From: srevard@siue.edu Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 10:09 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Performance of masque at Folger Roy-- Can you or any others who attended the seminar and masque at the Folger tell us who weren\'t there something about the performance? Stella Revard Quoting Roy Flannagan : > > At the recent seminar on and performance of the masque at the Folger > Library, Stephen Orgel produced some fascinating information about the sad > > late marriage of Lady Alice. You might write him at Stanford, for a copy > of his remarks. > > Best wishes, > > Roy Flannagan > > >>> Lynne1eric@aol.com 04/03/01 11:04AM >>> > > > Would anyone have a ready source for biographical information about Lady > Alice Egerton? I am trying to piece together a more complete portrait of > her > life. Thank you! > Lynne Greenberg > > From: John Leonard [jleonard@uwo.ca] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 12:29 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: gay angels whunter wrote: > > I suggest that you begin by reading the standard work, Bob West's book on > Milton and angels. Then think further on how Milton applies it: To > support the concept of the Great Chain of Being or the Scale of > Nature. Check out too my analysis in Visitation Unimplor'd (and note CCD's > ignorance of vthe issue--which might have helped that author's concept of > everything being ex deo. And then there is the sexuality of Milton's > angels, a somewhat similar issue. Angels have sex. They are all males; > heaven is populated by actively gay angels. Again see VU. > > W. B. Hunter This is certainly one possible construction of the evidence, and perhaps the most plausible one. But might not Milton also allow room for heterosexual (and lesbian) angels when he writes: "Spirits when they please / Can either sex assume or both" (I 423-44)? Or does "Spirits" here refer exclusively to devils? The question of homosexuality (or bisexuality) in Milton is fascinating. One possible piece of evidence often overlooked is this, from "Fair infant": Young Hyacinth, born on Eurotas' strand Young Hyacinth, the pride of Spartan land. The allusion might not be *only* to the myth (suggestive in itself), but also to the Spartan Hyacinthia, a festival in Apollo's honour, in which here handsome boys played a conspicuous part. Homosexuality was a way of life in Sparta. "Pride" here might even have something like its modern gay resonance. John Leonard From: Roy Flannagan [Roy@gwm.sc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 1:27 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton's Lady At the recent seminar on and performance of the masque at the Folger = Library, Stephen Orgel produced some fascinating information about the sad = late marriage of Lady Alice. You might write him at Stanford, for a copy = of his remarks. Best wishes, Roy Flannagan >>> Lynne1eric@aol.com 04/03/01 11:04AM >>> Would anyone have a ready source for biographical information about Lady Alice Egerton? I am trying to piece together a more complete portrait of = her life. Thank you! Lynne Greenberg From: Arnold, Margaret [mjarnold@ukans.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 3:14 PM To: 'milton-l@richmond.edu' Subject: RE: Milton's Lady My information is not recent, but I found some material about Alice Egerton's participation in other masques of the period a few years ago in one or more of the following places: The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, under either Lawes or masques; Gretchen Finney, "Musical Backgrounds of English Literature"; or Enid Welsford's early work on the court masque. Since then I've noticed more recent works, especially on masques, but I will be looking more, too, into the historical Alice Egerton and would be interested in sharing information. A question I've been hoping to ask the list: Does anyone remember a performance of Milton's masque around five years ago in one of the small London theatres at the back of a pub? The frame story concerned the most recent female Egerton's plans to stage a new performance. In it, she was powerfully tempted by the actors playing Comus. I didn't realize I'd want to refer to it and have not recorded any of the particulars--which theatre, what other impressions the audience had, who adapted it. Can anyone help? Many thanks, Margaret Arnold -----Original Message----- From: Lynne1eric@aol.com [mailto:Lynne1eric@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 10:04 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Milton's Lady Would anyone have a ready source for biographical information about Lady Alice Egerton? I am trying to piece together a more complete portrait of her life. Thank you! Lynne Greenberg From: Robert Appelbaum [r_appel@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 3:50 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re:Eating Angels The deepest study to date is Michael Schoenfeldt's essay "Temperance and Temptation: The Alimental Vision in Paradise Lost." It is available in his book, Bodies and Selves in Early Modern England, Cambridge UP, 1999. whunter wrote: I suggest that you begin by reading the standard work, Bob West's book on Milton and angels. Then think further on how Milton applies it: To support the concept of the Great Chain of Being or the Scale of Nature. Check out too my analysis in Visitation Unimplor'd (and note CCD's ignorance of vthe issue--which might have helped that author's concept of everything being ex deo. And then there is the sexuality of Milton's angels, a somewhat similar issue. Angels have sex. They are all males; heaven is populated by actively gay angels. Again see VU. W. B. Hunter -------------------------------------------------------------- Greetings to all. There is a passage in PL (Book V) that has always troubled me, for the unnervingly dense and complex ontological conceptions implied. I'd be interested in knowing what the erudite fellow-members of the Milton-L think of it. What is Milton "doing" in having Raphael eat with Adam, during their long colloquium in the Garden of Eden? If we picture Milton "among the Philosophers," or, if one prefers, among the set of discourses spoken in his context, how is he responding to the metaphysical problematics? Of course, clear references can be made to Prof. Fallon's work. But I am still uneasy with the location of Milton's ontological conception in a historical context that will be informed by the powerful argumentations of Giant Hobbes and Giant Spinoza. Prof. E.W. Tayler once complained that the modern readers (alias critics) of Donne's Anniversaries are quite uncapable of understanding Donne's moves because they read the poems with their modern conceptions based on "matter and energy," while the Poet reasoned in term of "essence and being" (Donne's Idea of a Woman). Is it the same here, with Milton's Eating Angels? Heav'nly stranger, please to taste These bounties which our Nourisher, from whom All perfet good unmeasur'd out, descends, To us for food and for delight hath caus'd The Earth to yield; unsavourie food perhaps To spiritual Natures; only this I know, That one Celestial Father gives to all. Up to this point it seems as if Adam hold a traditional distinction between spirit and matter. To whom the Angel. Therefore what he gives (Whose praise be ever sung) to man part Spiritual, may of purest Spirits be found No ingrateful food: and food alike those pure Intelligential substances require As doth your Rational; and both contain Within them every lower facultie Of sense, whereby they hear, see, smell, touch, taste, Tasting concoct, digest, assimilate And corporeal to incorporeal turn. For know, whatever was created, needs To be sustained and fed; of Elements The grosser feeds the purer, Earth the Sea, Earth and the Sea the Air, the Air those Fires Ethereal, and as lowest first the Moon; .... yet G-d hath here Varied his bounty so with new delights, As may compare with Heaven; and to taste Think not I shall be nice. So down they sat, And to their viands fell, nor seemingly The Angel, nor in mist, the common gloss Of Theologians, but with keen dispatch Of real hunger, and concoctive heat To transubstantiate; what redounds, transpires Through Spirits with ease; nor wonder; if by fire Of sooty coal th'Empiric Alchemist Can turn, or holds it possible to turn Metals of drossiest Ore to perfet Gold As from the mine. Yaakov Mascetti Robert Appelbaum English Department University of San Diego San Diego, CA 92110-2492 Visit my home page: www.geocities.com/r_appel/Robert.html And please forgive the commercial intrusion below: --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Personal Address - Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. From: Eyeebgjr@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 11:34 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: miltons blindness derek, thank you for the information. erich From: Roy Flannagan [Roy@gwm.sc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 8:03 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Apropos Milton's blindness and angelic digestion--a new site on the history of medicine Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.1.20010403065641.00aa4100@jimandellen.org> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 06:58:17 -0400 Reply-To: 18th Century Interdisciplinary Discussion Sender: 18th Century Interdisciplinary Discussion From: Ellen Moody Subject: Goldsmith's Death To: C18-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU John Dussinger asked about the composition of St James's Powders and the relationship of the concoction to Goldsmith's death. The listowner of Victoria told the membership today about a new website which could be of help: "Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 09:56:32 -0500 From: Patrick Leary Subject: Medical Archives and Manuscripts Survey [From the Wellcome Library in London comes this good news about a splendid new resource for historians. Victorianists whose work touches on any aspects of medical history, broadly defined, will be very glad to have this painstaking survey so readily available.] A MAJOR NEW ON-LINE RESOURCE FOR THE HISTORY OF MEDICINE The Wellcome Library is pleased to announce that the Medical Archives and Manuscripts Survey (MAMS) is now on-line. MAMS provides a comprehensive and detailed guide to primary records for the history of medicine and health-care held in archives and libraries in greater London, for the period from 1600 to the mid-20th century. Survey reports can be browsed and searched at http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/mams . The material recorded is broad in its scope. It includes papers generated by doctors and hospitals, both state and private; local authorities; businesses, from pharmaceuticals to quackery; and individual patients. "Medical history" has been interpreted widely: as well as the records of treatment and research, the survey records material on health-related matters such as nutrition, water supply and sewage disposal, the disposal of the dead and the health implications of housing; on alternative and unorthodox medicine; on anthropology relating to medical issues; and a range of related topics. The survey of London represents stage one of the MAMS project. Coverage will be extended nationwide in stage two." Ellen Moody From: Dan Knauss [tiresias@juno.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 10:23 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: New Critical Mythologies On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 09:25:47 -0400 John Leonard writes: > Jim "Anti-Utopia" (quoting someone else, the words are not his) > writes: > > > Why do you think the meaning of a text can be discussed apart > from its > > > physical form? Take the early editions of paradise lost where > Satan is > > > pictured as James or Charles. > > I'm puzzled by this. What early editions are being referred to? > What > is meant by "pictured"? Are you referring to the 1688 > illustrations? > If so, where is the evidence for a clear reference to James or > Charles? > Just what "physical form" are you referring to? > > Intrigued, > > John Leonard Dr. Leonard, That was my remark. Yes, I was referring to the 1688 illustrations. They seemed a good example of what I was writing about to Jim Rovira when a review of John King's new book was sent to the list, remarking that "The publishers of the 1688 edition of _Paradise Lost_ apparently chose to concentrate on the later possibility when they included illustrations showing Satan with the face of James II in one instance and Charles II in another." I think Estella Schoenberg first pointed out the resemblance and possible satire, at least of James II. I'm not sure about Charles. The reference to "physical form" was part of a summary of Jerome McGann's notion of the "double-helix" of "linguistic" and "bibliographic codes"--i.e., the linguistic matter of a book is best interpreted as inextricably related to the physical design of the book itself. -Dan Knauss ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. From: whunter [whunter@mymailstation.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 2:24 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re:Eating Angels I suggest that you begin by reading the standard work, Bob West's book on Milton and angels. Then think further on how Milton applies it: To support the concept of the Great Chain of Being or the Scale of Nature. Check out too my analysis in Visitation Unimplor'd (and note CCD's ignorance of vthe issue--which might have helped that author's concept of everything being ex deo. And then there is the sexuality of Milton's angels, a somewhat similar issue. Angels have sex. They are all males; heaven is populated by actively gay angels. Again see VU. W. B. Hunter -------------------------------------------------------------- Greetings to all. There is a passage in PL (Book V) that has always troubled me, for the unnervingly dense and complex ontological conceptions implied. I'd be interested in knowing what the erudite fellow-members of the Milton-L think of it. What is Milton "doing" in having Raphael eat with Adam, during their long colloquium in the Garden of Eden? If we picture Milton "among the Philosophers," or, if one prefers, among the set of discourses spoken in his context, how is he responding to the metaphysical problematics? Of course, clear references can be made to Prof. Fallon's work. But I am still uneasy with the location of Milton's ontological conception in a historical context that will be informed by the powerful argumentations of Giant Hobbes and Giant Spinoza. Prof. E.W. Tayler once complained that the modern readers (alias critics) of Donne's Anniversaries are quite uncapable of understanding Donne's moves because they read the poems with their modern conceptions based on "matter and energy," while the Poet reasoned in term of "essence and being" (Donne's Idea of a Woman). Is it the same here, with Milton's Eating Angels? Heav'nly stranger, please to taste These bounties which our Nourisher, from whom All perfet good unmeasur'd out, descends, To us for food and for delight hath caus'd The Earth to yield; unsavourie food perhaps To spiritual Natures; only this I know, That one Celestial Father gives to all. Up to this point it seems as if Adam hold a traditional distinction between spirit and matter. To whom the Angel. Therefore what he gives (Whose praise be ever sung) to man part Spiritual, may of purest Spirits be found No ingrateful food: and food alike those pure Intelligential substances require As doth your Rational; and both contain Within them every lower facultie Of sense, whereby they hear, see, smell, touch, taste, Tasting concoct, digest, assimilate And corporeal to incorporeal turn. For know, whatever was created, needs To be sustained and fed; of Elements The grosser feeds the purer, Earth the Sea, Earth and the Sea the Air, the Air those Fires Ethereal, and as lowest first the Moon; .... yet G-d hath here Varied his bounty so with new delights, As may compare with Heaven; and to taste Think not I shall be nice. So down they sat, And to their viands fell, nor seemingly The Angel, nor in mist, the common gloss Of Theologians, but with keen dispatch Of real hunger, and concoctive heat To transubstantiate; what redounds, transpires Through Spirits with ease; nor wonder; if by fire Of sooty coal th'Empiric Alchemist Can turn, or holds it possible to turn Metals of drossiest Ore to perfet Gold As from the mine. Yaakov Mascetti From: Lynne1eric@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 11:04 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Milton's Lady Would anyone have a ready source for biographical information about Lady Alice Egerton? I am trying to piece together a more complete portrait of her life. Thank you! Lynne Greenberg From: Ingram, Randy [raingram@davidson.edu] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 1:51 PM To: 'milton-l@richmond.edu' Subject: testifying in NC On Saturday, a group of students and faculty at Davidson College participated in our first all-day reading of _Paradise Lost_. Attendance was sometimes sparse (oddly little interest in visiting Hell at 9:00 AM on a foggy Saturday morning), and performance was sometimes weak (but several students became noticeably better readers as the day progressed). It was, however, a very exciting event--and not just for the Milton professor. As one young scholar put it after hearing Book 1, "You can, like, totally see stuff." The Cuban-American playwright Irene Fornes, who is visiting Davidson this semester, wandered in during our reading of Book 2 and stayed for the rest of the epic, making grunts of pleasure and consternation. It was her first encounter with _Paradise Lost_, and she was rhapsodic. I used the expert advice of John Hale and his Milton at Otago site to plan the reading, and my students supplied voices and food (angel food, devils' food, lots of apples). But for the most part, we only needed many copies of _Paradise Lost_. Having read about such events on this list, I was curious and trepidatious. Now, though, I recommend marathon readings to all who might be interested. You can totally see (and hear and feel) stuff. Randy Ingram From: Duran, Angelica [ADuran@sla.purdue.edu] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 9:47 AM To: 'milton-l@richmond.edu' Subject: RE: Eating Angels Hello, I don't have any answers but the passage and your explication of your concern led me to recall the opening of Book XI of Paradise Lost in which the "Spirit of prayer" and other "new flesh / Regenerate" seem to be linked to matter: again there, Milton seems to call attention to his new metaphysics. It also reminds me that it is during this period that Newton's corpuscular theory of light was emerging so that light and other essences were beginning to be thought of in terms of matter. P.S. your subject heading scared me : I pictured you eating angels! Adios, Angelica Assistant Professor English Department Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47907 (765) 496-3957 > ---------- > From: Yaakov Akiva Mascetti > Reply To: milton-l@richmond.edu > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 2:08 AM > To: Milton List > Subject: Eating Angels > > > Greetings to all. > > There is a passage in PL (Book V) that has always troubled me, for the > unnervingly dense and complex ontological conceptions implied. I'd be > interested in knowing what the erudite fellow-members of the Milton-L > think > of it. What is Milton "doing" in having Raphael eat with Adam, during > their > long colloquium in the Garden of Eden? If we picture Milton "among the > Philosophers," or, if one prefers, among the set of discourses spoken in > his > context, how is he responding to the metaphysical problematics? Of course, > clear references can be made to Prof. Fallon's work. But I am still uneasy > with the location of Milton's ontological conception in a historical > context > that will be informed by the powerful argumentations of Giant Hobbes and > Giant Spinoza. Prof. E.W. Tayler once complained that the modern readers > (alias critics) of Donne's Anniversaries are quite uncapable of > understanding Donne's moves because they read the poems with their modern > conceptions based on "matter and energy," while the Poet reasoned in term > of > "essence and being" (Donne's Idea of a Woman). Is it the same here, with > Milton's Eating Angels? > > Heav'nly stranger, please to taste > These bounties which our Nourisher, from whom > All perfet good unmeasur'd out, descends, > To us for food and for delight hath caus'd > The Earth to yield; unsavourie food perhaps > To spiritual Natures; only this I know, > That one Celestial Father gives to all. > > Up to this point it seems as if Adam hold a traditional distinction > between > spirit and matter. > > To whom the Angel. Therefore what he gives > (Whose praise be ever sung) to man part > Spiritual, may of purest Spirits be found > No ingrateful food: and food alike those pure > Intelligential substances require > As doth your Rational; and both contain > Within them every lower facultie > Of sense, whereby they hear, see, smell, touch, taste, > Tasting concoct, digest, assimilate > And corporeal to incorporeal turn. > For know, whatever was created, needs > To be sustained and fed; of Elements > The grosser feeds the purer, Earth the Sea, > Earth and the Sea the Air, the Air those Fires > Ethereal, and as lowest first the Moon; > .... > yet G-d hath here > Varied his bounty so with new delights, > As may compare with Heaven; and to taste > Think not I shall be nice. So down they sat, > And to their viands fell, nor seemingly > The Angel, nor in mist, the common gloss > Of Theologians, but with keen dispatch > Of real hunger, and concoctive heat > To transubstantiate; what redounds, transpires > Through Spirits with ease; nor wonder; if by fire > Of sooty coal th'Empiric Alchemist > Can turn, or holds it possible to turn > Metals of drossiest Ore to perfet Gold > As from the mine. > > Yaakov Mascetti > > From: Jameela Lares [jlares@ocean.otr.usm.edu] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 10:02 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re:miltons blindness Could anyone speak to Eleanor Gertrude Brown's _Milton's Blindness_ (Columbia, 1930-something)? Is it still any help, or has it been replaced with newer scholarship? It was Brown's understanding then that no one could ever really diagnose the cause of Milton's blindness from the available data (and in the absence of the actual patient to examine with modern procedures), but that the blindness was most likely caused by either myopia with detached retina or glaucoma. Jameela Lares Associate Professor of English University of Southern Mississippi Hattiesburg, MS 39406-5037 +(601) 266-6214 ofc +(601) 266-5757 fax On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, whunter wrote: > You may find useful my "Some Speculations on the Nature of Mlton's > Blindness," 17 > (1962), 331-41; reprinted in (1988), 184-92. > > Then, using later medical information, George B. Bartley of Mayo's printed > an article on the subject sometime about the spring of 1993. I'm sorry not > to have the specific reference. There is earlier work on the subject too, > to which I refer. > > I'll be interested in what you may develop. > > W.B. Hunter > -------------------------------------------------------------- > i apologize in advance for asking such a mundane question in this forum, > but i was very frustrated by the ongoing discuassion on kera-net about the > cause of Milton's blindness. if anyone in this forum has information > regarding the underlying cause of his blindness i would greatly appreciate it. > > > Erich B. Groos, Jr., M.D. > Cornea Consultants of Nashville > 2011 Murphy Avenue, Suite 602B > Nashville, TN 37203 > 6153207200 voice > 6153207203 fax > From: John Leonard [jleonard@uwo.ca] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 9:26 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: New Critical Mythologies Jim "Anti-Utopia" (quoting someone else, the words are not his) writes: > > > > > Why do you think the meaning of a text can be discussed apart from its > > physical form? Take the early editions of paradise lost where Satan is > > pictured as James or Charles. I'm puzzled by this. What early editions are being referred to? What is meant by "pictured"? Are you referring to the 1688 illustrations? If so, where is the evidence for a clear reference to James or Charles? Just what "physical form" are you referring to? Intrigued, John Leonard From: wiznurar [wiznurar@ADMIN.GMCC.AB.CA] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 10:13 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Christopher Q. Drummond For those familiar with the man or his work, "Christopher Q. Drummond died suddenly at his home on March 26, 2001. Professor Drummond was born in Chicago, Illinois on January 31, 1932, the second child of Charles and Isabelle. He joined the English Department at the University of Alberta in 1969 as a specialist in English Renaissance Literature and later became a Canadian citizen. He supervised many graduate students who have gone on to distinguished careers at Universities across North America. During his tenure at the University he co-founded 'The Compass', a journal of Canadian literary criticism and delivered the inaugural Broadus Lecture Series. He was a remarkable teacher who was loved and respected by his students from high school to graduate study. He is survived by his sister, Mary Morris and his brother, Peter; his wife, Margaret; his seven children, Alison, Alexander, Benjamin, Ian, Andrew, Robert, and Anastasia; and his two grandchildren, Aurora Drummond and Lydia Batty. In lieu of flowers, donations may be made to the C.Q.Drummond Memorial Scholarship Fund." Obituary from Edmonton Journal, 29 Mar. 2001. From: Derek Wood [dwood@stfx.ca] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 12:32 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: miltons blindness Eyeebgjr@aol.com wrote: > i apologize in advance for asking such a mundane question in this forum, but > i was very frustrated by the ongoing discuassion on kera-net about the cause > of Milton's blindness. Not a mundane question at all. Shannon Murray read a paper on Milton's blindness at the Bangor conference. I think she mentioned that the co-author was Jock Murray, then head of Dalhousie Medical School. She's at the University of Prince Edward Island. If she is listening, or if some one knows her e-mail address, I can think of few people better able to speak to this question. Are you there, Shannon? Best wishes, Derek Wood. From: Hugh Wilson [hwilson@together.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 11:08 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: I still love Wordsworth A word to the wise. Cowley is now grossly under-rated; Milton admired him justly. Hugh Wilson hwilson@together.net (518) 563-1891 At 09:24 AM 3/23/2001 -0500, you wrote: >Jim writes: > >Do you know that even if you were standing next to W you wouldn't really > >exist for him? > > > >We're undoubtedly post Romantic and there's no going back to a pre-Romantic > >"Miltonic" outlook. And I won't argue that WW plays a big part in that. > > > >However, since Romanticism we've had modernism (a serious and deliberate > >critique of Romanticism), we've had a something like a Romantic revolution in > >the 60's (in America, at least), and now we've moved past that as well. I > >see Romanticism now as one of several aesthetic, cognitive, and emotional > >streams out of many. All are interdependent to a degree, yes, but it is > >certainly possible to be more in one than in the other. > > > >When I read Milton I feel a bit closer to home than I do reading WW -- quite > >a bit -- and I think I can do so with a significant, relative independence of > >Romantic sensibilities. Not an absolute independence, no, but significant. > > > > >On the first point, be on the lookout for new work by Paul Frye (who has a >wonderful chapter on the Nativity Ode in his book on the ode genre). He >challenges the familiar view of the egotistical WW. Jim's second point is >well-taken, and this post is not meant to answer that point, but to reflect >on the relation between intellectual and aesthetic history on the one hand >and aesthetic appreciation on the other. > > >From my perspective, in any event, the questions of egotism or solipsism >are, while interesting, irrelevant from a aesthetic perspective. If we are >to judge in this manner, Milton will be a casualty. The more I read Milton >the more I think that he is writing for and about Milton, and that the fit >audience dwindles to fewer than few (or perhaps it's better to cite the >second line of Shakespeare's 73). I'll admit that I give Milton a lot of >latitude here, as he is so preternaturally wonderful a writer. I'd rather >read him being egotistical than read Cowley avoiding that trap. One can >feel closer to, more approving of the perspective of, one poet rather than >another, without making that a criterion of quality. There are many >perspectives in Wallace Stevens that I don't share, but his poetry remains >a revelation, stunning in its precision, invention, beauty (of both image >and rhythm), philosophical reach, etc. > >I objected originally to the cartoon characterization (not the point of >Jim's post above), which I still don't see. It was good to be reminded >that we need a sense of humor (I think by Jeffrey Shoulson?, though I've >lost the post), and I didn't want to make a mountain out of a molehill. >And if the comic book line is a way of expressing a preference for Milton's >perspective over WW's, who can object? Still the identification of >literary excellence is an important part of our jobs as lit critics. > >Steve Fallon > From: Yaakov Akiva Mascetti [mascety@012.net.il] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 2:09 AM To: Milton List Subject: Eating Angels Greetings to all. There is a passage in PL (Book V) that has always troubled me, for the unnervingly dense and complex ontological conceptions implied. I'd be interested in knowing what the erudite fellow-members of the Milton-L think of it. What is Milton "doing" in having Raphael eat with Adam, during their long colloquium in the Garden of Eden? If we picture Milton "among the Philosophers," or, if one prefers, among the set of discourses spoken in his context, how is he responding to the metaphysical problematics? Of course, clear references can be made to Prof. Fallon's work. But I am still uneasy with the location of Milton's ontological conception in a historical context that will be informed by the powerful argumentations of Giant Hobbes and Giant Spinoza. Prof. E.W. Tayler once complained that the modern readers (alias critics) of Donne's Anniversaries are quite uncapable of understanding Donne's moves because they read the poems with their modern conceptions based on "matter and energy," while the Poet reasoned in term of "essence and being" (Donne's Idea of a Woman). Is it the same here, with Milton's Eating Angels? Heav'nly stranger, please to taste These bounties which our Nourisher, from whom All perfet good unmeasur'd out, descends, To us for food and for delight hath caus'd The Earth to yield; unsavourie food perhaps To spiritual Natures; only this I know, That one Celestial Father gives to all. Up to this point it seems as if Adam hold a traditional distinction between spirit and matter. To whom the Angel. Therefore what he gives (Whose praise be ever sung) to man part Spiritual, may of purest Spirits be found No ingrateful food: and food alike those pure Intelligential substances require As doth your Rational; and both contain Within them every lower facultie Of sense, whereby they hear, see, smell, touch, taste, Tasting concoct, digest, assimilate And corporeal to incorporeal turn. For know, whatever was created, needs To be sustained and fed; of Elements The grosser feeds the purer, Earth the Sea, Earth and the Sea the Air, the Air those Fires Ethereal, and as lowest first the Moon; .... yet G-d hath here Varied his bounty so with new delights, As may compare with Heaven; and to taste Think not I shall be nice. So down they sat, And to their viands fell, nor seemingly The Angel, nor in mist, the common gloss Of Theologians, but with keen dispatch Of real hunger, and concoctive heat To transubstantiate; what redounds, transpires Through Spirits with ease; nor wonder; if by fire Of sooty coal th'Empiric Alchemist Can turn, or holds it possible to turn Metals of drossiest Ore to perfet Gold As from the mine. Yaakov Mascetti From: whunter [whunter@mymailstation.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 11:34 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re:miltons blindness You may find useful my "Some Speculations on the Nature of Mlton's Blindness," 17 (1962), 331-41; reprinted in (1988), 184-92. Then, using later medical information, George B. Bartley of Mayo's printed an article on the subject sometime about the spring of 1993. I'm sorry not to have the specific reference. There is earlier work on the subject too, to which I refer. I'll be interested in what you may develop. W.B. Hunter -------------------------------------------------------------- i apologize in advance for asking such a mundane question in this forum, but i was very frustrated by the ongoing discuassion on kera-net about the cause of Milton's blindness. if anyone in this forum has information regarding the underlying cause of his blindness i would greatly appreciate it. Erich B. Groos, Jr., M.D. Cornea Consultants of Nashville 2011 Murphy Avenue, Suite 602B Nashville, TN 37203 6153207200 voice 6153207203 fax From: john rumrich [rumrich@mail.utexas.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 10:05 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Cc: Eyeebgjr@aol.com Subject: Re: miltons blindness Dear Dr. Groos, My recollection is that the best guess has Milton suffering from an endocrinological disorder of the pituitary that when left untreated ultimately results in blindness. I used to have the name of it in my head but, well, the years pass. Anyway, if I remember right, this disorder would account for Milton's symptoms in the years before he went blind: headaches, intestinal discomfort, rainbow vision, muted secondary sexual traits (the lady of Christ's). It would also account for the clear appearance of his eyes. If this account doesn't ring a bell with you, let me know. And if it does, let me know, too, so I can put the name back in my head. If need be, I can probably dig up the article where the diagnosis is proposed, though it may take some time. Best wishes, John Rumrich >i apologize in advance for asking such a mundane question in this forum, but >i was very frustrated by the ongoing discuassion on kera-net about the cause >of Milton's blindness. if anyone in this forum has information regarding the >underlying cause of his blindness i would greatly appreciate it. > > >Erich B. Groos, Jr., M.D. >Cornea Consultants of Nashville >2011 Murphy Avenue, Suite 602B >Nashville, TN 37203 >6153207200 voice >6153207203 fax From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 8:28 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: New Critical Mythologies This is a pretty interesting discussion, but it seems applicable to some texts more than others. Say, for example, if I'm studying Pynchon's _Mason and Dixon_, I can safely assume the final printed product is the product of the author's final intention. It may get complicated with less known authors publishing first works, because we don't know how much the publishing house interfered with the author's vision, or how much the author allowed that to happen in order to get published. I would still say the issues surrounding the production of a physical text and our interpretations of it are two separate issues. Overlapping, of course, but separate. It seems more intelligent to say that this issue varies on a case by case basis and should be dealt with on a case by case basis. I'm not saying that the "meaning" of a text can be discussed apart from its physical form, but that those issues are separate and prior to an exegesis. Ideally, anyways :) We tend to do both at the same time if we worry about both at all. What I think you've identified is a set of circumstances in which we have somewhat different rules to deal with, but these circumstances are more appropriate to some texts than to others. And, at any rate, a New Critic can say he's doing his work on the text before him or her, regardless of its relationship to any text the author may have prepared -- people who are concerned about the relationship between the text being studied and text as the author may have known it will have to go elsewhere. In that case the New Critic is very much disregarding the text as a product of authorial intention and is working safely within his paradigm (the NC critical paradigm I described, I mean). Jim > Why do you think the meaning of a text can be discussed apart from its > physical form? Take the early editions of paradise lost where Satan is > pictured as James or Charles. Can we strip that away as not part of the > author's intentions, or are Milton's intentions in the poem mixed with > the intentions and interpretations of others? A more extreme example > might be The Canterbury Tales or Piers Plowman. Modern critical editions > of these texts tell us very little about what they might have meant in > the 15th, 16th, or 17th centuries because they are totally different in > bibliographicy and linguistic terms. > > > I think in terms of the physical production of texts, we do need to > > assume > > authorial intent in the sense that we use textual analysis to > > reconstruct > > the final version of the text as the author probably intended it to > > be. > > Authorship and intention are not historically static or culturally > universal concepts. On those grounds McGann argues that what you sare > saying is to impose an idealized Romantic conception of the author on > historical texts. Sometimes there isn't a single author, or as in the > case of Piers, we aren't sure who the author was, if he was working on > his own, and what the "final version" might be, if there is such a thing. > Similar situations exist for most dramatic works in the Renaissance. > Also, if we try to determine what the scribal and editorial interventions > are and remove them, we end up producing a "critical" text that never had > any historical existence. > > > But this is a separate issue from what that text "means" after being > > subject to an exegesis or other kind of analysis. We may use the > > author as > > an anchor for the probably arrangement of the words on the page, but > > what > > those words "mean" after they've been arranged is a separate issue. > > Not at all--what those words might mean is already being determined or > proscribed to a considerable extent by the textual critic who hand the > exgete a critical edition that speculates about the probably arrangement > of letters and words on a page. (McGann refers to this information as > part of the "linguistic codes" of a text.) Traditionally textual critics > ignore and excise the "bibliographic codes" (glosses, woodcuts, > typography, etc) which are properly an inextricable part of the > linguistic codes. When you attempt to extract the linguistic from the > bibliographic and produce an edition accordingly, you produce a text that > has no prior historical existence. If you are interested in performing > historicized exegesis of a text, don't you want to work from critical > editions that more fully represent the actual documents that historical > From: Jameela Lares [jlares@ocean.otr.usm.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 8:29 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: RE: Richards and Lewis Both Lewis and Richards are both discussed, along with many other critics, in George Watson's recent study of 20th century British literary theory. _Never Ones for Theory? England and the War of Ideas_ (Lutterworth Press, 2001), possibly available from amazon.co.uk, but certainly from the publisher for $30. I haven't gotten a copy yet, but the publisher provides a PDF version of both preface and first chapter at + What's New. Jameela Lares Associate Professor of English University of Southern Mississippi Hattiesburg, MS 39406-5037 +(601) 266-6214 ofc +(601) 266-5757 fax On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, huttar wrote: > There was an article in Modern Philology about 2 years ago entitled "Lewis and > Cambridge," by Brian Barbour, which contains some fascinating information > about C. S. Lewis's relation to Cambridge University and "the Cambridge > school" of literary study, and I. A. Richards is mentioned several times. He > was an important part of the story. > > Chuck Huttar > Hope College