From: Gardner Campbell [gcampbel@mwc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 3:54 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: PL marathon I always enjoy hearing from everyone else who's done this, so here's my very late report on the century's end Mary Washington College Paradise Lost all-night readathon. This was our sixth annual reading, and it took place February 25-26, 2000. This year's reading began, as it has since 1995, with supper at the happily named Parthenon, a local Greek restaurant within walking distance of the campus. Back on campus after supper, we assembled to read at 7 p.m. Roughly twenty-five readers were there at the start; at our peak we had over thirty readers in the room; fourteen stuck it out until the end, which came at about 6:30 a.m. As usual, we took a short break every two books. Each year brings something new. This year a student brought a camcorder and videotaped some of the proceedings. And this year my whole family could attend: my wife Alice read, our five-year-old, Jenny, paid close attention, and our nine-year-old, Ian, attended his third consecutive reading, stayed up late (he left very reluctantly at 10:30), and read three times. Each year renews traditions. This year two students attended their third straight reading and, for the third time, stayed up all night. One student was there for her fourth straight reading (she has yet to make it all the way through, but she gets closer each time). And once again we kept a journal of responses before, during, and after the reading. The book is nearly full; I think there's room for one more year at most. Reading through it again I was struck by the intensity of the responses over the years, and by how many, as time has gone on, say that the reading was something they had heard about and wanted to experience for themselves. As always, I nodded off at one point late in the game. This time the students had the sport of watching me lurch into consciousness as one of them intoned "Adam awake!" Next year I'll probably be taking a year off from teaching the Milton seminar. If that happens, it'll be the first time in seven years without an all-night reading. Some students have already promised to do it whether I come along or not. Nothing would please me more--not that I could stay away, of course. Best wishes, Gardner Campbell Associate Professor of English Mary Washington College From: Margaret Thickstun [mthickst@hamilton.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 4:10 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: women reading PL John--start with Wittreich's Feminist Milton (Cornell, 1987). You might also contact Margaret Ezell at Texas A & M about whether she has come across any early readers. Sorry, I don't have her e-mail.--Margaret Margaret Thickstun Department of English Hamilton College 198 College Hill Rd Clinton, NY 13323 (315)859-4466 From: Tony Hill [mjksezth@fs1.ce.umist.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 5:57 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: women reading PL Date sent: Wed, 3 May 2000 16:17:31 +1200 To: milton-l@richmond.edu From: John Hale Subject: women reading PL Send reply to: milton-l@richmond.edu > Who were the first few women readers of Paradise Lost who left a record of > what they thought about it, please? And where can I find their reponses, > and more about their lives and reading habits? > JKH I don't know about the "first few women" but I'm almost sure you will find something in Dorothy Wordsworth's writing and I would also look to the Brontes ( in diaries, notebooks etc. generally available now) Tony Hill www.ce.umist.ac.uk From: Roy Flannagan [flannaga@oak.cats.ohiou.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 5:06 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: women reading PL At 04:17 PM 5/3/00 +1200, you wrote: >Who were the first few women readers of Paradise Lost who left a record of >what they thought about it, please? And where can I find their reponses, >and more about their lives and reading habits? Joe Wittreich's book Feminist Milton addresses the interpretations of women who read Milton going back to about 1700. Best, Roy Flannagan From: Daniel Richard Moyle [drmoyle@wam.umd.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 5:23 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: question I was just wondering if anyone would consider Dante's Divina Commedia a major influence upon Milton's Paradise Lost. I am doing a research paper on this and have found many sources, however, the links seem to be very vague. If anyone could give me any information as to how and what, I would appreciate it greatly. Thanks Daniel Moyle Univ. of MD ***************************************************************************** -tba ***************************************************************************** From: Amy D. Stackhouse [adstack@westga.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 3:46 PM To: John Hale Cc: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: women reading PL I believe Joseph Wittreich's "Feminist Milton" would be of help. Amy ************************************ Dr. Amy D. Stackhouse Department of English and Philosophy State University of West Georgia Carrollton, GA 30118 (770) 836-6512 adstack@westga.edu ************************************ On Wed, 3 May 2000, John Hale wrote: > Who were the first few women readers of Paradise Lost who left a record of > what they thought about it, please? And where can I find their reponses, > and more about their lives and reading habits? > JKH > > > From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 3:51 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request I'd agree that there are points of consensus, of course, though I don't know I would identify these as "roots." But the specific emphasis on forgiveness and non-retaliation -- that's what I was talking about. I don't see this in the pre-Christian Greeks very much. Is there something in Plato I'm missing? Jim << On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 19:00:02 EDT AntiUtopia@aol.com writes: > Unpunished wrongdoing is just as evil as the initial wrong itself -- every victim knows this. ... > Of course, you could, as an individual, value forgiveness and > non-retaliation, but that is only because you live in a society that > has a Christian memory, at least, and have been conditioned by it in that > direction. You sure don't find a great deal of this kind of ethic > in pre-Christian Greek philosophy. Aristotle believed that if you > didn't take vengeance for wrongs you have suffered, you aren't much of a man. Jim, Socrates/"the divine Plato" says the same thing as your first statement. Although Socrates didn't get very far with this teaching in his day, to be fair I think you have to admit that Christian moral philosophy has pre-Christian Greek roots. There are at least points of consensus that Renaissance Humanists often pointed out; even Calvin supports arguments in his Institutes by citing classical philosophers. Dan Knauss >> From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 3:43 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request You're speaking in such large generalities that your words fall between the cracks. There is nothing in any of the passages you quoted that directly advocates a Christian committing what one would normally consider an "atrocity." You can hide behind interpretive freedom in your claims, but if you want to talk about Christianity in general in anywhere near a responsible fashion, you need to stick to the orthodoxy of the major strains of Christianity over the last several centuries. None of them advocate genocide or other mass "atrocities." There are copies of papal encyclicals on the internet, for example, that date in the 16th century and condemn the treatment of Native Americans. Of course individuals **do** have interpretive freedom, and **can** interpret any text to advocate the perpetrating of atrocities. Heck -- how many people have been inspired by Salinger's Catcher in the Rye to do some pretty odd stuff? Your implication that this in some way reflects upon the text, and the movement proceeding from the text, is shallow, thoughtless, and reflective of a very surface understanding of textual interpretation in general. Jim << You should perhaps be more careful in your claims, then. You may have meant that a proper (i.e., your preferred) version of Christianity, would urge people not to engage in atrocities. What you actually said was that there was "nothing here to inspire atrocity, only the inspiration to 'love God, to love your neighbour and love your enemy.'" As I--very cursorily, for there was much more where these quotes came from--demonstrated, there is more than enough stuff here to inspire atrocity, and to lead one to the opinion that God's way ismost certainly NOT to love particular neighbors or enemies. Milton was a great man, and one of my personal heroes, but he, too, found a number of instances where loving ones enemies was the furthest thing from his mind--and he (quite correctly, in my opinion), backed up that belief with masses of Scriptural references. The elements of Milton's personality that make him great are, in my opinion, those elements about him that were the LEAST Christian--that is to say, nobility, passion, and a love of liberty and beauty. $ >> From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 3:45 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request I would have to agree with this distinction, but I would also add that the mainstream of even the most conservative movements within Christianity do not advocate violence toward any group. People committed to hate will always find a way. Jim << In a message dated 4/28/00 3:16:01 PM Mountain Standard Time, AntiUtopia@aol.com writes: << At exactly what time were "differences recognized and tolerated" prior to Christianity? When had that ever been a value at all (in western cultures)? Historically, this value is in itself the product of Protestant democracies, so the isolation of a specific "people of God" and the location of all truth in Christ must not itself be the cause of intolerance. >> Makes sense. Could it be time in our society to distinguish between Jesusism and what *some* people call Christianity? I hear Milton is rather wary about that term "Christos" anyhow. While the teachings of Jesus don't support it, some people still insist on beating my gay students in His name. Such an act does not seem to display right reason, Christ-consciousness, or compassion for the Other, so why...? Julianne Bruneau U. Colorado at Denver >> From: Chapman, Keith [kechapman@davidson.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 7:39 PM To: 'milton-l@richmond.edu' Subject: RE: request A week or so ago I posed a question on comparing Milton's Satan to Nietzsche's Overman. I am still on the look out for any other critics or articles supporting or denying this comparison, but also, in Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, he describes a philosopher-politician, a man of intellect and talent and the power to question his society's morals. Now if you suppose for a moment that history is written by the victorious, and that perhaps Satan should get a more objectified reading, doesn't he appear to be establishing a new set of moralilty, a standard in defiance of God. Nietzsche describes the new philosophers, the philosophers who are able to pull mankind out of his decay, out of the "diminution, of man." These men, these bastions of intellectual and moral creativity are "spirits strong and original enough to provide the stimuli for the opposite valuations and to revalue and invert 'eternal values'; toward forerunners, toward men of the future who in the present tie the knot and contraint the forces the will of millennia upon new tacks. To teach man the future of man and his will, as dependent on a human will, and to prepare great ventures and over-all attempts of discipline and cultivation by way of putting an end to that gruesome dominion of nonsense and accident that has so far been called 'history.'" Now if God is the end all power, it's hard to argue against him, but if God merely ended up winning the cosmic battle field and filters what comes down to man (or is the dominant creation of man's humanity) then isn't Satan a lot like this philosopher. Doesn't he merely challenge the established and unquestioned morals and values? I would appreciate any commentary on this point. Thanks keith chapman kechapman@davidson.edu From: Dan Knauss [tiresias@juno.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 12:38 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 18:48:17 -0700 (PDT) Robert Appelbaum writes: > I apologize for being polemical. But sometimes I get > upset when I am accused of being, along with all my > colleagues, an arrogant, heretical, evil (Satanic) > sonofabitch. All right I'm arrogant. So sue me. Hmm...since my original post referred to only certain "Raphael Hythlodays," you seem to be attaching yourself quite closely (and your "colleagues," whomever you extend that attribution to) to Mr. Hythloday--more closely that what I actually said merits, I should think. You see an accusation, not to mention "red-baiting," in some impersonally directed generalizations you entirely disagree with? Such strong protestations over trivialities--to what end? Normally I'd respond to your Milton-related points, but you've issued nothing but assertions without any visible means of support aside from tweaked nerves I'm afraid can't take any responsibility for. "Unlike Juvenal, I made no effort to rake in the sewer of hidden crimes; my aim was to ridicule absurdities, not to catalogue sins. And if there's someone who can't be calmed by these reflections, let him recall that it's a kind of compliment to be attacked by Folly..." -Erasmus Dan Knauss - ICQ#41102114 =//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\=//\\= ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. From: A.T. Prancic [pranciat@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA] Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 4:02 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Sebastien and Bartholomy Honorat. Dear Milton readers, I am trying to find out more information regarding Sebastien and Bartholomew Honorat who were two 16th c. French printers. In particular, I am trying to determine why in Lyons, France these two printers used the emblem of a tilted vase that waters flowers along with the motto, Poco a Poco. These two printers published the entire works of St. Augustine, the Biblia Vulgata, and various books pertaining to medical and mythological themes. Any help or suggestions as to how I can learn more about these two particular french printers or their apprentices would be greatly appreciated. With many thanks, Tony Prancic @ McMaster University. pranciat@mcmaster.ca From: colin cartwright [colcris@dircon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 6:25 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Cc: colcris@dircon.co.uk Subject: Re: request Gary, where have you been all my life ? More to the point, where have you been in the last few weeks ? There has been an extensive discussion on this list over Milton/Christianity/toleration in the past few weeks, which is partly what prompted me to contribute to the debate. So, here's my short answer to your questions. Jesus on respecting other view-points: The most obvious example is Jesus teaching and practice with the Samaritans. These were a group of people despised by mainstream Judaism at the time of Jesus, because of their different religious beliefs and practices. Jesus, however, went out of his way to spend time with Samaritans when this was not anticipated (eg. John 4). The point of the parable of the Good Samaritan was not so much the goodness of the Samaritan, but it was a challenge to the way some of the Jewish people treated their neighbours, simply because they had different views. I don't like the word 'toleration' in relation to Jesus - because Jesus did not call people to 'tolerate' other people who had different views. He called people to 'love their enemies and bless those who cursed them'. But there were indeed things that Jesus could not tolerate and he stood against with every fibre of his being. Jesus was indeed crucified for his defiance - against authorities who put themselves in the place of God; against authorities that did not recognise God's rule over the earth. What does this have to do with Milton ? Milton urged the church to allow time to properly hear the views of those who were deemed heretical by mainstream Puritanism, including the 'Anabaptists' - my more immediate spiritual forebears. This is a clear example of a Christian arguing for 'toleration' of other views. Love on ya, Colin. ---------- >From: gary patrick norris >To: milton-l@richmond.edu >Subject: Re: request >Date: Sun, Apr 30, 2000, 7:39 pm > > > >colin cartwright wrote: > > > > One final remark, to get back 'on subject'. John Milton is one of many > > millions of people throughout history to have been positively inspired by > > Jesus. I believe that one of the reasons why Christ was so important to > > Milton's thought was partly because he recognised that Jesus encouraged > > people to respect other view-points rather than rush to summary judgement. > > >I don't know if this is proper; however, I must interject > >and ask: > >What is their in the history of Christianity, including Milton's writing, >that has anything to do with respecting other view-points. > > >Give me some instances. Jesus was crucified because of his defiance. > >What is your definition of tolerance? > >(and more importantly) > >What has this to do with Milton? > >You have placed the modern concept of Christ--and ideology that encompasses >all others in colonialist and hegemonic sweeping gestures--over against >Milton's >*vision* of "The Son of God". > > >tchau, >gary norris > From: colin cartwright [colcris@dircon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 6:00 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Cc: colcris@dircon.co.uk Subject: Re: request I cannot agree that you have proved your point with the scripture references you quoted. Only one of those passages can actually claim some basis for being an incitement to violence from the lips of Jesus - that is Matthew 10:34-39. (All the other passages talk of God's judgement; Jesus is clearly not encouraging the very anti-Christian stance of human beings taking the place of God in taking judgement into their own hands). Matthew 10 has indeed been mis-used in the past as a justification for 'holy war', but it is more than possible to make a strong case that this is indeed not what Jesus intended at all. More than that, it has to be weighed against the rest of Jesus' teaching and the example of his life. To look in more detail at Matthew 10:34-39, we see that the passage begins with a sword, but ends with a cross. Jesus is very matter-of-fact about recognising that there will be conflict between believer and unbeliever. 'The sword' speaks of this conflict and division and our very discussion is part of this. But, the only scenario that Jesus imagines, the only legitimate response for the Christian to make in this conflict is to be ready to be persecuted and to lay down his/her life. This is what 'taking up the cross' means, following the example of Jesus in not retaliating in the face of violence. This is why there have probably been more Christian martyrs in the last century than any of the other centuries of Christian history. This is not my 'preferred' reading of Jesus. It is only when somebody 'cherry-picks' certain statements by Jesus that you get a distorted picture of Jesus. Anyone who tries to claim that Jesus incited violence, or that his teachings are responsible for the conflicts of the world has an awefully big case to prove. Arguably the two most influential pacifists of the twentieth century (Ghandi and Martin Luther King) were both inspired by the teaching and example of Jesus. Were they wrong in their reading of his life ? I presume that you closing statement is intended as a provocation ! I would contend (and I could back this up with numerous scriptures) that nobility, passion, love of liberty and beauty are found most clearly ins Jesus, arguably the most human being who ever lived. And of course, Milton himself would have claimed that his love of liberty was exactly a Christian virtue. Luke 4: 18 & 19 are key scriptures in understanding the mission of Jesus - it is a proclamation of liberty, Jesus' 'Nazareth Manifesto'. Best wishes, Colin. ---------- >From: Tmsandefur@aol.com >To: milton-l@richmond.edu >Subject: Re: request >Date: Sat, Apr 29, 2000, 6:45 am > >You should perhaps be more careful in your claims, then. You may have meant >that a proper (i.e., your preferred) version of Christianity, would urge >people not to engage in atrocities. What you actually said was that there was >"nothing here to inspire atrocity, only the inspiration to 'love God, to love >your neighbour and love your enemy.'" As I--very cursorily, for there was >much more where these quotes came from--demonstrated, there is more than >enough stuff here to inspire atrocity, and to lead one to the opinion that >God's way ismost certainly NOT to love particular neighbors or enemies. > >Milton was a great man, and one of my personal heroes, but he, too, found a >number of instances where loving ones enemies was the furthest thing from his >mind--and he (quite correctly, in my opinion), backed up that belief with >masses of Scriptural references. The elements of Milton's personality that >make him great are, in my opinion, those elements about him that were the >LEAST Christian--that is to say, nobility, passion, and a love of liberty and >beauty. > >$ > From: Carrol Cox [cbcox@ilstu.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 11:06 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request JBMorgaine@aol.com (Julianne Bruneau) wrote: > Could it be time in our society to distinguish between Jesusism > and what *some* people call Christianity? Let me make a sweeping binary division, departing from a passage in Plato's *Republic*. Socrates is establishing the conditions for his attempt to show the possibility of his projected republic: That, then, is the truth of the matter. But if, for your satisfaction, I am to do my best to show under what conditions our ideal world would have the best chance of being realized, I must ask you once more to admit that the same principle applies here. Can theory ever be fully realized in practice? Is it not in the nature of things that action should come less close to truth than thought? (tr. Cornford, p. 178 [473a] or, in Waterfield's translation: Is it possible for anything actual to match a theory? Isn't any actual thing bound to have less contact with truth than a theory . . .? Plato sets the pattern for most of western thought (the equivalent can be found in Mencius), a hierachical triad: TRUTH --> THEORY --> action. This is the model assumed by Professor Bruneau above. There is a "real" Christianity existing independently of the practice of Christians, and it is that "real" Christianity which should count. The opposite to Plato's triad with its dismissal of practice has been variously phrased. I like two formulations in particular. Reporter: What is? KM: Struggle. Or, when KM was still a young man, "It is not our thing to write recipes for the cookshops of the future, but rather to maintain a fearless criticism of all that is." (Quoted from memory) One could graph this crudely as: Practice --> theory --> Practice, with theory being an endless (and never wholly successful struggle) to make sense of the practice. Wherever and whenever we find ourselves we are always already caught up in an ensemble of social relations (direct and indirect) -- we do not have a history, we *are* our history. And Christianity *is* its history, not some truth existing independently of and prior to that practice. There is, of course, another difficulty in "distinguish[ing] between Jesusism and what *some* people call Christianity." Who is to be in charge of so distinguishing? And that rather brings us back, does it not, to various 16th/17th century debates on which Milton scholars have written extensively. Marx commented nicely on this problem of who will educate the educator: The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of other circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men that change circumstances and that the educator himself needs educating. Hence, this doctrine necessarily arrivesd at dividing society into two parts, of which one is superior to society. The coinicidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity can be conceived and rationally understood only as *revolutionising practice*. (Theses on Feuerbach III) Even the liberal humanist Wayne Booth wrote that he could not believe in immortality because he denied the atomic individual which it presupposes. If one *is* one's history, which "moment" of that history is immortal? Carrol From: Carrol Cox [cbcox@ilstu.edu] Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 11:38 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Request AntiUtopia@aol.com wrote: > I didn't say an atheist framework implied > selfishness, but questioned upon what basis can an atheist framework demand > unselfishness of others. The reply to this is complex, but the core can be found in the following paragraph: We see then, that, apart from extremely elastic bounds, the nature of the exchange of commodities itself imposes no limit on the working- day, no limit to surplus-labour. The capitalist maintains his rights as a purchaser when he tries to make the working-day as long as possible, and to make, whenever possible, two working-days out of one. On the other hand, the peculiar nature of the commodity sold implies a limit to its consumption by the purchaser, and the labourer maintains his [sic] right as a seller when he wishes to reduce the working-day to one of definite normal duration. There is here, therefore, an antimony, right against right, both equally bearing the seal of the law of exchanges. Between equal rights, force decides. Hence is it that in the history of capitalist production, the determination of what is a working day, presents itself as a result of a struggle between collective capital, i.e., the class of capitalists, and collective labour, i.e., the working class. (*Capital*, Vol. I, Moscow: Progress Pub., p. 225) That principles of living together are historically created in struggle, not innate in the universe, makes them no less binding. The rhetoric of "selfishness" and "unselfishness" emerges from an individualist metaphysic. Or as a friend once pointed out, Solidarity is not a slogan. I of course expect no compassion from the IMF -- I simply wnat it destroyed. Incidentally, this whole thread began with the following request from Jim Murphy of London: "What worth does Milton's 'Paradise Lost' have for us today? Why do we pick and read this text - what's in it that will resonate with 21st Century society..." Books I suppose are for the purposes of conversation, and wouldn't it be boring to discuss only books written in the last week? *Paradise Lost* makes for almost as lively conversation as the *Republic*. Carrol From: John Rumrich [rumrich@mail.utexas.edu] Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 8:40 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: a query I know it's end of term for many, so forgive the intrusion. But I recall reading a long time back that a) Milton's daughter Deborah mentioned that he had Homer by heart and that b) he would regularly ask to have Zeus's speech from book 1 of the Odyssey read to him. It's the theodical speech in which Z cites the bloody homecoming of Agamemnon and Orestes's subsequent vengeance as evidence that humanity's miseries derive mainly from its own bad behavior, not from divine malice or caprice. I've searched around a bit and I cannot find the source containing these presumably reliable recollections. And being frustrated and busy, I'm resorting to querying the list in the hope that someone will know off the top of his or her head. Thanks for your patience, John Rumrich From: rwill627 [rwill627@camalott.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 1:22 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: question >Dante's Divina Commedia a >major influence upon Milton's Paradise Lost. >I am doing a research paper You might explore the Petrarchan sonnets Milton wrote in Italian--they show his command of and interest in the Italian language. Also run some references on the influence of Virgil on both Dante and Milton. Rose Williams From: Carol Barton [cbartonphd@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 1:15 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: question Try Irene Samuel's _Dante and Milton," Daniel . . . you can't have looked very far. The MLA bibliography is an excellent place to start. Best, Carol Barton ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Richard Moyle" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 5:23 PM Subject: question > I was just wondering if anyone would consider Dante's Divina Commedia a > major influence upon Milton's Paradise Lost. I am doing a research paper > on this and have found many sources, however, the links seem to be very > vague. If anyone could give me any information as to how and what, I > would appreciate it greatly. > Thanks > Daniel Moyle > Univ. of MD > > **************************************************************************** * > > -tba > > **************************************************************************** * > > > > > > From: jillanne@mail.rosenet.net Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 1:42 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request Hello All, The discussion on toleration has been especially interesting to me because it relates to my dissertation topic. Those list members interested in early modern ideas of toleration might want to look at Gary Remer's book, _Humanism and the Rhetoric of Toleration_. If the definition of toleration is "the choice to allow that which is disapproved," would it be correct to say of Jesus that he tolerated the burden of sin, human suffering, and death? (Also, doesn't God tolerate, even if only temporarily, Satan and sin?) I would really appreciate your ideas on this. Jillanne Michell University of Oregon >I don't like the word 'toleration' in relation to Jesus - because Jesus did >not call people to 'tolerate' other people who had different views. He >called people to 'love their enemies and bless those who cursed them'. But >there were indeed things that Jesus could not tolerate and he stood against >with every fibre of his being. Jesus was indeed crucified for his defiance >- against authorities who put themselves in the place of God; against >authorities that did not recognise God's rule over the earth. >What does this have to do with Milton ? Milton urged the church to allow >time to properly hear the views of those who were deemed heretical by >mainstream Puritanism, including the 'Anabaptists' - my more immediate >spiritual forebears. This is a clear example of a Christian arguing for >'toleration' of other views. >Love on ya, >Colin. >---------- > >From: gary patrick norris > >To: milton-l@richmond.edu > >Subject: Re: request > >Date: Sun, Apr 30, 2000, 7:39 pm > > > > > > > > >colin cartwright wrote: > > > > > > One final remark, to get back 'on subject'. John Milton is one of many > > > millions of people throughout history to have been positively inspired >by > > > Jesus. I believe that one of the reasons why Christ was so important to > > > Milton's thought was partly because he recognised that Jesus encouraged > > > people to respect other view-points rather than rush to summary >judgement. > > > > > >I don't know if this is proper; however, I must interject > > > >and ask: > > > >What is their in the history of Christianity, including Milton's writing, > >that has anything to do with respecting other view-points. > > > > > >Give me some instances. Jesus was crucified because of his defiance. > > > >What is your definition of tolerance? > > > >(and more importantly) > > > >What has this to do with Milton? > > > >You have placed the modern concept of Christ--and ideology that encompasses > >all others in colonialist and hegemonic sweeping gestures--over against > >Milton's > >*vision* of "The Son of God". > > > > > >tchau, > >gary norris > > -------------------- Jillanne Michell jillanne@rosenet.net From: Tmsandefur@aol.com Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 2:52 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request << There is nothing in any of the passages you quoted that directly advocates a Christian committing what one would normally consider an "atrocity." >> But this was not the question. The question was not whether the Bible directly advocates committing an atrocity. The question was whether there was "nothing here to inspire atrocity." I pointed out that there is a GREAT DEAL in the Bible to inspire atrocity. $ From: Jameela Lares [jlares@ocean.otr.usm.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 2:47 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Sebastien and Bartholomy Honorat. You might also want to post a query on the exlibris listserve. Jameela Lares Associate Professor of English University of Southern Mississippi Hattiesburg, MS 39406-5037 +(601) 266-6214 ofc +(601) 266-5757 fax On Tue, 9 May 2000, A.T. Prancic wrote: > Dear Milton readers, > > I am trying to find out more information regarding Sebastien and > Bartholomew Honorat who were two 16th c. French printers. In particular, > I am trying to determine why in Lyons, France these two printers used the > emblem of a tilted vase that waters flowers along with the motto, Poco a > Poco. These two printers published the entire works of St. Augustine, the > Biblia Vulgata, and various books pertaining to medical and mythological > themes. > > Any help or suggestions as to how I can learn more about these two > particular french printers or their apprentices would be greatly > appreciated. > > With many thanks, > > Tony Prancic @ McMaster University. > > pranciat@mcmaster.ca > > From: Lew Kaye-Skinner [L.Kaye-Skinner@navix.net] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 8:37 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request Carrol Cox asked: >If one *is* one's history, which "moment" of that history >is immortal? Perhaps it is not a moment, but the history or story. Lew Kaye-Skinner From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 3:36 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: RE: request That's a reaaaly interesting reading. I could see some immediate similarities between Satan in PL and N's ubermensch, but would you take into account how the reader's view of Satan seems to change as you progress through the narrative of PL? Where he starts as a heroic character, as his motives are further revealed he just seems petty and stupid. Another thing to take into account is that the tragic/heroic Satan of the opening of PL is depicted within a work intended to "justify the ways of God to man." What would this mean within the context of your argument? Jim << A week or so ago I posed a question on comparing Milton's Satan to Nietzsche's Overman. I am still on the look out for any other critics or articles supporting or denying this comparison, but also, in Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, he describes a philosopher-politician, a man of intellect and talent and the power to question his society's morals. Now if you suppose for a moment that history is written by the victorious, and that perhaps Satan should get a more objectified reading, doesn't he appear to be establishing a new set of moralilty, a standard in defiance of God. Nietzsche describes the new philosophers, the philosophers who are able to pull mankind out of his decay, out of the "diminution, of man." These men, these bastions of intellectual and moral creativity are "spirits strong and original enough to provide the stimuli for the opposite valuations and to revalue and invert 'eternal values'; toward forerunners, toward men of the future who in the present tie the knot and contraint the forces the will of millennia upon new tacks. To teach man the future of man and his will, as dependent on a human will, and to prepare great ventures and over-all attempts of discipline and cultivation by way of putting an end to that gruesome dominion of nonsense and accident that has so far been called 'history.'" Now if God is the end all power, it's hard to argue against him, but if God merely ended up winning the cosmic battle field and filters what comes down to man (or is the dominant creation of man's humanity) then isn't Satan a lot like this philosopher. Doesn't he merely challenge the established and unquestioned morals and values? I would appreciate any commentary on this point. Thanks keith chapman kechapman@davidson.edu >> From: John Leonard [jleonard@julian.uwo.ca] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 2:16 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: a query Dear John, The first story, that Milton knew Homer by heart, comes from John Toland. But Toland does not say that Deborah was his source (see Darbishire, Early Lives, p. 179). Your memory might have made the connection with Deborah via Helen Darbishire's note, which comes on p. 343. Darbishire writes: Homer . . . without book] Toland is our sole authority for this. Deborah Clarke said that Isaiah, Homer and Ovid's Metamorphoses were books which the daughters were often call'd upon to read to their father. She herself could repeate a considerable number of verses from both Homer and Ovid, vide Birch, Pref., p. 61. If this is right, Deborah said only that she read Homer to her father, not that he knew all of Homer by heart. Still, the fact that Deborah could recite "a considerable number of verses" does suggest that dad could too. Richardson is probably indebted to Toland when he says "Homer he could Almost repeat without Book" (Darbishire, 211). Notice that both Toland and Richardson say that Milton could "almost" repeat Homer by memory. If memory serves me rightly, Milton makes the point about Homer, Aegisthus, and human responsibility in one of his prose pamphlets. I forget which. Maybe it found its way from there into one of the early lives, but I have just checked all the entries for "Homer" in Darbishire's index and it does not produce the story you want, or any ref. to the passage in Od. 1. All best, John L -----Original Message----- From: John Rumrich To: milton-l@richmond.edu Date: May 11, 2000 1:04 PM Subject: a query >I know it's end of term for many, so forgive the intrusion. But I >recall reading a long time back that a) Milton's daughter Deborah >mentioned that he had Homer by heart and that b) he would regularly >ask to have Zeus's speech from book 1 of the Odyssey read to him. >It's the theodical speech in which Z cites the bloody homecoming of >Agamemnon and Orestes's subsequent vengeance as evidence that >humanity's miseries derive mainly from its own bad behavior, not from >divine malice or caprice. > >I've searched around a bit and I cannot find the source containing >these presumably reliable recollections. And being frustrated and >busy, I'm resorting to querying the list in the hope that someone >will know off the top of his or her head. > >Thanks for your patience, > >John Rumrich > From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 3:53 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Request I really appreciate your thoughtful replies to these threads... My understanding of politics is that it is essentially the pursuit of self interest through the vehicle of the state. If there is no inherent valuation of right and wrong in the universe, appeals to morality within a political and economic context is essentially a smokescreen designed to convince the gullible to sacrifice their best interests for those of others. If there is an inherent sense of right and wrong in the universe, it is in the individual's best interests to concede its existence and allow his or her actions to be guided by concern for others. We may choose concern for others without any reference to self interest but very few, if any, actually do. It is impractical in this world to work on such a basis. And the question still remains -- why should we? And since this question remains unanswered, force and struggle is the only option. At this point we can advocate the destruction of the IMF, but no matter who it screws over, it's serving many powerful people in the process and will never go away for that reason... Jim << AntiUtopia@aol.com wrote: > I didn't say an atheist framework implied > selfishness, but questioned upon what basis can an atheist framework demand > unselfishness of others. The reply to this is complex, but the core can be found in the following paragraph: We see then, that, apart from extremely elastic bounds, the nature of the exchange of commodities itself imposes no limit on the working- day, no limit to surplus-labour. The capitalist maintains his rights as a purchaser when he tries to make the working-day as long as possible, and to make, whenever possible, two working-days out of one. On the other hand, the peculiar nature of the commodity sold implies a limit to its consumption by the purchaser, and the labourer maintains his [sic] right as a seller when he wishes to reduce the working-day to one of definite normal duration. There is here, therefore, an antimony, right against right, both equally bearing the seal of the law of exchanges. Between equal rights, force decides. Hence is it that in the history of capitalist production, the determination of what is a working day, presents itself as a result of a struggle between collective capital, i.e., the class of capitalists, and collective labour, i.e., the working class. (*Capital*, Vol. I, Moscow: Progress Pub., p. 225) That principles of living together are historically created in struggle, not innate in the universe, makes them no less binding. The rhetoric of "selfishness" and "unselfishness" emerges from an individualist metaphysic. Or as a friend once pointed out, Solidarity is not a slogan. I of course expect no compassion from the IMF -- I simply wnat it destroyed. Incidentally, this whole thread began with the following request from Jim Murphy of London: "What worth does Milton's 'Paradise Lost' have for us today? Why do we pick and read this text - what's in it that will resonate with 21st Century society..." Books I suppose are for the purposes of conversation, and wouldn't it be boring to discuss only books written in the last week? *Paradise Lost* makes for almost as lively conversation as the *Republic*. Carrol >> From: Michael Bryson [m-bryson@nwu.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 8:20 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: RE: request I will attempt to explain my position at more length in this post. The Hebrew scriptures contain enough references to foreign deities that it becomes obvious that the *idea*, if not always the actual *existence* of these deities was recognized. Additionally, despite the claims of post-Hilkiah exclusive Yahwism, and despite the mocking of the priests of Baal by Elijah recounted in 1 Kings 18, there is evidence to suggest that a henotheistic view of the cosmos and of divinity's relation to that cosmos was prominent at one time. Judges 11:24, which suggests a system of local divinities tied to local homelands, is only one of the numerous places in which *difference*--defined in terms of belonging to different lands and different gods--is both recognized, and YES, tolerated. Even the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) acknowledged the existence of difference: other lands, other deities. *Shema Israel Yahweh Ecchad*, does not mean that Yahweh is the only divinity so much as it means that Yahweh is the only divinity for Israel. The very structure of a bargain like the one Jacob makes with Yahweh at Genesis 28: 20-22 implies a cosmos in which there are many deities available for worship. So also does the bargain struck at Joshua 24: 14-24. There is no indication that the foreign gods referred to here are unreal. There are numerous other passages that create a clear enough picture of a cosmos in which different lands were sacred to different divinities, and those people who lived on the land of Chemosh worshipped Chemosh. I contend that it is with the shift toward a truly monotheistic view of cosmos and divinity that absolute intolerance--not tribal, ethnic, or economic hostility/enmity, but a feeling of abhorrence at the existence of those who refuse to acknowledge the One God, One Truth, One Direction of the One Sacred History--appears in the form(s) with which we are still familiar today. Thus, the structure of belief is a rather important contributor to the scope, if not the frequency, of humanity's commissions of atrocity. The totalism of a monotheistic cosmos contributes to a kind of mentality that is not a part of a variegated and henotheistic cosmos. Under henotheism, tolerance is merely the acknowledgement of variety, acknowledgement of the reality and existence of other peoples *and* other gods, without a totalistic urge to convert or destroy. The destruction so graphically presented in Joshua is not a Crusade; rather, it is a land claim within a "land belongs to a particular god" system. The Amalekites would have argued that the land belonged to their god, of course, but the atrocity is local and limited in a way that conquest in the name of a universal god can never be. Michael Bryson -----Original Message----- From: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu [mailto:owner-milton-l@richmond.edu]On Behalf Of AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 6:00 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request This is a much more intelligent expression of a mistake I addressed at the opening of my replies, Michael. At exactly what time were "differences recognized and tolerated" prior to Christianity? When had that ever been a value at all (in western cultures)? Historically, this value is in itself the product of Protestant democracies, so the isolation of a specific "people of God" and the location of all truth in Christ must not itself be the cause of intolerance. Again, if you read more closely you get more facts. The Jewish people were commanded to be kind to strangers, and to do so with the awareness that they were strangers and pilgrims themselves at one time. In Christianity, we have an awareness that this present world is not the place where our most important hopes are going to be realized. Therefore, some kind of temporal insurrection would be out of the question -- actually a kind of non-sequitur -- for the followers of Christ. When you merge the creation of The Other with ideas of an earthly utopia binding on all cultures -- THAT sets the stage for atrocity. These are usually materialist, and not religious, frameworks, however. Jim From: Tmsandefur@aol.com Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 2:54 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request << it is more than possible to make a strong case that this is indeed not what Jesus intended at all. >> I don't dispute that. I've heard many a Christian twist many a Bible verse to many an end. It is more than possible to make a strong case for just about anything (and the more nonsensical, the better, it seems) out of the Bible. $ From: Norman T. Burns [nburns@binghamton.edu] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 12:25 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request My notes to Milton's _Christian Doctrine_ include an entry on places where hatred and vengeance have a role in the moral life of a Christian. Milton gives broad latitude for the exercise of hate, calling it "a religious duty, as when we hate the enemies of God or of the church" and making it explicit that we must hate even family members "if they hinder or deter us from the love of God and from our reverence for the true religion" (p.743). [All page numbers are from _CPW_, VI.] Since reverence for the true religion might reasonably encompass the desire to spread it, the terms are broad enough to include the Crusades as well as civil warfare to rid the church of the evils of episcopacy and the like. Wars are not absolutely forbidden (802-03), we are commanded to curse in prayer the enemies of God and the church (675), we may not spare a cruel enemy (802), and we are urged to take vengeance on God's and the church's enemies in a place that cites with approval Psalm 137's enthusiasm for dashing the Daughter of Babylon's little ones against the stones (755). P. 762ff treats lying as acceptable if it is not done to injure our neighbor (rather narrowly construed)--the 9th Commandment forbids only lying about one's neighbor (762) and God himself, Milton observes (763), tells Moses what lie to tell Pharoah so that the Jews might escape (763). Ah, but, Colin Cartwright might justly claim, not everyone agrees that Milton wrote the Christian Doctrine, at least not all of it. Setting that dispute aside for the moment, I would respond that there are many places in the agreed-canonical works that harmonize with the views cited above--a handy starting place might be Michael Lieb's fine essay on the God of _Samson Agonistes_ in _Milton Studies_ 33. Or we might recall the end of Milton's _Of Reformation_ (_CPW_, I, 616-17), where he prays that the English prelates be shamed in this life and then spend eternity being trampled under the feet of all the rest of the damned [like the author of CD, Milton doesn't seem to know that he is making an unChristian prayer, as some view the matter]. Even if these things are not characteristic of Milton "at his best, or most Christian," or if we dismiss any claims for his Christianity, the trouble is that Colin's claims go far beyond what Milton believed--Colin urges propositions about what Christianity stands for and has stood for against what others urge about the religion. He must therefore take the position that CD is not a Christian document at all, at least not in passages like these. He must then contend with Wollebius and others, who, as the annotations amply show, took positions like those in the CD. If Colin is to defend the proposition that "Christ was so important to Milton's thought . . . partly because he recognised that Jesus encouraged people to respect other view-points rather than rush to summary judgement," he would do well if he could first extricate a presentable Milton from some of the unkind and ungenerous expressions he so often permitted himself. If Colin means to argue that historical Christianity emulates the kind and loving person he sees in the Gospel Jesus, he would do well to disentangle his ideas from much (most?) of what has been said and done in the name of God and Christianity throughout history. At other times I have heard advocates claim that the God of Christianity is Love, and I have heard other advocates urge that true worshippers are those who imitate the loving mercifulness that characterizes a truly perceived Jehovah and Allah, but all those advocates do best when they can steer their discourse clear of the mire that is historical Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Best to all, Norm Burns At 04:02 PM 4/26/2000 +0000, you wrote: >Thank you 'Tmsandefur' for quoting scripture in response to my contention >that 'there is nothing in the teaching of Jesus to inspire atrocity'. >However, this partly serves to prove one of the points I was trying to make: >that people have mis-used scripture to serve their own ends. Your use of >Luke 19:26&27 for example. These are the words of a king within a story >told by Jesus, not the words of Jesus himself. Elsewhere Jesus said that >anyone who wanted to be king should be 'servant of all' and he made it clear >that he did not propose to rule in the same way that earthly kings did (eg. >Mark 10 : 35 - 45 / John 13 : 1 - 17 & 18 : 33 - 40). >Despite a whole number of difficult and uncompromising sayings, an overall >study of the life and teachings of Jesus is unambiguous in this respect: >nowhere does Jesus inspire people to commit violence against others, >whatever their beliefs or unbelief. There are many, many passages I could >point to to demonstrate this, but neither of us have enough time for this, >plus I suspect that nothing I say will make any difference at all to your >thinking. >One final remark, to get back 'on subject'. John Milton is one of many >millions of people throughout history to have been positively inspired by >Jesus. I believe that one of the reasons why Christ was so important to >Milton's thought was partly because he recognised that Jesus encouraged >people to respect other view-points rather than rush to summary judgement. >---------- > >From: Tmsandefur@aol.com > >To: milton-l@richmond.edu > >Subject: Re: request > >Date: Thu, Apr 20, 2000, 5:37 pm > > > > >< >that there is nothing here to inspire atrocity, only the inspiration to > >'love God, to love your neighbour and love your enemy'. >> > > > >LOL. Matthew 10:34-39: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I > >came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance > > >against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter > >in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own > > >household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of > >me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. > >And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of > >me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for > > >my sake shall find it." > > > >Luke 19:26-27: "For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be > > >given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away > >from him. But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over > >them, bring hither, and slay them before me." > > > >John 15:6: "If a man abideth not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and > >is withered; > >and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." > > > >2 Thessalonians 1:7-9: "And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the > >Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming > > >fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the > >gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting > >destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his >power?" > > > >?Yeah?.REAL loving. Uh huh. > > > >$ > > > >(This is not to mention Matthew 3:12, 8:12, 11:20-24,13:30, 42, 22:13, > >24:51, 25:30, Luke 13:28, John 5:24, and Acts 13:9-12, where God just > >blinds some guy for the fun of it. And of course, this all leaves out the > >Old Testament.) > > > From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 5:07 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request In a message dated 5/12/00 5:00:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, L.Kaye-Skinner@navix.net writes: << Carrol Cox asked: >If one *is* one's history, which "moment" of that history >is immortal? Perhaps it is not a moment, but the history or story. Lew Kaye-Skinner >> Yeah, I wished I'd responded to this post from Carol too, because it was so good. Yes, I agree, one **is** one's history. But what do we look at when we're looking at the history of something like Christianity? The actions of individual Christians? I hope so. The actions of the institutional leadership? Of course. What you get when you do so is a heck of a lot of nasty stuff and some of the greatest humanitarian acts ever seen. It's a mixed bag. Really, you see pretty much the same thing you see when you look at most other movements. So is it the movement or the people in it? Or both? And how, then, do we define what a movement "advocates"? Do texts have anything to do with this? Jim From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 5:08 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request In a message dated 5/12/00 5:02:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Tmsandefur@aol.com writes: << I don't dispute that. I've heard many a Christian twist many a Bible verse to many an end. It is more than possible to make a strong case for just about anything (and the more nonsensical, the better, it seems) out of the Bible. $ >> You can do this with Any text, really. If you don't believe me, read some literary criticism :) Heck, about Anyone :) You're saying nothing substantial about the Bible at all. Jim From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 5:25 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request In a message dated 5/12/00 5:04:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nburns@binghamton.edu writes: << If Colin means to argue that historical Christianity emulates the kind and loving person he sees in the Gospel Jesus, he would do well to disentangle his ideas from much (most?) of what has been said and done in the name of God and Christianity throughout history. At other times I have heard advocates claim that the God of Christianity is Love, and I have heard other advocates urge that true worshippers are those who imitate the loving mercifulness that characterizes a truly perceived Jehovah and Allah, but all those advocates do best when they can steer their discourse clear of the mire that is historical Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Best to all, Norm Burns >> Whose history, Norm? I think your view of Christian history is a bit one sided. There is much to be proud of as well. And I suspect the good outweighs the bad. Course, it is a matter of what you're willing to accept as evidence. Jim From: Tmsandefur@aol.com Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 8:46 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Request << We may choose concern for others without any reference to self interest but very few, if any, actually do. It is impractical in this world to work on such a basis. And the question still remains -- why should we? >> We shouldn't. We should pursue our own happiness and leave others free to pursue theirs. $ From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 5:24 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request Thank you, Michael. You did a very good job elaborating your position, and it's intelligent and based on history. I still disagree, of course, and my replies are below :) << The Hebrew scriptures contain enough references to foreign deities that it becomes obvious that the *idea*, if not always the actual *existence* of these deities was recognized. Additionally, despite the claims of post-Hilkiah exclusive Yahwism, and despite the mocking of the priests of Baal by Elijah recounted in 1 Kings 18, there is evidence to suggest that a henotheistic view of the cosmos and of divinity's relation to that cosmos was prominent at one time. Judges 11:24, which suggests a system of local divinities tied to local homelands, is only one of the numerous places in which *difference*--defined in terms of belonging to different lands and different gods--is both recognized, and YES, tolerated. Even the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) acknowledged the existence of difference: other lands, other deities. *Shema Israel Yahweh Ecchad*, does not mean that Yahweh is the only divinity so much as it means that Yahweh is the only divinity for Israel. The very structure of a bargain like the one Jacob makes with Yahweh at Genesis 28: 20-22 implies a cosmos in which there are many deities available for worship. So also does the bargain struck at Joshua 24: 14-24. There is no indication that the foreign gods referred to here are unreal. There are numerous other passages that create a clear enough picture of a cosmos in which different lands were sacred to different divinities, and those people who lived on the land of Chemosh worshipped Chemosh.>> Historically, that is correct. But within the context of the covenant between God and Israel, I think you're leaving out a few details. The original Abrahamic covenant was for a much larger piece of real estate than Israel actually wound up with and Originally -- note, from the beginning -- called for the complete eradication of all other tribes living within that geographical area, little by little as Israel grew in numbers. Israel's repeated failures to live up to the requirements of their covenant with YHWH brought upon them the judgment of the continual presence of these other tribes. The rationale behind the complete eradication of these other tribes was their immorality before YHWH, not the fact that they were simply other tribes. There are instances in the Hebrew scriptures in which specific foreign tribes are praised, and spared, for their positive qualities. So your depiction of a happy Israel living in tolerance with other tribes and their deities until they got serious about monotheism involves an anachronism, at least. And you seem to ignore that differences were not really tolerated -- all the semite tribes fought like very angry brothers pretty constantly, and when one tribe conquered another it was bloody, mericiless, and a sign that the god of the winning tribe was more powerful than the losing god. It is not monotheism that creates intolerance. It is intolerance that corrupts monotheism. Jim <> From: A.T. Prancic [pranciat@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 6:13 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: RE: request In pursuant to the discussion regarding the "echad" in the Hebrew Scriptures, it may be profitable to think of it as meaning "unity" rather than "exactly one". There are at least three occasions when the word "echad" does not mean "one". Jesus himself noted that a man and woman can marry in order to form one flesh. The idea is that the couple would form an "echad", namely one couple. Even in Medieval Jewish mysticism the idea that God was a trinity yet still an "echad" did not cause problems. God was an "ein Sof", made up of God, Spirit, and Man--three natures yet "one" in unity. That God is Spirit is well attested in Gen 1 with the Spirit brooding over the waters, and in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other prophets. How often have we heard the phrase, "the Spirit of the Lord came upon me, saying. . .". Even the notion of God becoming man was not foreign at all in Hebrew Scripture. Recall that Yahweh said, "I shall be their God, and they shall be my people, and I shall walk in their midst." The vision that God appeared as a man sitting in a throne in a prophet's dream is also found in the Hebrew Scriptures. Even in Daniel the idea of God as a male ruler, sitting in the Temple of Jerusalem and guiding all nations, kindreds and tongues, lends weight to the fact that the Hebrew nation anticipated God's manifestation in human form. So when one talks about "monotheism" and "polytheism", it is good for one to consider exactly what the Hebrew Scriptures teach about "echad" and why early Christians had come to worship Jesus Christ as God and recognize that The Spirit, "Paracletes", was also God. I hope this helps the discussion, Tony From: Tmsandefur@aol.com Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 8:44 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request << Milton gives broad latitude for the exercise of hate, calling it "a religious duty >> And he is hardly alone. Aside from the frequency of that same claim in the Bible, many, many, many Christians have pronounced the same opinion, or similar ones. One is reminded of Aquinas' assurance that one of our greatest joys in Heaven will be the looking down on the way the evil are suffering (and he is only repeating the Bible when he says that.) $ From: John Wall [jnweg@unity.ncsu.edu] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 6:08 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request Our colleague in Milton studies Regina Schwartz argues an interesting case in her good book, The curse of Cain : the violent legacy of monotheism, in which she claims that the Hebrew Bible often has God speaking with a voice of scarcity, in which there isn't enough to go around and God's people are justified in doing what they must to get control of scarce resources. Alternatively God sometimes speaks with a voice of abundance, in which there is plenty for everyone, which changes everything. Her argument is a strong and persuasive one. God in the Hebrew Bible often does command behavior that sounds atrocious to us; God's people often call on God to do atrocious things for the sake of limited resources. But there is another mode of divine speaking, in which the weak, the stranger, the widow, the orphan, the outsider are privileged. The test of favor with God is the extent to which one has treated the outcast well. In the midst of all the grumpyness of Leviticus is the injunction to regard the stranger as one of us, for Yahweh says, you were once strangers in Egypt. Much of our understanding of the Bible is based on which divine voice we choose to hear. I do not think that whether one's God is the God of one's own people as distinct from the Gods of other peoples or whether one's God is the God of the universe is as important as whether or not that God is a God of scarcity or a God of abundance. As in most things the matter cuts more than one way. If one's God is a God among Gods, then there is little incentive to make peace with one's neighbor. One repeats the ancient stories in which human affair are reflections of conflicts among the Gods in the divine realm, a condition of constant warfare that justifies human conflict. On the other hand, if one's God is God of all then there is recourse to the appeal to a common humanity and to common standards of conduct. Or, one can spin it the other way, as Michael powerfully describes. And since we are constructing our ideas about God anyway, all this discussion is powerfully revealing of who we are and what we think about things. I've always thought that the argument that humanity is brutal and selfish without the threat of divine judgement sells us short, since we also embrace and affirm willingly other images of humanity as capable of cooperation and even self sacrifice. Even if we do usually act out of self interest, there is no clearcut path to that goal, and we are bundles of contradictory impulses. We may want to grab all we can get for ourselves, but we also want to hold on to what we get and to have some control over it, so we are usually ready to participate in a society where there are limits, predictability, and due process rather than an anarchistic world in which might always wins. Oh well, sorry for rambling on a Friday afternoon! Best, John Wall Michael Bryson wrote: > I will attempt to explain my position at more length in this post. > > The Hebrew scriptures contain enough references to foreign deities that it > becomes obvious that the *idea*, if not always the actual *existence* of > these deities was recognized. Additionally, despite the claims of > post-Hilkiah exclusive Yahwism, and despite the mocking of the priests of > Baal by Elijah recounted in 1 Kings 18, there is evidence to suggest that a > henotheistic view of the cosmos and of divinity's relation to that cosmos > was prominent at one time. Judges 11:24, which suggests a system of local > divinities tied to local homelands, is only one of the numerous places in > which *difference*--defined in terms of belonging to different lands and > different gods--is both recognized, and YES, tolerated. > > Even the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) acknowledged the existence of difference: > other lands, other deities. *Shema Israel Yahweh Ecchad*, does not mean that > Yahweh is the only divinity so much as it means that Yahweh is the only > divinity for Israel. The very structure of a bargain like the one Jacob > makes with Yahweh at Genesis 28: 20-22 implies a cosmos in which there are > many deities available for worship. So also does the bargain struck at > Joshua 24: 14-24. There is no indication that the foreign gods referred to > here are unreal. There are numerous other passages that create a clear > enough picture of a cosmos in which different lands were sacred to different > divinities, and those people who lived on the land of Chemosh worshipped > Chemosh. > > I contend that it is with the shift toward a truly monotheistic view of > cosmos and divinity that absolute intolerance--not tribal, ethnic, or > economic hostility/enmity, but a feeling of abhorrence at the existence of > those who refuse to acknowledge the One God, One Truth, One Direction of the > One Sacred History--appears in the form(s) with which we are still familiar > today. > > Thus, the structure of belief is a rather important contributor to the > scope, if not the frequency, of humanity's commissions of atrocity. The > totalism of a monotheistic cosmos contributes to a kind of mentality that is > not a part of a variegated and henotheistic cosmos. Under henotheism, > tolerance is merely the acknowledgement of variety, acknowledgement of the > reality and existence of other peoples *and* other gods, without a > totalistic urge to convert or destroy. The destruction so graphically > presented in Joshua is not a Crusade; rather, it is a land claim within a > "land belongs to a particular god" system. The Amalekites would have argued > that the land belonged to their god, of course, but the atrocity is local > and limited in a way that conquest in the name of a universal god can never > be. > > Michael Bryson > > -----Original Message----- > >From: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu [mailto:owner-milton-l@richmond.edu]On > Behalf Of AntiUtopia@aol.com > Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 6:00 PM > To: milton-l@richmond.edu > Subject: Re: request > > This is a much more intelligent expression of a mistake I addressed at the > opening of my replies, Michael. > > At exactly what time were "differences recognized and tolerated" prior to > Christianity? When had that ever been a value at all (in western cultures)? > Historically, this value is in itself the product of Protestant democracies, > so the isolation of a specific "people of God" and the location of all truth > in Christ must not itself be the cause of intolerance. > > Again, if you read more closely you get more facts. The Jewish people were > commanded to be kind to strangers, and to do so with the awareness that they > were strangers and pilgrims themselves at one time. In Christianity, we > have > an awareness that this present world is not the place where our most > important hopes are going to be realized. Therefore, some kind of temporal > insurrection would be out of the question -- actually a kind of non-sequitur > -- for the followers of Christ. > > When you merge the creation of The Other with ideas of an earthly utopia > binding on all cultures -- THAT sets the stage for atrocity. These are > usually materialist, and not religious, frameworks, however. > > Jim From: Daniel Richard Moyle [drmoyle@wam.umd.edu] Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2000 7:57 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: question I already have taken that book out, I was just trying to find other viewpoints. Thanks for responding though. Daniel ***************************************************************************** -tba ***************************************************************************** On Thu, 11 May 2000, Carol Barton wrote: > Try Irene Samuel's _Dante and Milton," Daniel . . . you can't have looked > very far. > > The MLA bibliography is an excellent place to start. > > Best, > > Carol Barton > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daniel Richard Moyle" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 5:23 PM > Subject: question > > > > I was just wondering if anyone would consider Dante's Divina Commedia a > > major influence upon Milton's Paradise Lost. I am doing a research paper > > on this and have found many sources, however, the links seem to be very > > vague. If anyone could give me any information as to how and what, I > > would appreciate it greatly. > > Thanks > > Daniel Moyle > > Univ. of MD > > > > > **************************************************************************** > * > > > > -tba > > > > > **************************************************************************** > * > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: gary patrick norris [stroszek@earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2000 3:16 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request "Chapman, Keith" wrote: > > A week or so ago I posed a question on comparing Milton's Satan to > Nietzsche's Overman. This is intriguing...Nietzsche writes that you have to go under to get over (beginning of *Zarathustra*)... Before going too far with this Romantic noton of Satan and is relation to the Nietzschean hero, please consider the construction of Pandaemonium keeping endeavor in mind...(IMO,) what drives Satan is not what drives the Ubermensch... interested in hearing more about your topic... Gary Norris Denver, CO "I would tell you the whole story, but I might puke if I did." Holden Caulfield, *Catcher in the Rye* From: Tony Hill [mjksezth@fs1.ce.umist.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 1:05 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: RE: request From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Date sent: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:35:56 EDT Subject: RE: request To: milton-l@richmond.edu Send reply to: milton-l@richmond.edu > perhaps Satan should get a more objectified reading, doesn't he appear to be > establishing a new set of moralilty, a standard in defiance of God. > Nietzsche describes the new philosophers, the philosophers who are able to > pull mankind out of his decay, out of the "diminution, of man." > These men, these bastions of intellectual and moral creativity are > "spirits strong and original enough to provide the stimuli for the opposite > valuations and to revalue and invert 'eternal values'; toward forerunners, > toward men of the future who in the present tie the knot and contraint the > forces the will of millennia upon new tacks. To teach man the future of man > and his will, as dependent on a human will, and to prepare great ventures > and over-all attempts of discipline and cultivation by way of putting an end > to that gruesome dominion of nonsense and accident that has so far been > called 'history.'" Milton's Satan may begin heroically. We should remember that he was next in greatness to God as Lucifer and still possesses a divine like nature at the outset. But it is leaving him throughout the poem. He is in decline (even in size), a result of his illogical rebellion against God. I believe that Blake was wrong with his comment that "Milton was of the devil's party without knowing it" and I think Blake meant that he felt M had made Satan so powerful that he became a difficult character to control in the rest of the work. It was necessary to make him a powerful figure so that Christ's overcoming of him could be truly heroic. Isn't Satan after all the "Lord of the Flies" and isn't his true nature revealed finally in PR where he is finally refuted at every turn and comprehensively defeated because he is WRONG. Tony Hill www.ce.umist.ac.uk From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 3:07 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Request That's a reasonable position, but it excludes moral indignation for any perceived injustices -- committed by the IMF, the Church, or the Nazis... Jim << << We may choose concern for others without any reference to self interest but very few, if any, actually do. It is impractical in this world to work on such a basis. And the question still remains -- why should we? >> We shouldn't. We should pursue our own happiness and leave others free to pursue theirs. $ >> From: Stevenson, Kay G [kays@essex.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 10:51 AM To: 'milton-l@richmond.edu' Subject: Milton Marathon at Essex The first (first annual?) Milton Marathon at Essex took place 10 a.m. - 9:20 p.m. on May 22. There were only five of us there at the end, but those five were exhilarated. Several (including several who had to leave early) said they'd like to do it again next year, earlier in the academic year. One of the readers who was there at beginning and end was a first-year student who had never read the poem at all. As others of you have said, the poem teaches a reader how to read it. I'm grateful to those on the list who have suggested useful traditions including a book for comments -- and apples in Book IX. Kay Gilliland Stevenson, Department of Literature, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester C04 3SQ From: elin@dept.english.upenn.edu Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 1:50 PM To: RENAIS-L@listserv.louisville.edu; FICINO@listserv.utoronto.ca; GEMCS-L@hofstra.edu; SHAKSPER@ws.bowiestate.edu; MILTON-L@richmond.edu; PERFORM@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU; REED-L@epas.utoronto.ca Cc: elin@dept.english.upenn.edu Subject: UPDATE: CFP: UPenn Med Ren Grad Student Conference Please note: the deadline has been extended to June 15. Apologies to those of you receiving more than one copy of this cfp. Please forward this email to others who may be interested. Thanks, Erika Lin ---- Call for Papers WRINKLES IN TIME: RUPTURES AND CONTINUITIES IN THE WRITING OF THE MIDDLE AGES AND THE RENAISSANCE October 7, 2000 A Graduate Student Conference at the University of Pennsylvania Plenary Panel: Chris Chism, Rutgers University (New Brunswick) Sean Keilen, University of Pennsylvania Katherine Rowe, Bryn Mawr College Vance Smith, Princeton University Emily Steiner, University of Pennsylvania This conference will explore both the writings produced during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance and the ways in which those periods have themselves been written to meet a variety of subsequent historical and cultural concerns. We are particularly interested in papers relating specific topics to larger theoretical questions, especially those posed by recent historicist scholarship. Potential topics may come from, but are not limited to, the following areas of interest: * periodization: historiography, terminology, cultural fantasy * literal "wrinkles" and other objects: material culture in its temporal dimension * religious reformations: innovation and conservation * transformations in gender, sex, and identity * performance: actual practices and theoretical frameworks * the genres of history-writing: chronicles, lives, history plays * marginal, "unwritten" histories * reception and revision of medieval forms in Renaissance literature * manuscript matrix / print culture * communities constructed in space and over time * monarchic regimes and dissenting forms of power We welcome not only papers focusing primarily on writings in English but also those focusing on literatures and cultures outside of England. By June 15, 2000, single-page abstracts for twenty-minute papers should be sent to: wrinkles@english.upenn.edu (no attachments please). Questions about the conference may be directed to the same address. Questions and abstracts can also be sent via regular mail to: Wrinkles in Time Conference 119 Bennett Hall Department of English University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104-6273 More information about the conference can be found at http://www.english.upenn.edu/~wrinkles From: Michael Bryson [m-bryson@nwu.edu] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 10:15 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: RE: request Disagreement is often instructive. In that spirit, I think that arguing for an "original" Abrahamic covenant is a bit problematic. Two questions come to mind: 1) Are the accounts of Yahweh's promises to Abram/Abraham (Genesis 12, 13, 15 and 17) to be taken as an attempt to accurately represent the actual promises made to a nomadic chieftain centuries before the monarchical period of Israel and Judah in which those promises were likely written down? 2) Are the accounts at Genesis 12, 13, 15 and 17 to be regarded in some other manner? Could these accounts be expressions of a kind of self-justifying "history"? A monarchical-period Israelite ideology resembling manifest destiny? A myth of origin perhaps? An explanation for how and why "we" came to inhabit this land? (The land promised to Abram is described as that which Abram can see to his north, south, east, and west at 13:14, though this seems to be a description of Israel's territorial zenith as recounted at 1 Kings 4: 20-25.) It can only be too obvious that I incline to the positions suggested by question #2. Arguing that the Abrahamic covenant as described in Genesis argued for anything "from the beginning" seems to rely on positions suggested by question #1. Additionally, I fail to find anywhere in these descriptions of the Abrahamic covenant(s) any call for "the complete eradication of all other tribes living within that geographical area." There is a reference to the Amorites at Genesis 15:16, but I am missing any predictions of mass slaughter. (The destruction of the cities of the plain appears to be a local incident.) I certainly didn't intend to paint a picture of "happy Israelites" living in a peace-and-love world. I maintain, however, my suspicion that the totalism inherent in monotheism (whether the One God is the "compassionate" God of Amos or the Yahweh Tsevaoth of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Zechariah) has been a strongly contributive factor in providing an ideological framework for atrocity. The argument "Israel's repeated failures to live up to the requirements of their covenant with YHWH brought upon them the judgment of the continual presence of these other tribes" sounds rather ominous. The implication seems to be that faithfulness on the part of the Israelites would have led to a more efficient "eradication" of the "other tribes" to which you refer. This is a rather neat expression of the dark side of monotheism. All too often, eradication is the name of the game. Michael Bryson -----Original Message----- From: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu [mailto:owner-milton-l@richmond.edu]On Behalf Of AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 4:24 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request Thank you, Michael. You did a very good job elaborating your position, and it's intelligent and based on history. I still disagree, of course, and my replies are below :) << The Hebrew scriptures contain enough references to foreign deities that it becomes obvious that the *idea*, if not always the actual *existence* of these deities was recognized. Additionally, despite the claims of post-Hilkiah exclusive Yahwism, and despite the mocking of the priests of Baal by Elijah recounted in 1 Kings 18, there is evidence to suggest that a henotheistic view of the cosmos and of divinity's relation to that cosmos was prominent at one time. Judges 11:24, which suggests a system of local divinities tied to local homelands, is only one of the numerous places in which *difference*--defined in terms of belonging to different lands and different gods--is both recognized, and YES, tolerated. Even the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) acknowledged the existence of difference: other lands, other deities. *Shema Israel Yahweh Ecchad*, does not mean that Yahweh is the only divinity so much as it means that Yahweh is the only divinity for Israel. The very structure of a bargain like the one Jacob makes with Yahweh at Genesis 28: 20-22 implies a cosmos in which there are many deities available for worship. So also does the bargain struck at Joshua 24: 14-24. There is no indication that the foreign gods referred to here are unreal. There are numerous other passages that create a clear enough picture of a cosmos in which different lands were sacred to different divinities, and those people who lived on the land of Chemosh worshipped Chemosh.>> Historically, that is correct. But within the context of the covenant between God and Israel, I think you're leaving out a few details. The original Abrahamic covenant was for a much larger piece of real estate than Israel actually wound up with and Originally -- note, from the beginning -- called for the complete eradication of all other tribes living within that geographical area, little by little as Israel grew in numbers. Israel's repeated failures to live up to the requirements of their covenant with YHWH brought upon them the judgment of the continual presence of these other tribes. The rationale behind the complete eradication of these other tribes was their immorality before YHWH, not the fact that they were simply other tribes. There are instances in the Hebrew scriptures in which specific foreign tribes are praised, and spared, for their positive qualities. So your depiction of a happy Israel living in tolerance with other tribes and their deities until they got serious about monotheism involves an anachronism, at least. And you seem to ignore that differences were not really tolerated -- all the semite tribes fought like very angry brothers pretty constantly, and when one tribe conquered another it was bloody, mericiless, and a sign that the god of the winning tribe was more powerful than the losing god. It is not monotheism that creates intolerance. It is intolerance that corrupts monotheism. Jim <> From: Carol Barton [cbartonphd@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 1:52 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request Two points, Tony, in rapid-fire succession from a very busy respondent: First, it is important to remember that Satan is GOD'S "Adversary"--and therefore must be a worthy opponent, or the Almighty will be seen as straining at gnats, martialling the host of Heaven against him as He does. Satan MUST be magnificent, to be worthy even of God's notice in this regard. Secondly, as to your citation of the oft-(misquoted) out of context comment from Blake's "Marriage of Heaven and Hell": what Blake actually says is: NOTE: The reason Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of Angels & God, and at liberty when of Devils & Hell, is because he was a true Poet and of the Devil's party without knowing it. One must understand Blake's cruel and beneficent God to understand this comment in its full import, but basically, Blake is saying what Northrup Frye would later say better (or less ambiguously, anyway): that we have met the enemy and he is us, to steal from Pogo -- that is to say, that we know and can portray evil better than we know or can portray good, because in our sinful state, we are more like the devil than we are like God. Blake was NOT saying that Milton saw Satan as a hero, or as the hero of _Paradise Lost_ (the usual attribution); just that, being human, it was easier for Milton to understand Satan than it was for him to understand God. Those are radically different statements, the former of which has unfortunately been reinforced by Christopher Hill. Satan is defeated because his heart is hardened, his will obdurate, and repentance -- the one condition of salvation -- for him is impossible ("but say I could repent, and could obtain / Forgiveness ..."). That is the same reason the rest of Pandemonium is exempt from God's mercy: they never ask for it. Best to all, Carol Barton > From: John Hale [John.Hale@stonebow.otago.ac.nz] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 7:12 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Performing Paradise Lost Dear all out there: I have just done my version of the marathon again, upping the stakes a little more again. I invited two scholarly friends to come along and judge it. One of them was Bev Sherry from the U of Sydney. She has sent me these comments about the whole event. (Whole event including a seminar for my department the day before the all-day rendition, on John Martin's illustrations of PL.) They reach the Milton-L with her permission. My thanks accordingly, Bev! John Hale _________________________________ The Dunedin Marathon and the Pursuit of Excellence The Dunedin Marathon 2000 was an adventurous reading of _Paradise Lost_, organized in teams competitively, with prizes for the best team and the best individual reader. The competitive edge did not detract from the enjoyment, rather enhanced it. The teams rejoiced in such names as "The Homeridae" (members of the Classics Department who read Book 1), "Alliance Diabolique" for Book 2, the "Free Spirits" for Book 3, "Hell's Belles" (4th-year English Honours students) for Book 4, "The Supremes" for Book 6 (a most enthusiastic group drawn from local care agencies). As some relaxation, three books (7, 11, 12) were read freely by all comers. This was by no means just an English Department effort but an impressive meeting of the University of Otago with the town of Dunedin. It began at 9.30 a.m. and there were only short coffee and food breaks through the day. At 9.30 p.m. my co-judge and I were announcing the winners and we were not in the least tired! A student who read Book 12.173-90 had just made us sit up in astonishment at the gross horror of the ten plagues of Egypt. The students I spoke to said that the marathon had brought the poem alive for them; for me it provoked renewed understanding and further thought. As the day proceeded, the broad rhythm of the poem, the modulations from one book to the next, emerged. The "Enhanced Tutors" team should have won a prize for sweet reason, so well did they capture the civilized discursiveness and ceremoniousness of Book 8. This was then blown to the winds by a brusque voice opening Book 9 ("No more of talk. . .") and an impassioned performance of that book. Different readers for the same character threw into relief the development of Milton's characters. There were several Satans, including a desperate fallen angel in Book 1 and a suave, sensuous, velvet-voiced Satan in Book 9. The "Hell's Belle" who read Eve in Book 4 was a gently spoken young girl with softly curling hair, a pliant Eve compared with the Eve of Book 9, a woman in her own right (read by an older girl). Readers responded well to the dramatic elements--the Adam of Book 10, for example, read that longest speech of the poem (10.720-844) as a strikingly intelligent self-cross-examination. More difficult for them was the iambic movement and the flow of the narrative voice. This led me to think about the high priority Milton placed on "true musical delight" (note on "The Verse" of Paradise Lost) and "Harmonious numbers" (3.38) and his insistence on his epic as song: "Sing Heav'nly Muse" (1.6); "as the wakeful Bird /Sings darkling" (3.38-39); "still govern thou my Song, / Urania" (7.30-31); ". . .Heroic Song" (9.25). For Wordsworth, Milton had "a voice whose sound was like the sea: / Pure as the naked heavens, majestic, free," ("London, 1802"), and T.S. Eliot observed that Milton worked "in larger musical units than any other poet," his verse-paragraphs moving in "a breathless leap" ('Milton II" lecture 1947). That was difficult to capture, but Milton's New Zealanders, simply by reading aloud, did justice to the blind poet who did not write but spoke _Paradise Lost_. Early readers were more aware than we are today of poetry as an aural and oral art. Milton himself knew Homer's epics so well that "he could almost repeat [them] without book" (Toland's _Life of John Milton_, 1698). Jonathan Richardson, Addison, Wordsworth, Arnold, Patrick Bronte could recite _Paradise Lost_ from memory. When the study of poetry becomes an academic industry, its "simple, sensuous, and passionate" qualities--qualities central to the meaning of _Paradise Lost_-- are in danger of being neglected. A colleague in Sydney asked me, "Would Milton have approved [of the Marathon]?" He would certainly have approved of correcting that danger of neglect, and the Dunedin marathon worked indefatigably towards that end. From: Dan Knauss [tiresias@juno.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 11:58 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request On Fri, 12 May 2000 18:07:56 -0400 John Wall writes: > But there is another mode of divine speaking, in which the weak, the > stranger, > the widow, the orphan, the outsider are privileged. The test of > favor with God > is the extent to which one has treated the outcast well. In the > midst of > all the > grumpyness of Leviticus is the injunction to regard the stranger as > one of us, > for Yahweh says, you were once strangers in Egypt. > > Much of our understanding of the Bible is based on which divine > voice we choose > to hear. And there are quite a few of them. I wonder if Regina Schwartz cites Rene Girad in any of her books--I've read few but have heard her speak. Girard's view is that the Old Testament reveals a progressive shift toward the perspective of "the outsider," as you say, or "the victim," which is Girard's term of choice. In a variation of the idea that history is written by the victors, Girard holds that all writing has been dominated by narratives that only acknowledge the perspective of the oppressor or persecutor. The Bible is unique in that it "deconstructs" this narrative perspective from within. However, the Bible seems to swerve into error after the gospels for Girard since he entirely rejects the idea that Christ's death was a sacrifice of sorts, on the grounds that this view (dominant in historical Christianity) merely recapitulates the persecutory mindset of sacralized violence--a "good violence" whose victims can, in some material sense, exculpate the guilt of others. This puts him in the camp someone was discussing earlier--a Christian who aparently rejects the mainstream of historical Christian doctrine and probably much that has been done in/by Christians. He is a critic of Christianity then, but not intentionally an antagonist. He makes an interesting point that modern atheistic antagonism toward Christianity also recapitulates sacred violence/scapegoating by making a victim of the religion. -dk ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. From: rwill627 [rwill627@camalott.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 1:39 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request It might help us to remember that when one devoutly worships the Only True God, everyone who disagrees can easily be seen as either an evil person or a fool. Followers of both Islam and Christianity have often developed this attitude, with resulting horrors ranging from 7nth century Asia Minor to 20th century Bosnia. Rose Williams From: John Wall [jnweg@unity.ncsu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 1:45 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request Michael -- The kinds of questions you raise are very much the subject of extensive discussion in the literature of biblical studies. The traditional line of such studies argues that the texts of the Hebrew Bible are very much the products of specific times and places and in fact reflect several moments of summing up the importance of things. I refer to the traditional hypothesis that the Pentateuch contains traces of at least four separate narrative strains, each with its distinctive take on the events remembered from Hebrew tradition. The prophetic writings reflect even later redactions and revisions of that tradition. Clearly the accounts of Yahweh's promises to Abram are late constructions of tradition. The book itself contains multiple perspectives on that covenant. The covenant itself is constantly being renewed and revised. The debate and discussion over all this is extensive and I don't have the expertise to say where is a good place to get into it. I do think many biblical scholars would claim for the Hebrew Bible a developing strain of challenge to abiding ancient near eastern customs for treating one's neighbors. The capacity for what we would call atrocity seems wide spread in the past -- casual enslavement, mass deportation, general slaughter -- but it would seem to be opposed by a biblical strain that holds kings accountable for their treatment of the outsider. On the other hand, this sense may just be an effect of the western familiarity with the narratives of the Hebrew Bible and unfamiliarity with those of other cultures of the age. Best, John Wall From: Tony Hill [mjksezth@fs1.ce.umist.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 2:46 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request From: "Carol Barton" To: Subject: Re: request Date sent: Mon, 15 May 2000 13:52:21 -0400 Send reply to: milton-l@richmond.edu > Blake was NOT > saying that Milton saw Satan as a hero, or as the hero of _Paradise Lost_ > (the usual attribution); just that, being human, it was easier for Milton to > understand Satan than it was for him to understand God. Thanks for the interesting comments. I don't see Satan as the hero of PL at all and I don't think Blake did either. But what do you think of the idea that it was difficult for Blake, with the combination of his extraordinary vision and radical sect background (his father was a Muggletonian I think) to come to terms with the poem at all? Blake's God is beyond human understanding as indeed any eternally existing infinitely knowing being must ever be but Milton's is very human. I think that Blake would not explain God in terms of reason as Milton seems to me to try to do and also that he had trouble seeing how an essentially SPIRITUAL being should want to create a physical universe filled with physical beings. In a sense the creator, for Blake, was really the "bad guy" who created what was the Newtonian, entirely predictable, "clockwork" universe. He depicted Newton marking out the universe on a sheet of paper oblivious of the fact that he entirley submerged in some deep lake or pool of water ie. he can't see beyond his own "reason". I fully agree that Blake's comment needs a lot of unpicking and I certainly didn't throw it in flippantly. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. Thanks; Tony Hill www.ce.umist.ac.uk From: Thomas Fulton [thomas.fulton@yale.edu] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 11:21 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: TENURE OF KINGS AND MAGISTRATES Bernard Bailyn's great book, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution has a few words about Tenure and some of Milton's other works. Basically, Milton seems to have been somewhat influential to American revolutionary ideology. Thomas Fulton On Sat, 18 Mar 2o00, christopher scheib wrote: > Are there any good books out which would detail how Milton's political ideas > set forth in Tenure of Kings and Magistrates influenced later political > thought especially in the newly formed United States? > > Thanks, > Chris Scheib, Jacksonville State University > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: krl3@acpub.duke.edu Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 7:20 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Raphael? In the latest chapter of my dissertation, I am finding it necessary to contradict a few statements made by Raphael. In order to justify my disagreement with the angel, I explain that I'm not alone in questioning his credibility: "Numerous scholars have persuasively pointed out that Raphael is quite possible wrong on a number of points." In my attempt to build the footnote that will refer the reader to these "numerous scholars," though, I seem to have encountered a problem--I can't find any! After leafing through my notes and taking a spin around the MLA, I can't locate any published essays that suggest that Raphael's authority is less-than-reliable. Have I fabricated an entire sub-movement in Milton studies? Can anybody refer me to work claiming that Raphael is not altogether authoritative? Thanks, Kent Lehnhof kent.lehnhof@duke.edu From: mebauman@dmci.net Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 2:26 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request Just a brief affirmation of Carol Barton's explanation of Satan, Blake and repentance below. One rarely finds so much insight in so few sentences. Michael Bauman >Two points, Tony, in rapid-fire succession from a very busy respondent: > >First, it is important to remember that Satan is GOD'S "Adversary"--and >therefore must be a worthy opponent, or the Almighty will be seen as >straining at gnats, martialling the host of Heaven against him as He does. >Satan MUST be magnificent, to be worthy even of God's notice in this regard. > >Secondly, as to your citation of the oft-(misquoted) out of context comment >from Blake's "Marriage of Heaven and Hell": what Blake actually says is: > > NOTE: The reason Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote > of Angels & God, and at liberty when of Devils & Hell, is > because he was a true Poet and of the Devil's party > without knowing it. > >One must understand Blake's cruel and beneficent God to understand this >comment in its full import, but basically, Blake is saying what Northrup >Frye would later say better (or less ambiguously, anyway): that we have met >the enemy and he is us, to steal from Pogo -- that is to say, that we know >and can portray evil better than we know or can portray good, because in our >sinful state, we are more like the devil than we are like God. Blake was NOT >saying that Milton saw Satan as a hero, or as the hero of _Paradise Lost_ >(the usual attribution); just that, being human, it was easier for Milton to >understand Satan than it was for him to understand God. > >Those are radically different statements, the former of which has >unfortunately been reinforced by Christopher Hill. > >Satan is defeated because his heart is hardened, his will obdurate, and >repentance -- the one condition of salvation -- for him is impossible ("but >say I could repent, and could obtain / Forgiveness ..."). That is the same >reason the rest of Pandemonium is exempt from God's mercy: they never ask >for it. > >Best to all, > >Carol Barton > > From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 3:08 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: RE: request In a message dated Tue, 16 May 2000 1:04:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Michael Bryson" writes: << Disagreement is often instructive. In that spirit, I think that arguing for an "original" Abrahamic covenant is a bit problematic. Two questions come to mind: 1) Are the accounts of Yahweh's promises to Abram/Abraham (Genesis 12, 13, 15 and 17) to be taken as an attempt to accurately represent the actual promises made to a nomadic chieftain centuries before the monarchical period of Israel and Judah in which those promises were likely written down? 2) Are the accounts at Genesis 12, 13, 15 and 17 to be regarded in some other manner? Could these accounts be expressions of a kind of self-justifying "history"? A monarchical-period Israelite ideology resembling manifest destiny? A myth of origin perhaps? An explanation for how and why "we" came to inhabit this land? (The land promised to Abram is described as that which Abram can see to his north, south, east, and west at 13:14, though this seems to be a description of Israel's territorial zenith as recounted at 1 Kings 4: 20-25.)>> Yes, of course you incline toward option two. I don't believe the two options are mutually exclusive, I do agree that part of the intent of the narrative of Genesis is the provide an account of the origins of the nation. But are the accounts politically motivated as a self-justifying history? I think it's anachronistic to think so. And I don't think that motive necessarily follows from a desire to give an account of origins. <> Yeah, I knew that was going to be a problem with post. I didn't bother to provide citations. I'll try to do so. <> My point is that monotheism is moot, that ideological constructs favorable for atrocity are constructed and have been constructed independently of monotheism -- they exist in polytheist and monist frameworks as well. The Bhagavad Gita, in early chapters, appears to justify the murder of one's brothers in warfare on the grounds of reincarnation, and this within a monist framework. The point is that justification is motivated prior to theological constructs, not that any specific theological constructs motivate ideology toward atrocities. <> Yes, that is a clear implication and was intended within the context of my argument. I will try to provide citations to develop this point. Jim -----Original Message----- From: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu [mailto:owner-milton-l@richmond.edu]On Behalf Of AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 4:24 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request Thank you, Michael. You did a very good job elaborating your position, and it's intelligent and based on history. I still disagree, of course, and my replies are below :) << The Hebrew scriptures contain enough references to foreign deities that it becomes obvious that the *idea*, if not always the actual *existence* of these deities was recognized. Additionally, despite the claims of post-Hilkiah exclusive Yahwism, and despite the mocking of the priests of Baal by Elijah recounted in 1 Kings 18, there is evidence to suggest that a henotheistic view of the cosmos and of divinity's relation to that cosmos was prominent at one time. Judges 11:24, which suggests a system of local divinities tied to local homelands, is only one of the numerous places in which *difference*--defined in terms of belonging to different lands and different gods--is both recognized, and YES, tolerated. Even the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) acknowledged the existence of difference: other lands, other deities. *Shema Israel Yahweh Ecchad*, does not mean that Yahweh is the only divinity so much as it means that Yahweh is the only divinity for Israel. The very structure of a bargain like the one Jacob makes with Yahweh at Genesis 28: 20-22 implies a cosmos in which there are many deities available for worship. So also does the bargain struck at Joshua 24: 14-24. There is no indication that the foreign gods referred to here are unreal. There are numerous other passages that create a clear enough picture of a cosmos in which different lands were sacred to different divinities, and those people who lived on the land of Chemosh worshipped Chemosh.>> Historically, that is correct. But within the context of the covenant between God and Israel, I think you're leaving out a few details. The original Abrahamic covenant was for a much larger piece of real estate than Israel actually wound up with and Originally -- note, from the beginning -- called for the complete eradication of all other tribes living within that geographical area, little by little as Israel grew in numbers. Israel's repeated failures to live up to the requirements of their covenant with YHWH brought upon them the judgment of the continual presence of these other tribes. The rationale behind the complete eradication of these other tribes was their immorality before YHWH, not the fact that they were simply other tribes. There are instances in the Hebrew scriptures in which specific foreign tribes are praised, and spared, for their positive qualities. So your depiction of a happy Israel living in tolerance with other tribes and their deities until they got serious about monotheism involves an anachronism, at least. And you seem to ignore that differences were not really tolerated -- all the semite tribes fought like very angry brothers pretty constantly, and when one tribe conquered another it was bloody, mericiless, and a sign that the god of the winning tribe was more powerful than the losing god. It is not monotheism that creates intolerance. It is intolerance that corrupts monotheism. Jim <> >>