") and their vicious intolerance of the Quakers once they arrived in the States is sadly notorious, as anyone who has ever read Hawthorne (or U.S. colonial history) knows. I suspect it is as difficult to pinpoint (or pigeonhole), or separate, what any man believes *in principle* from what the same man may practice, say, or do, in any given "real life" situation, much less account for the reasons why he feels that way. Milton's Roman Catholic paternal grandfather disowned John Milton, Sr. for becoming a Protestant; perhaps Milton despised the Catholics, not for their religious practices as much as for their parochial intolerance; yet his friendships with Italians of the Roman Catholic faith would seem to contradict such a predilection. His (from what we know) best-beloved teacher was a Scottish Presbyterian; that didn't stop that teacher from denouncing him as a Divorcer and repudiating _DDD_, nor did it stop Milton from writing "old Priest is but new Presbyter writ large," or indicting the Scots for the regicide, once Charles and his head parted company. He befriended the Quaker Thomas Ellwood: does that mean he subscribed to the doctrines of the sect? Why do we have this need to pack Milton up in a neat little box, and shackle him within a particular epistemological cage? The man was as independent as they come, religiously, politically, philosophically, and theologically, always thinking, always growing, always changing, and so are most of us who love him. (Do any of you believe at 40 what you did at 25, or think that -- of necessity -- you will believe next week what you subscribe to today?) Read the whole canon, carefully, thoroughly, open-mindedly, and you can't help but see that this is not a man you can pin down about very much but his passionate belief in the personal liberty of upright hearts and pure, and his lifelong commitment to Christianity in the "fleshy tables of the heart," non-churchianity sense of the term. There are inconsistencies in the canon, and so there should be: are any of us cut from whole cloth? The one thing John Milton believed in, unwaveringly, vehemently, and unrelentingly throughout his entire life what his right to believe in whatever his heart and intellect told him he should believe. Why can't we just leave it at that? Carol Barton ----- Original Message ----- From: "nick" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 9:57 AM Subject: RE: Milton's politics > > > > It bears remebering too that the first English advocate of > > Latitudinarianism (name escapes me--he was harried on his deathbed by > > Francis Cheynell) was a Royalist and to some extent a Laudian. The real > > test for"religious tolerance" in our sense in 17th-century England was > > whether Catholicism would be allowed or suffered (tolerated) to > > exist, and > > on that score none of our Puritans and Parliamentarians were successful. > > > > Robert Appelbaum > > > I do not think that it is as simple as that. > You cannot divorce "religious tolerance" from > political realities in the 17th Century and > especially not where Catholicism is concerned. > The inter-mixture between Catholicism and absolutism, > between Catholicism and the dominant Continental > powers of Spain and France means that Catholicism > was a deadly (literally) political enemy to England > at this time ( as for a long time before and > afterwards). This is apart from its > ideological or religious abhorrence to Puritans > > A better test of "religious" tolerance might be > the attitude to Quakerism which posed a > purely religious threat - and here we have the > fascinating accounts of Cromwell's confrontation > with Fox - though I have to admit that reading > Fox I think he must have been a difficult > man to tolerate :). > > Nick. > > > > > > From: Carol Barton [cbartonphd@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 5:13 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu <00b501bfa35e$63390dc0$4002ffd1@compaq> Subject: Re: Milton in 20th Century Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 19:49:44 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu I'm not sure Carrol.Cox (who is a man) finds this as annoying as I do, but his name is spelt with two "r"s, mine (and several others' of the female persuasion) with one. People often confuse us, as a result of feminizing his name . . . and attribute what one of us has said to the other, which can be disconcerting, since (pace Carrol) our opinions are often on opposite sides of the "great divide." Please check the spelling, or use the last name? Thanks, Carol Barton From: Cobelli@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 12:06 AM To: Milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Martin Luther on IMF/World Bank How do you reconcile Luther's timely take in today's age of Microsoft monopolies and impersonal corporate globalizaton of the economy on usury with his views on killing the "mad dogs" (rebelling peasants) in the Peasant's War? Or do you just not reconcile them at all, as the Peasant's War was a specific contextual situation prompting his diatribe and not really indicative of his general views on social order and justice? What are Milton's views on usury? Scott Grunow From: Norman T. Burns [nburns@binghamton.edu] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 11:39 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton's politics The mark of toleration during the period was the unwillingness to use civil power (the "civil sword") to pressure individual consciences into conformity in matters of religion. Milton scores well by this standard , at least for Protestant believers (Catholics, Muslims and Jews were special cases, often mixed with international politics), as does Cromwell--neither of them perfect, but unusually high scorers. Milton's __Civil Power__ argues the case, but it must have made little sense to most people. Williams hated the Quaker views that Fox brought to Rhode Island, debated against them vigorously, and published the intemperate __George Fox Digg'd Out of His Burrows__, but he did not use his status in the colony to have Fox controlled by the civil authority; one can oppose and be rude, but one may not persecute by calling on the civil arm. Another good score, adding to Williams's good work in the __Bloody Tenent__ books. The Congregational clergy of New England made sure that it had a civil magistracy that banished Quakers and hanged them for a second offense. Back in England the Rump passed the Blasphemy Act of 1650 that prescribed the same punishments for promulgating a number of specified doctrinal errors. Most of the Anglican, Presbyterian, and Independent clergy, to one degree or other, believed that toleration was itself a great heresy, and that it was the duty of the civil magistrate to suppress "errors" in doctrine or public worship as it was the duty of the clergy to see that the magistrate performed this duty. It was the established view, and had been for centuries. Even if Milton, Williams, General Baptists, and Quakers were imperfect tolerationists, in this context it is meaningful to associate them as advocates of religious toleration and to note, with Rose Williams, that the passage quoted below is a truly extraordinary statement. --Norm Burns At 10:57 AM 4/11/2000 -0500, you wrote: > >A problem with this discussion, it seems to >me, is that neither Milton nor >Williams used >the idea of "tolerance" in quite the way we did. > Perhaps not, in the sense that Williams was a committed Christian. He did >say, however, the following: >"It is the will and command of God, that a permission of the most paganish, >Jewish, Turkish, or Antichristian consciences and worships be granted to all >men in all nations and countries and they are only to be fought against with >that sword which is only in soul matters able to conquer: to wit, the sword >of God's spirit, the Word of God." >Evidently he agreed with the famous Voltaire quote (which many scholars >insist Voltaire did not actually say) "I cannot agree with what you say, but >will defend with my life your right to say it." >Rose Williams From: Jameela Lares [jlares@ocean.otr.usm.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 10:15 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton Marathon for Mozambique >From Thomas N Corns's post re Bangor Marathon Reading > > it went surprisingly well .... To my > amazement, it proved quite easy to read, even for those fairly unfamiliar > with the text. Generally the student readers read nimbly and with > precision. I have noted the same, that the epic teaches people how to read it aloud. I've even had second language speakers and those with reading disorders do fairly well. Jameela Lares From: J W Creaser [creaser@holl.u-net.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 5:38 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Request Dear Jim, I think we're now going round and round the mulberry bush, and should end this exchange, since we're far from Milton and since I thought I had shown at the very beginning, courtesy of George Eliot, that there is a way between what you call `theist terms' and `purely selfish terms'. For myself, I'll sign off by conceding that those who can believe in a God taken to be an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent Creator and can share what they take to be `his' values do have the advantage of believing their values are absolute--because they are his--and therefore have a basis for judgment in all situations. But the advantages of possessing absolute values are no guarantee of God's existence and no reason for believing in him. Moreover, values drawn from the remote past can in practice create terrible problems for generations of later believers. (One reminder of this, for Miltonists, are the problems faced by Milton in explaining away Christ's illiberal words on divorce in DDD--the Churches are involved in such casuistry all the time.) Conversely, unbelievers lack the security of absolutes, but are freed from what seem to have become archaic irrelevances within the faith. Theirs is the freedom and responsibility of arguing for values based on our shared mortality. Best wishes, John Creaser At 20:02 10/04/00 EDT, you wrote: >In a message dated 4/10/00 6:25:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >Tmsandefur@aol.com writes: > ><< > No, it is not that I have limited rhetoric, it is that you have a limited > imagination, that you believe that one can only have a soul if that soul is > somehow supernatural. That doesn't follow. > > $ >> > >It's a rare thing to see a purely materialist concept of the soul -- the only >place I've seen it really thought out is in Robert Corrington's ecstatic >naturalism. Otherwise people generally use the word "soul" in a sentimental, >almost meaningless fashion...one that refers to nothing more than our >"highest" impulses as traditionally defined by theist value systems to begin >with. . . > ><escapes this moralism (this >need to judge people and actions) it becomes easier (I think) to see >the tremendous achievement reflected in dramatizing this absurd world >of endless choice and judgement. - Carol>> > >This coming from a person who accused the IMF of killing millions of people? > ><for. > >John Creaser>> > >That was my point, John. Remember I was responding to a discussion in which >the IMF was being accused of killing millions of people. > >An individual, so motivated, can find one of a million reasons to be >compassionate. Never denied that. You don't need to be either a theist or >an atheist to choose compassion. But once you step outside the arena of >personal choice -- to the point where you place expectations upon others for >specific behavoirs and attitudes -- you step into a view of the world and of >human relations that depends upon a specific hierarchy of values, and one >that almost always leads to a kind of theism...even if it's just a theism >that makes a god out of collective humanity. > >I've argued the matter with quite a number of atheists and philosophical >egoists, and the only rational arguments I've heard are those that define >morality either in theist terms or purely selfish terms. Very little, if >any, rational ground in between. > >Jim > > > From: John Wall [jnweg@unity.ncsu.edu] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 9:41 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Request One of the most disturbing things about this interchange has been the idea that people of faith have grounds for believing that their interpretation of "God's will" or whatever term we might have for it represents an absolute. Great evil has been done and continues to be done in the name of the belief that one's values correspond to the will of God, that one can act with confidence in the claim that one's particular interpretation of religious belief is congruent with the will of the object of that belief. In fact, people of faith have every reason to affirm the mystery of the divine and the limitations of human understanding of the divine. To make this a bit more on-topic, I have always felt that Milton had more confidence in his reading of the divine will than he had a right to. As Stanley Fish once said in my hearing, Milton was confident that he could improve any situation simply by getting involved in it. Best, John Wall From: Ann Gulden [a.t.gulden@iba.uio.no] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 4:59 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton Marathon for Mozambique News of Tom Corns' reading in Bangor has hit the university newspaper in Oslo......with a short notice, entitled 'World Record in Poetry'. (Universitas, 12 April) So I will have to publicise the Oslo sessions better, having arranged the marathon three times here. Norwegians read it well, and the reading improves as the poem rolls along......we usually have around 8 people, assorted Brits, Norwegians and Americans. The best date was St Lucia's day, Friday 13th December, when the forces of light and dark became aligned. Ann Gulden At 09:14 12.04.00 -0500, you wrote: > > >From Thomas N Corns's post re Bangor Marathon Reading > > > > it went surprisingly well .... To my > > amazement, it proved quite easy to read, even for those fairly unfamiliar > > with the text. Generally the student readers read nimbly and with > > precision. > >I have noted the same, that the epic teaches people how to read it aloud. >I've even had second language speakers and those with reading disorders do >fairly well. > >Jameela Lares > > > From: Tony Hill [mjksezth@fs1.ce.umist.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 5:49 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: request "My experience was that prior to holding any specific belief system -- when I myself was an atheist, in fact" How can you reasonably claim, Jim, that being an atheist is not "holding any specific belief system". Yes you cannot prove the existence of "God", "otherness" ,or whatever you want to call it, by rational argument but neither can you, by the same lights, disprove that existence. Hence to be an atheist is to hold a belief. If we want to look for moral "truth" or "good" on rational grounds ALONE we should all be agnostic. (Actually quite a respectable thing to be). Tony Hill www.ce.umist.ac.uk From: Hugh Wilson [dithw@ttacs.ttu.edu] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 2:56 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton's politics A response, >I'm not sure that Milton's remarks in "Of True Religion" can in fact be >construed as a plea for tolerating papist writings. I wish it were so, but >the gist of the argument seems to be: 'Since we have [unwisely] shown >ourselves willing to tolerate pernicious writings (i.e., to "suffer . . . >the Idolatrous books of Papists," we have no reasonable grounds for >refusing the valuable work of "our own" controversialists.' Milton's >all-too-familiar use of "Idolatrous" and "Papists" ("I mean not tolerated >popery and open superstition.") does not suggest to me that he has changed >his mind about the extent of toleration. On the contrary, the shape of his >argument in OTR looks like this: 'If we can tolerate garbage, SO MUCH THE MORE ought we to tolerate wholesome food.' Although I considered the possibility of the hostile reading as well, but I think the last sentence in the passages speaks for toleration of anything--right or wrong--that is written in sincerity. In addition, there are other passages. When Milton wrote _Of True Religion_, Catholic literature had been tolerated by the administration of Charles II for a decade and the sky hadn't fallen, Protestantism was reviving in Parliament, and none the worse for wear. Repression becomes a temptation when things are getting worse. Keith Stavely's introduction implies the possibility of toleration for Dissenters was in prospect when Milton published this tract. In Milton's view, foreigners in England had a right to the religion of their choosing and their upbringing, they are "Privileg'd by the Law of Nations" (8:431). Milton trusts the spread of knowledge to bring down "Popery," he does not rely on censorship of their ideas per se. He suggests that the "among Papists. . . their ignorance in Scripture chiefly upholds Popery, so among Protestant People, the frequent and serious reading thereof will soonest pull Popery down" (8:435). Milton opposes Catholicism, but instead of "tearing Catholics down," Milton wants to build up or "edify" Protestants. As Rose Williams suggests, conversion can only come through persuasion--through words or The Word--not through coercion. Milton cites 1 Thessalonians 5:21, "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good. St. Paul judg'd that no only to tolerate, but to examine and prove all things, was no danger to our holding fast of that which is good. How shall we prove all things, which includes all opinions founded on Scripture, unless we not only tolerate them, but patiently hear them, and seriously read them?" (8:436). Milton makes a series of recommendations for avoiding Popery, but burning their books, censoring their writings is not among them. He opposes toleration of Popery, "either in Public or Private," but not by coercive means. Instead, Milton recommends tolerating Protestants (as Catholics were _already_ tolerated under Charles II); reading the Scriptures, and the "last means to avoid Popery, is to amend our lives." Censorship is not in the list. The remedy for bad literature is Scripture or good literature. I suspect that this debate conflates two issues: the toleration of "theory," reading, writing or literature; and the toleration of "scandalous" practices. The modern conservative, liberal or radical might tolerate the existence of books by the Marquis de Sade, but still draw the line at the practice of sadism. Milton had a similar attitude toward the belief in a coercive church, the belief in the theoretical supremacy of the Pope in ecclesiastical _and_ civil affairs: "Popery." By that definition, most Catholics were not "Popish." Milton even denounced it when Protestants--like the Presbyterians threatened to conflate church and state. "New 'Presbyter' is but old 'Priest' writ large." I suspect that the allure of Papist tracts wasn't the most pressing threat--the machinations of the authorities (the Treaty of Dover) and spectre of a Popish plot were. Cheers, Hugh Wilson hwilson@door.net (806) 747-8830 At 05:55 PM 4/10/2000 -0700, you wrote: >At 05:39 PM 04/07/2000 EDT, you wrote: > >In a message dated 4/7/00 5:17:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > >dithw@ttacs.ttu.edu writes: > > > ><< Although he opposed the Papacy, Milton did not support the outright > > censorship of Catholic writers as such. He noted that the government > > "suffered the Idolatrous books of Papists. . . to be sold & read as common > > as our own. Why not much rather of Anabaptists, Arians, Arminians & > > Socinians? There is no Learned man but will confess he hath much profited > > by reading Controversies, his Senses awakt, his Judgment sharpn'd, and the > > truth which he holds more formly establish't" (_Of True Religion_, 437-38). > > In _On Liberty_, John Stuart Mill makes a similar argument. > > > > Hugh Wilson >> > > > >That was a good quote, Hugh, thank you. The Milton the wrote Areopagitica > >didn't seem capable of making such a statement, but the idea expressed in > >your above quote is a natural outgrowth of his position in Areo. > > > >Jim > > >I'm not sure that Milton's remarks in "Of True Religion" can in fact be >construed as a plea for tolerating papist writings. I wish it were so, but >the gist of the argument seems to be: 'Since we have [unwisely] shown >ourselves willing to tolerate pernicious writings (i.e., to "suffer . . . >the Idolatrous books of Papists," we have no reasonable grounds for >refusing the valuable work of "our own" controversialists.' Milton's >all-too-familiar use of "Idolatrous" and "Papists" ("I mean not tolerated >popery and open superstition.") does not suggest to me that he has changed >his mind about the extent of toleration. On the contrary, the shape of his >argument in OTR looks like this: 'If we can tolerate garbage, SO MUCH THE >MORE ought we to tolerate wholesome food.' >John C. Ulreich Professor of English >Dept. of English - Modern Languages Bldg. #67 >University of Arizona (520) 621-5424 >Tucson, AZ 85721-0067 FAX: (520) 621-7397 > > > > > > From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 5:58 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Request In a message dated 4/12/00 5:22:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, creaser@holl.u-net.com writes: << Conversely, unbelievers lack the security of absolutes, but are freed from what seem to have become archaic irrelevances within the faith. Theirs is the freedom and responsibility of arguing for values based on our shared mortality. Best wishes, John Creaser >> John -- the existence of absolutes isn't supposed to be the end of moral dialog, and was never intended to be. If you compare the Mosaic law, for example, to the Sermon on the Mount you see a shift from an external set of rules to an internalized value system, one expressive not just of a set of beliefs adopted from an external source, but of who we are on the deepest levels. It's a fallacy to argue with a philosophical stance by using only its worst proponents as examples, and this is common in atheist discourse against theism. A truly rigorous philosophy -- one that argues from first principles -- generally excludes "middle roads" such as Eliot's. Seeking for first principles means asking why we look for "shared" values to begin with. This quest involves a value judgment made already, but still unjustified. In my experience it never is or can be. If you deny the existence of God and look to nature for your example, you have to choose between natural examples of cruetly and selfishness, and natural examples of nurturing and compassion. What we use to choose between the examples provided us by nature is our real belief system -- but one chosen prior to our examination of nature, not justified by it. What I look into when I look into God's law is a mirror of what I know intuitively is the better side of my nature. It tells me **what I already know** about who I am and who I should be. Look closely enough, you might see the same. I guess this is all I have to say on the subject too. Thanks for the discussion. Jim From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 5:36 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request In a message dated 4/13/00 5:20:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mjksezth@fs1.ce.umist.ac.uk writes: << How can you reasonably claim, Jim, that being an atheist is not "holding any specific belief system". Yes you cannot prove the existence of "God", "otherness" ,or whatever you want to call it, by rational argument but neither can you, by the same lights, disprove that existence. Hence to be an atheist is to hold a belief. If we want to look for moral "truth" or "good" on rational grounds ALONE we should all be agnostic. (Actually quite a respectable thing to be). Tony Hill >> My atheism wasn't thought out to the extent that I would call it a "belief SYSTEM" (caps for emphasis). In other words, it was just a belief rather than a belief "system." Some atheisms are indeed belief systems. For me, atheism was just a rejection of what I thought I saw when I looked into the Catholicism in which I was raised. Many Christian thinkers (like Pascal) would agree with you -- that reason alone leads to contradictions. The inference that agnosticism is the only rational belief system doesn't follow, however. If God is personally experienced, then unbelief is an irrational position (at least for the individual who had the experience). And really, I think that's the only valid reason to believe in God -- direct personal experience. The agnostic position becomes a bit irrational at this point. The choices offered by agnosticism (and really atheism as well) are: 1. That God does not exist, and many of the most moral, intelligent and sane people who have ever lived must be fundamentally unstable because they believe in God through direct personal experience. 2. That God does exist, but many moral, intelligent and sane people just haven't had a personal verification of that existence yet (atheists and agnostics). I'm drawing from the best examples of both classes, of course. But at least the first position allows for equal respect for all people regardless of their belief, and does indeed take into account some basic facts about human history -- that the people who defined morality and sanity for us all these thousands of years were indeed theists of some sort. The second position makes any theistic position inherently irrational, and forces us to call irrational people like Christ, Buddha, Ghandi, and any one of hundreds of people I've met on a daily basis who happen to believe in God but are very powerful, and stable, individuals. If we want to pursue negative examples, atheists would just throw up the Inquisition in my face, and I would throw up 10-50 million dead Russians under Stalin and Lenin, Tianamen Square, the Killing Fields in Cambodia, and every injustice committed by every Marxist regime that has ever existed. Since both sides have much to be proud of and much to be ashamed of, there's no use pursuing negative arguments. So if you're an agnostic, I think you should look more closely too :) Jim From: John Hale [John.Hale@stonebow.otago.ac.nz] Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 1:49 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton Marathon for Mozambique Oslo's performance may be the northernmost Miltonfest, as Dunedin's may be the southernmost. Trivial as such things may seem, I find they do catch the attention of the local community, who unquestionably include many readers of Milton. Here, they join in the marathon powerfully, and help me make a noise for Milton and the poem. John Hale >News of Tom Corns' reading in Bangor has hit the university newspaper in >Oslo......with a short notice, entitled 'World Record in Poetry'. >(Universitas, 12 April) >So I will have to publicise the Oslo sessions better, having arranged the >marathon three times here. Norwegians read it well, and the reading >improves as the poem rolls along......we usually have around 8 people, >assorted Brits, Norwegians and Americans. The best date was St Lucia's day, >Friday 13th December, when the forces of light and dark became aligned. > >Ann Gulden > >At 09:14 12.04.00 -0500, you wrote: > > > > >From Thomas N Corns's post re Bangor Marathon Reading > > > > > > it went surprisingly well .... To my > > > amazement, it proved quite easy to read, even for those fairly unfamiliar > > > with the text. Generally the student readers read nimbly and with > > > precision. > > > >I have noted the same, that the epic teaches people how to read it aloud. > >I've even had second language speakers and those with reading disorders do > >fairly well. > > > >Jameela Lares > > > > > > From: Carol Barton [cbartonphd@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 6:22 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Request To John Wall, who wrote, and Stanley Fish, "who once said in my hearing, Milton was confident that he could improve any situation simply by getting involved in it." *Couldn't* he???? Carol Barton From: Carol Barton [cbartonphd@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 6:15 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton's politics Well argued, Hugh! What we seem to be omitting here is Milton's reservation of all of these rights to "th'upright heart and pure": he had seen the folly of casting pearls among "Hoggs / That bawle for freedom in their senceless mood, / And still revolt when truth would set them free" in Mrs. Attaway's response to the _DDD_ , and "the esteem [he had] of [his] Countries judgement, and the love [he] bore to his native language" were certainly not directed toward "the simple and illiterat," but "the choicest and the learnedest, who have this high gift of wisdom to answer solidly, or to be convinc't" -- though he would not deign to entertain what was purported to be rational argument from a lowly servingman, certainly, he must have from Dati and Diodati, and his other "popish" friends. We are, I think, as Hugh suggests, mixing apples and porcupines. Toleration is not endorsement: it is merely the antithesis of persecution. Carol Barton > A response, > > >I'm not sure that Milton's remarks in "Of True Religion" can in fact be > >construed as a plea for tolerating papist writings. I wish it were so, but > >the gist of the argument seems to be: 'Since we have [unwisely] shown > >ourselves willing to tolerate pernicious writings (i.e., to "suffer . . . > >the Idolatrous books of Papists," we have no reasonable grounds for > >refusing the valuable work of "our own" controversialists.' Milton's > >all-too-familiar use of "Idolatrous" and "Papists" ("I mean not tolerated > >popery and open superstition.") does not suggest to me that he has changed > >his mind about the extent of toleration. On the contrary, the shape of his > >argument in OTR looks like this: 'If we can tolerate garbage, SO MUCH THE > MORE ought we to tolerate wholesome food.' > > Although I considered the possibility of the hostile reading as well, but I > think the last sentence in the passages speaks for toleration of > anything--right or wrong--that is written in sincerity. In addition, there > are other passages. > > When Milton wrote _Of True Religion_, Catholic literature had been > tolerated by the administration of Charles II for a decade and the sky > hadn't fallen, Protestantism was reviving in Parliament, and none the worse > for wear. Repression becomes a temptation when things are getting worse. > Keith Stavely's introduction implies the possibility of toleration for > Dissenters was in prospect when Milton published this tract. > > In Milton's view, foreigners in England had a right to the religion of > their choosing and their upbringing, they are "Privileg'd by the Law of > Nations" (8:431). Milton trusts the spread of knowledge to bring down > "Popery," he does not rely on censorship of their ideas per se. He > suggests that the "among Papists. . . their ignorance in Scripture chiefly > upholds Popery, so among Protestant People, the frequent and serious > reading thereof will soonest pull Popery down" (8:435). Milton opposes > Catholicism, but instead of "tearing Catholics down," Milton wants to build > up or "edify" Protestants. As Rose Williams suggests, conversion can only > come through persuasion--through words or The Word--not through coercion. > > Milton cites 1 Thessalonians 5:21, "Prove all things, hold fast that which > is good. St. Paul judg'd that no only to tolerate, but to examine and > prove all things, was no danger to our holding fast of that which is good. > How shall we prove all things, which includes all opinions founded on > Scripture, unless we not only tolerate them, but patiently hear them, and > seriously read them?" (8:436). > > Milton makes a series of recommendations for avoiding Popery, but burning > their books, censoring their writings is not among them. He opposes > toleration of Popery, "either in Public or Private," but not by coercive > means. Instead, Milton recommends tolerating Protestants (as Catholics > were _already_ tolerated under Charles II); reading the Scriptures, and the > "last means to avoid Popery, is to amend our lives." Censorship is not in > the list. The remedy for bad literature is Scripture or good literature. > > I suspect that this debate conflates two issues: the toleration of > "theory," reading, writing or literature; and the toleration of > "scandalous" practices. The modern conservative, liberal or radical might > tolerate the existence of books by the Marquis de Sade, but still draw the > line at the practice of sadism. Milton had a similar attitude toward the > belief in a coercive church, the belief in the theoretical supremacy of the > Pope in ecclesiastical _and_ civil affairs: "Popery." By that definition, > most Catholics were not "Popish." Milton even denounced it when > Protestants--like the Presbyterians threatened to conflate church and > state. "New 'Presbyter' is but old 'Priest' writ large." > > I suspect that the allure of Papist tracts wasn't the most pressing > threat--the machinations of the authorities (the Treaty of Dover) and > spectre of a Popish plot were. > > Cheers, > > Hugh Wilson > hwilson@door.net > (806) 747-8830 > > > > At 05:55 PM 4/10/2000 -0700, you wrote: > >At 05:39 PM 04/07/2000 EDT, you wrote: > > >In a message dated 4/7/00 5:17:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > > >dithw@ttacs.ttu.edu writes: > > > > > ><< Although he opposed the Papacy, Milton did not support the outright > > > censorship of Catholic writers as such. He noted that the government > > > "suffered the Idolatrous books of Papists. . . to be sold & read as > common > > > as our own. Why not much rather of Anabaptists, Arians, Arminians & > > > Socinians? There is no Learned man but will confess he hath much > profited > > > by reading Controversies, his Senses awakt, his Judgment sharpn'd, and > the > > > truth which he holds more formly establish't" (_Of True Religion_, > 437-38). > > > In _On Liberty_, John Stuart Mill makes a similar argument. > > > > > > Hugh Wilson >> > > > > > >That was a good quote, Hugh, thank you. The Milton the wrote Areopagitica > > >didn't seem capable of making such a statement, but the idea expressed in > > >your above quote is a natural outgrowth of his position in Areo. > > > > > >Jim > > > > >I'm not sure that Milton's remarks in "Of True Religion" can in fact be > >construed as a plea for tolerating papist writings. I wish it were so, but > >the gist of the argument seems to be: 'Since we have [unwisely] shown > >ourselves willing to tolerate pernicious writings (i.e., to "suffer . . . > >the Idolatrous books of Papists," we have no reasonable grounds for > >refusing the valuable work of "our own" controversialists.' Milton's > >all-too-familiar use of "Idolatrous" and "Papists" ("I mean not tolerated > >popery and open superstition.") does not suggest to me that he has changed > >his mind about the extent of toleration. On the contrary, the shape of his > >argument in OTR looks like this: 'If we can tolerate garbage, SO MUCH THE > >MORE ought we to tolerate wholesome food.' > >John C. Ulreich Professor of English > >Dept. of English - Modern Languages Bldg. #67 > >University of Arizona (520) 621-5424 > >Tucson, AZ 85721-0067 FAX: (520) 621-7397 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 5:40 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Request In a message dated 4/13/00 5:24:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jnweg@unity.ncsu.edu writes: << In fact, people of faith have every reason to affirm the mystery of the divine and the limitations of human understanding of the divine. To make this a bit more on-topic, I have always felt that Milton had more confidence in his reading of the divine will than he had a right to. As Stanley Fish once said in my hearing, Milton was confident that he could improve any situation simply by getting involved in it. Best, John Wall >> What rational people do when they absolutize is absolutize a value system. The three moral laws of Christ were: Love God with all your heart, love your neighbor as you love yourself, love other Christians as Christ has loved you (sacrificially). This is what we bring into every situation and what is supposed to guide our judgment. So the real problem isn't with absolutization, but with absolutizing secondary principles at the expense of these primary principles. Jim From: Carrol Cox [cbcox@ilstu.edu] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 7:46 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: [spelling and 'great divides'] Carol Barton wrote: > I'm not sure Carrol.Cox (who is a man) finds this as annoying as I do, but > his name is spelt with two "r"s, mine (and several others' of the female > persuasion) with one. I have learned to live with it. :<) > [snip] opinions are often on opposite sides > of the "great divide." As I used that phrase, "great divide," this proposition is impossible (that is, would require a time machine). The great divide to which I have referred, that between mental and manual labor, took place over the sevral thousand years separating late paleolithic cultures from the earliest "civilizations." Single-r and double-r [crls] doubtless have different opinions on the *significance* of that event (or bundle of events). Carrol P.S. While we are on the subject of the spelling of names. My grandmother apparently did not know the traditional spelling of the name and hence chose to give it with a single l at the end. NOT Carroll but Carrol. From: Bruce Boehrer [bboehrer@english.fsu.edu] Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 12:32 PM To: 'milton-l@richmond.edu' Subject: Call for Submissions--JEMCS The Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies (JEMCS) seeks article-length contributions for its inaugural issues. Scheduled to begin publication in 2001, JEMCS welcomes scholarly work on the period from the late fifteenth through the late nineteenth centuries, with a particular focus on cross-disciplinary studies of literature and the broader social formation. Feminist, queer/lesbian, postmodernist, postcolonial, and historicist methodologies are encouraged. The author's name should appear only on a detachable cover sheet and not within the body of the article. Manuscripts will not be returned unless accompanied by a self-addressed stamped envelope. Submissions should be prepared according to MLA style and mailed to the Editors, JEMCS, Department of English, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306. From: Dan Knauss [tiresias@juno.com] Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 11:43 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Request The most interesting thing about this interchange is how much it connects with Rene Girard's work, which I am just now reading for the first time. Has anyone applied Girard's ideas about violence and the sacred to Milton or the Puritan Revolution in general? Dan Knauss - ICQ#41102114 tiresias@juno.com - daniel.knauss@marquette.edu Fær-spel Studios: http://www4.ncsu.edu/~dpknauss On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:40:51 -0400 John Wall writes: > One of the most disturbing things about this interchange has been the > idea that people of faith have grounds for believing that their > interpretation of "God's will" or whatever term we might have for it > represents an absolute. > > Great evil has been done and continues to be done in the name of the > belief that one's values correspond to the will of God, that one can > act > with confidence in the claim that one's particular interpretation of > religious belief is congruent with the will of the object of that > belief. > > In fact, people of faith have every reason to affirm the mystery of > the > divine and the limitations of human understanding of the divine. > > To make this a bit more on-topic, I have always felt that Milton had > more confidence in his reading of the divine will than he had a > right > to. As Stanley Fish once said in my hearing, Milton was confident > that > he could improve any situation simply by getting involved in it. > > Best, > > John Wall > From: Alan Rudrum [rudrum@sfu.ca] Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 2:14 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Quarles: a query Please forgive me if this comes twice; I had a message saying it was undeliverable. In Quarles's lively eighth eclogue in The Shepherd's Oracles (the dialogue between Anarchus and Canonicus), Anarchus, inveighing against set forms of prayer, writes of those that cannot say Their unregarded prayers, unless they hold The Let'ny, or the charms of Sorrocold Before their purblind eyes. (This is quoted from Grosart's three volume edition, republished in 1971). I am familiar with the Litany, but should be grateful for information about Sorrocold. I have looked in the OED, the Britannica, and a couple of histories of music. Alan Rudrum From: Frank [fa1804@wlv.ac.uk] Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2000 4:02 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton Marathon for Mozambique Only a genius like Cole Porter could make it scan, but '...even folks in Wolverhampton do it...' Frank Wilson, University of Wolverhampton, West Midlands, UK At 17:49 14/04/00 +1200, you wrote: >Oslo's performance may be the northernmost Miltonfest, as Dunedin's may be >the southernmost. Trivial as such things may seem, I find they do catch >the attention of the local community, who unquestionably include many >readers of Milton. Here, they join in the marathon powerfully, and help me >make a noise for Milton and the poem. >John Hale > > >News of Tom Corns' reading in Bangor has hit the university newspaper in > >Oslo......with a short notice, entitled 'World Record in Poetry'. > >(Universitas, 12 April) > >So I will have to publicise the Oslo sessions better, having arranged the > >marathon three times here. Norwegians read it well, and the reading > >improves as the poem rolls along......we usually have around 8 people, > >assorted Brits, Norwegians and Americans. The best date was St Lucia's day, > >Friday 13th December, when the forces of light and dark became aligned. > > > >Ann Gulden > > > >At 09:14 12.04.00 -0500, you wrote: > > > > > > >From Thomas N Corns's post re Bangor Marathon Reading > > > > > > > > it went surprisingly well .... To my > > > > amazement, it proved quite easy to read, even for those fairly >unfamiliar > > > > with the text. Generally the student readers read nimbly and with > > > > precision. > > > > > >I have noted the same, that the epic teaches people how to read it aloud. > > >I've even had second language speakers and those with reading disorders do > > >fairly well. > > > > > >Jameela Lares > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: john rumrich [rumrich@mail.utexas.edu] Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 7:17 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request I wonder if the very structure of Christian belief as articulated by Hegel and then co-opted by Marx is somehow prone to inspire such large-scale atrocities? >In a message dated 4/13/00 5:20:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >mjksezth@fs1.ce.umist.ac.uk writes: > ><< How can you reasonably claim, Jim, that being an atheist is not > "holding any specific belief system". Yes you cannot prove the > existence of "God", "otherness" ,or whatever you want to call it, by > rational argument but neither can you, by the same lights, disprove > that existence. > Hence to be an atheist is to hold a belief. If we want to look for > moral "truth" or "good" on rational grounds ALONE we should all be > agnostic. (Actually quite a respectable thing to be). > > Tony Hill >> > >My atheism wasn't thought out to the extent that I would call it a "belief >SYSTEM" (caps for emphasis). In other words, it was just a belief rather >than a belief "system." Some atheisms are indeed belief systems. For me, >atheism was just a rejection of what I thought I saw when I looked into the >Catholicism in which I was raised. > >Many Christian thinkers (like Pascal) would agree with you -- that reason >alone leads to contradictions. The inference that agnosticism is the only >rational belief system doesn't follow, however. If God is personally >experienced, then unbelief is an irrational position (at least for the >individual who had the experience). And really, I think that's the only >valid reason to believe in God -- direct personal experience. The agnostic >position becomes a bit irrational at this point. The choices offered by >agnosticism (and really atheism as well) are: > >1. That God does not exist, and many of the most moral, intelligent and sane >people who have ever lived must be fundamentally unstable because they >believe in God through direct personal experience. > >2. That God does exist, but many moral, intelligent and sane people just >haven't had a personal verification of that existence yet (atheists and >agnostics). > >I'm drawing from the best examples of both classes, of course. But at least >the first position allows for equal respect for all people regardless of >their belief, and does indeed take into account some basic facts about human >history -- that the people who defined morality and sanity for us all these >thousands of years were indeed theists of some sort. The second position >makes any theistic position inherently irrational, and forces us to call >irrational people like Christ, Buddha, Ghandi, and any one of hundreds of >people I've met on a daily basis who happen to believe in God but are very >powerful, and stable, individuals. > >If we want to pursue negative examples, atheists would just throw up the >Inquisition in my face, and I would throw up 10-50 million dead Russians >under Stalin and Lenin, Tianamen Square, the Killing Fields in Cambodia, and >every injustice committed by every Marxist regime that has ever existed. >Since both sides have much to be proud of and much to be ashamed of, there's >no use pursuing negative arguments. > >So if you're an agnostic, I think you should look more closely too :) > >Jim From: John Leonard [jleonard@julian.uwo.ca] Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 7:43 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton's politics Carol Barton writes: >Well argued, Hugh! What we seem to be omitting here is Milton's reservation >of all of these rights to "th'upright heart and pure": he had seen the folly >of casting pearls among "Hoggs / That bawle for freedom in their senceless >mood, / And still revolt when truth would set them free" in Mrs. Attaway's >response to the _DDD_ , Carol, I think that this is unfair to Mrs Attaway and a distortion of "Sonnet XII". Nathaniel Henry led Miltonists astray when (in 1951) he told us that Milton's true target in "Sonnet XII" was the radical sects, not the Presbyterians. I think that the Presbyterians are Milton's target throughout "Sonnet XII." "Revolt" in "still revolt when truth would set them free" need not have its modern meaning. It might have the now obsolete sense "To draw back from a course of action, etc.; to return to one's allegiance. Obs." (OED 2b). This sense was current in Milton's time, and it perfectly suits the backsliding Presbyterians, who pusillanimously draw back from Milton's arguments for divorce, and return to the blind old traditional interpretations of Matthew 19. If I am right, it follows that "Sonnet XII" can be sharpened away from ambiguity. Milton puns on "revolt" in precisely this sense in his prose--and Presbyterian backsliders are always his target. I give some examples in my essay "Revolting as Backsliding in Milton's 'Sonnet XII'", published in N&Q in about 1996. Sorry for the self-promotion, but it is depressing to see Nathaniel Henry's misreading repeated again and again. Respectfully, John Leonard