From: Marc Ricciardi [marccr@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 9:31 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: St. Michael JBMorgaine@aol.com wrote: > > Greetings, > > I am a graduate student at the University of Colorado at Denver. I've been > looking into Milton's uses of the four archangels-- four beings I had always > thought more commonly associated with an esoteric/hermetic tradition than > with Protestant Christianity. Michael, because he appears elsewhere in > Milton's works, interests me particularly, and is the provocateur of my > question. > > In a footnote regarding "the guarded Mount" in Lycidas (in The Riverside > Milton), St. Michael is identified as the patron saint of England. While I > know of both Saint Michael's Mounts, am aware of traditions that invoke > Michael as a warrior, leader of the heav'nly hosts and even sometimes of the > soldiers of Britain, and can see certain parallels between Saints George and > Michael (e.g., both are warriors who kill a serpent/dragon/Satan), I cannot > find more information linking Michael to England as a patron saint, or much > literature exploring Michael's symbolic significance to Milton. Is there a > pun here? A reference to a particular church of St. Michael's, perhaps? Or > is it only that Michael is a hero of sorts, wielding the sword Milton refers > to in the Second Defense? Would anyone else agree that he seems to be the > most important angel of heaven's quartet in Paradise Lost? > > If anyone knows of Early Modern sources or critical articles connecting > Milton and Michael, I would be most grateful to hear of them. > > Thank you, > J. Bruneau J, Take a look at Stella Revard's The War in Heaven: Paradise Lost and the Tradition of Satan's Rebellion as well as her essay, "The Renaissance Michael and the Son of God" in Milton and the Art of Sacred Song. Marc From: Carrol Cox [cbcox@ilstu.edu] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2000 3:10 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Request <004b01bf9076$eb889240$7602ffd1@compaq> Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu Chris Hair wrote: > > < only when its ideas or vision are *really* dead, as unfortunately > they are not yet. >> > > I am interested in this idea and very unsure why it is unfortunate that the > "ideas and vision" of PL are not dead. Can you explain further? You are asking for several thousand pages of exposition, but I'll see if it can be hinted at in a few screens. And note that there are three separable propositions involved: 1. That literary/philosophical greatness is better perceived by those not enmeshed in the worldview of the work in question. 2. That Milton's vision/worldview/whatever is still very much alive. 3. That that worldview (or, rather, the practices that continually regenerate that world view) is an ongoing disaster for humanity. You can get a glimpse of the complex if you re-read last December's thread on the *Iliad*. All (both sides) were more or less agreed (though no one put it this way if I recall) that the core of the poem was Achilles' honoring of glory, and that someone with that way of acting in the world would be a very undesirable neighbor today. Some seemed to think the poem's "ideas" were still alive and dangerous. Others of us (doubless varied in our reasons for so finding) found Achilles unthreatening -- i.e. treated the Homeric visions of glory and moira (share, portion) as dead ideas. We were consequently able to focus on the towering dignity and pathos of Achilles' acceptance of his moira -- an acceptance culminating in his treating an enemy as a friend, even as (with his strong intellectual perception) he recognized the possibility of his rage breaking forth during the meeting with Priam and took precautions against it. Having gotten this far with the poem, each of its admirers could (I presume this is the case with others) find in the poem elements of interest that would not, in fact, have been visible to the or original audience or the poet himself. What I see, for example, is something the poet could not have perceived any more than a fish can know that it is wet -- the large echoes in the poem of a unity of thought and action, of production and consumption, of present and future, of being and doing, of appearance and reality -- even though what one might call the Great Divorce had, with the rise of class society and the separation of mental and manual labor, already occurred. Echoes only. One may compare the*Odyssey* and the *Republic*. The poem is among other things a poem about kingship, but it staggers the imagination to think of Helen or Menelaus, in the banquet scene at Sparta, suddenly asking, "What does it mean to be a king?" The poem is also a poem about the separation of thought and action -- but it is equally staggering to the imagination to think of Athena saying to Odysseus, "How do we know that our thought corresponds to the world?" That is, sometime between Homer and Plato it became possible not only to think, as both Achilles and Odysseus do, but to think about thinking. Kingship became not a "mere" (!) expression of ordinary experience but an abstraction which could be separated from its practice and examined. To summarize to this point: Much of the richness that we can see in both the *Iliad* and the *Odyssey* is visible to us simply because their core ideas are dead, though part of our delight in the poems certainly lies in recapturing those ideas so that they live in our thought. And note, nothing in contemporary practice generates and regenerates a common sense which takes moira and glory for granted, without examination. On the other hand, the IMF, which slaughters millions annually and condemns tens of millions more to lifelong misery, does generate and in turn is legitimized by a rhetoric of choice, freedom, individual initiative, abstract reason, marginal utility (itself grounded in an ideology emphasizing the imporance of choice). Perhaps you begin to see (without, probably, agreeing) why one might see the ideas of Milton's epic very much alive and very destructive indeed. Take for example one of the tempests in the teapot of Milton criticism in the 1940s and 1950s, that raised by Malcolm Ross's complaint that there was an incoherence of image and idea in PL, and that Milton bridged this gap with "signpost sentences" telling the reader what to think. Such sentences are, of course, at the very heart of the great bourgeois art form, the novel. One can hardly read a page of any novel (whether it be by Austen or Tolstoi or Stendahl, or grabbed at random off a drug store shelf") without having to pause to decide if one agrees or disagrees with such an instruction. That's what the novel, one might say, is all about: a continual forced free choice as to one's agreement or disagreement with the novelist's judgment. And that seems to be at the core of what PL is all about -- the reduction of history to the choices made by isolated individuals. [This is a reduction of course of the poem -- but I believe a fair reduction as a point of departure.] I'm not attending, incidentally, to the theology of the poem. Religion still remains a curse on humanity, but on the whole sophisticated theological conceptions have lost their ability to harm. The Pat Robinsons and Bill Clintons and George Bushes do rather more than St. Thomas or Reinhold Niebuhr to pollute the public mind. And being myself one of those fortunate ones who enjoy atheism by birthright rather than merit I have always responded to the religous dimensions of the poem with detachment. I cannot manage equal detachment from its focus on choice (forced free choice) as defining what it means to be human. That is vicious. And great human misery lies between us and the day when "reason is but choosing" can be as distanced as is Achilles' pursuit of glory. Carrol P.S. On what it means to be human and the isolated (choosing) individual: VI. Feuerbach resolves the religious essence into the *human* essence. But the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations. Feuerbach, who does not enter upon a criticism of this real essence, is consequently compelled: 1. To abstract from the historical process and to fix the religious sentiment [*Gemut*] as something by itself and to presuppose an abstract -- *isolated* -- human individual. 2. The human essence, therefore, can with him be comprehended only as a "genus," as an internal, dumb generality which merely *naturally* unites the many individuals. VII. Feurebach, consequently, does not see that the "religious sentiment" is itself a *social product*, and that the abstract individual whom he analyses belongs in reality to a particular form of society. [E.g., the newly created Adam, possessed of language in abstraction from any ensemble of social relations (cbc)] (Karl Marx, *Theses on Feuerbach*) The relation to the earth as property is always mediated through the occupation of the land and soil, peacefully or violently, by the tribe, the commune, in some more or less naturally arisen or already historically developed form. The individual can never appear here in the dot-like isolation [*Punktualitat*] in which he appears as mere free worker. [E.g., the meeting of Uriel and the Cherub--cbc] (Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, Penguin ed. p. 485) From: Roy Flannagan [flannaga@oak.cats.ohiou.edu] Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 1:07 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: St. Michael At 02:50 PM 3/20/00 -0500, you wrote: >In a footnote regarding "the guarded Mount" in Lycidas (in The Riverside >Milton), St. Michael is identified as the patron saint of England. The connection is indeed through St. George and the dragon, as you have worked it out. Michael is described as "depicted most often as winged, with unsheathed sword, the warrior of God and slayer of the Dragon (a role later apportioned to St. George)" (Gustav Davidson, A Dictionary of Angels [New York: The Free Press, 1971]: "Michael"). >While I >know of both Saint Michael's Mounts, am aware of traditions that invoke >Michael as a warrior, leader of the heav'nly hosts and even sometimes of the >soldiers of Britain, and can see certain parallels between Saints George and >Michael (e.g., both are warriors who kill a serpent/dragon/Satan), I cannot >find more information linking Michael to England as a patron saint, or much >literature exploring Michael's symbolic significance to Milton. I cannot prove the connection. Milton talks about "our old patron Saint George [who] by his matchlesse valour slew" "that huge dragon of Egypt" (Reason of Church Government, Yale 1: 857). Saint George was of course the patron saint of England, always present in images related to the Order of the Garter. If you read the several pages of the Reason of Church Government in which Milton is discussing George and the Dragon, it seems close to certain that Milton connected St. George's war against evil and dragons with England's Protestant fight against seven-headed serpents in Rome or his own war against the prelates. The prelates collectively are "like a great Python" (858), which is in turn like Satan in PL 10.530-31 (I am borrowing from the Yale editors' notes). What I wrote into the note to Lycidas was my own connection between the St. Michael of St. Michael's Mount, who seems to be protecting England against Spanish invasion (this IS getting loopy), and St. George and other dragon slayers pictured by the younger Milton in the context of Spenser and Ariosto. > Is there a >pun here? A reference to a particular church of St. Michael's, perhaps? Probably not, on either count. >Or >is it only that Michael is a hero of sorts, wielding the sword Milton refers >to in the Second Defense? Would anyone else agree that he seems to be the >most important angel of heaven's quartet in Paradise Lost? That's an interesting question, if impossible to answer. Raphael would seem to be more important to Adam and Eve before the Fall and Michael after. >If anyone knows of Early Modern sources or critical articles connecting >Milton and Michael, I would be most grateful to hear of them. Me too. Roy Flannagan From: rwill627 [rwill627@camalott.com] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2000 10:18 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: TENURE OF KINGS AND MAGISTRATES >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? There are various implications and references--perhaps someone knows of a whole book dedicated to this question. There certainly needs to be one. I suggest you take a good look at Quakerism and Deism, both of which flourished in early America, and well as the obvious Puritanism. Then read Wigglesworth's DAY OF DOOM.(It won't take long--it's no PARADISE LOST, but it was the most widely-read book in colonial America after the Bible and THE NEW ENGLAND PRIMER.) All of the above had a heavy influence on political thought and blended with Milton's ideas. Many of the settlers of the New World came here to establish the "New Jerusalem", and religious and political thought were often one(Consider the third stanza of "America the Beautiful"--O beautiful for patriot's dream which sees beyond the years thine alabaster cities gleam UNDIMMED BY HUMAN TEARS). Milton's influence was great because he wrote widely and well in both fields. As to my ancestor Roger Williams, his works most appropriate to this discussion are THE BLOODY TENET OF PERSECUTION FOR CAUSE OF CONSCIENCE and QUERIES OF HIGHEST CONSIDERATION. Rose Williams (." From: Tmsandefur@aol.com Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 5:52 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton's politics Well, and on a similar point, in the SECOND DEFENCE he seems to chide the Cromwellians on domestic politics. He says--I don't have the text before me--that Cromwell has done this and that and the other thing, proving that he's a great leader, and now, if only he won't do X and Y and Z, then he'll prove himself the greatest leader in history--and of course WHILE he's writing it, Cromwell and his suporters are doing precisely X and Y and Z. $ <> From: Lew Kaye-Skinner [L.Kaye-Skinner@navix.net] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2000 12:10 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: "Learned Fool" The DNB entry for Sir William Alexander, Earl of Stirling, (DNB 1:276) refers to "the most learned fool in Europe" in quotes. Can anyone help me with the antecedent of the reference? Thanks. Lew Kaye-Skinner From: Jameela Lares [jlares@ocean.otr.usm.edu] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 9:28 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: St. Michael I will probably be one of a number of listmembers who mentions that St. Michael is also connected to _A Masque_ (the so-called _Comus_), because it was performed on the feast day of St. Michael, 29 September. Jameela Lares Associate Professor Department of English University of Southern Mississippi Hattiesburg, MS 39406-5037 +(601) 266-6214 ofc +(601) 266-5757 fax From: Cobelli@aol.com Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 9:46 AM To: Milton-l@richmond.edu Cc: JBMorgaine@aol.com Subject: Re: St. Michael Regarding the possible influence of the Christian Kabbalah on Milton, and specifically his angelology, I just came across this cite in Gershom Scholem's book Kabbalah: R.J.Z. Werblowsky, Milton and the Conjectura Cabbalistica, in: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 18 (1955), 90-113. Scott Grunow From: Gregory Machacek [Gregory.Machacek@marist.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 9:43 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Request Why would looking at Milton's masterful use of language in Paradise Lost be looking at the poem in "museum terms"? I'm thinking more of thematic stuff rather than looking at it in museum terms for the wonderful use of language or its extraordinary structure... Greg Machacek Marist College From: JBMorgaine@aol.com Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 2:50 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: St. Michael Greetings, I am a graduate student at the University of Colorado at Denver. I've been looking into Milton's uses of the four archangels-- four beings I had always thought more commonly associated with an esoteric/hermetic tradition than with Protestant Christianity. Michael, because he appears elsewhere in Milton's works, interests me particularly, and is the provocateur of my question. In a footnote regarding "the guarded Mount" in Lycidas (in The Riverside Milton), St. Michael is identified as the patron saint of England. While I know of both Saint Michael's Mounts, am aware of traditions that invoke Michael as a warrior, leader of the heav'nly hosts and even sometimes of the soldiers of Britain, and can see certain parallels between Saints George and Michael (e.g., both are warriors who kill a serpent/dragon/Satan), I cannot find more information linking Michael to England as a patron saint, or much literature exploring Michael's symbolic significance to Milton. Is there a pun here? A reference to a particular church of St. Michael's, perhaps? Or is it only that Michael is a hero of sorts, wielding the sword Milton refers to in the Second Defense? Would anyone else agree that he seems to be the most important angel of heaven's quartet in Paradise Lost? If anyone knows of Early Modern sources or critical articles connecting Milton and Michael, I would be most grateful to hear of them. Thank you, J. Bruneau From: Hugh Wilson [dithw@ttacs.ttu.edu] Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2000 9:03 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton's politics I meant a categorical denial. . . Sorry for the lapse. At 05:44 PM 3/16/2000 -0600, you wrote: >Dear Friends, > >On one hand, anyone who said, definitively, that Milton _was_ a "Leveller" >would be reaching, but on the other hand, a categorical of Leveller >sympathies seems highly questionable. Even in his public persona, Milton >was closer to Lilburne, Overton, Walwyn or Roger Williams than he was to >Hobbes or Filmer. Accordingly, was wondering what evidence anyone might >have in mind as proof of Milton's sympathies or antipathies. For instance, >it is not entirely clear how being a republican, especially a small "r" >republican, precludes Leveller sympathies. The "ancient consitution" was a >fairly elastic notion, and as far as I know, Milton made no protest when >the monarchy was abolished. (In the _First Defense_ he hedged to allow the >abstract possibility of a good earthly monarchy, but in his situation, >that was only hedging.) Within the spectrum of the Parliamentary movement, >Ireton was a conservative pragmatist, and I can't imagine him writing _The >Tenure_ or endorsing the ideals of _Areopagitica_. As I remember it, >Christopher Hill sees Milton engaged in a "dialogue" with the sects on his >left. > >Part of this discussion may involve the operative definition of levelling >and Levellers. John Milton obviously supported levelling the monarchy and >abolishing the House of Lords. Although, as far as I know, Milton never >endorsed leveller petitions or platforms, he never explicitly criticized >them either. In all the _Concordance to the English Prose_, the cognates >of the verb or noun "level" only occur about five times. As an official in >the government who might exert influence from within, he might hesitate to >encourage their movement publicly. In fact, Milton might have had to >resist pressure to denounce the Levellers. I've misplaced my index to >Masson, but wasn't Milton asked to attack them, and didn't he decline the >opportunity? > >_Areopagitica_ shows that Milton sympathized with the sects, and the >_Tenure_ shows he supported popular soveraignty. As I understand them, the >restrictive schemes of _The Ready and Easy Way_ were tactical make-shifts >to avoid a Restoration as part of the public was opting for a captain to >lead them back to Egypt. > >Cheers, > >Hugh Wilson >dithw@ttacs.ttu.edu > > > >At 01:58 PM 3/6/2000 -0500, you wrote: > >NO, he was not a Leveller and for an interesting textual take on > >anti-levelling > >rhetoric, check out Samuel Sheppard's 1650 levelling poem that re-casts > >Spenser's giant in book 5 of FQ. > > > >Chris Orchard > > > > > > From: Peter C. Herman [herman2@mail.sdsu.edu] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 1:20 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton's politics See the fine essay by Hugh Jenkins in a recent issue of English Literary Renaissance on precisely the issues Prof. Wilson raises. Apparently, Milton was asked to refute the Levellers, but never did so. Peter C. Herman At 05:44 PM 3/16/00 -0600, you wrote: >Dear Friends, > >On one hand, anyone who said, definitively, that Milton _was_ a "Leveller" >would be reaching, but on the other hand, a categorical of Leveller >sympathies seems highly questionable. Even in his public persona, Milton >was closer to Lilburne, Overton, Walwyn or Roger Williams than he was to >Hobbes or Filmer. Accordingly, was wondering what evidence anyone might >have in mind as proof of Milton's sympathies or antipathies. For instance, >it is not entirely clear how being a republican, especially a small "r" >republican, precludes Leveller sympathies. The "ancient consitution" was a >fairly elastic notion, and as far as I know, Milton made no protest when >the monarchy was abolished. (In the _First Defense_ he hedged to allow the >abstract possibility of a good earthly monarchy, but in his situation, >that was only hedging.) Within the spectrum of the Parliamentary movement, >Ireton was a conservative pragmatist, and I can't imagine him writing _The >Tenure_ or endorsing the ideals of _Areopagitica_. As I remember it, >Christopher Hill sees Milton engaged in a "dialogue" with the sects on his >left. > >Part of this discussion may involve the operative definition of levelling >and Levellers. John Milton obviously supported levelling the monarchy and >abolishing the House of Lords. Although, as far as I know, Milton never >endorsed leveller petitions or platforms, he never explicitly criticized >them either. In all the _Concordance to the English Prose_, the cognates >of the verb or noun "level" only occur about five times. As an official in >the government who might exert influence from within, he might hesitate to >encourage their movement publicly. In fact, Milton might have had to >resist pressure to denounce the Levellers. I've misplaced my index to >Masson, but wasn't Milton asked to attack them, and didn't he decline the >opportunity? > >_Areopagitica_ shows that Milton sympathized with the sects, and the >_Tenure_ shows he supported popular soveraignty. As I understand them, the >restrictive schemes of _The Ready and Easy Way_ were tactical make-shifts >to avoid a Restoration as part of the public was opting for a captain to >lead them back to Egypt. > >Cheers, > >Hugh Wilson >dithw@ttacs.ttu.edu > > > >At 01:58 PM 3/6/2000 -0500, you wrote: > >NO, he was not a Leveller and for an interesting textual take on > >anti-levelling > >rhetoric, check out Samuel Sheppard's 1650 levelling poem that re-casts > >Spenser's giant in book 5 of FQ. > > > >Chris Orchard > > > > > > From: christopher scheib [poleece@freewwweb.com] Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 10:47 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: TENURE OF KINGS AND MAGISTRATES 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: j.raymond [enl096@abdn.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 6:38 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton's politics On 26 March Milton was asked by the Council of State to pen an answer to John Lilburne's Englands New-Chaines Discovered. He didn't of course; not as far as we know anyway. Masson suggests (Life, 4:97) that Milton deferred responding to Lilburne until a response was no longer necessary; Gardiner (History, 1:36-7) that he declined because he liked to choose his own subjects. On 14 May the council hired another propagandist, a young journalist named John Hall, to answer anti-Commonwealth pamphlets. I think Hall was lessy picky about his commissions than JM (AND marchamont Nedham). Milton's silence regarding the Levellers might suggest his reticence on that subject. As I've argued, the silence of *Observations* on the Leveller campaign against the cromwellian re-conquest, and its failure to respond to the only real arguments being mounted in Britain against the re-conquest, is probably significant. On the other hand he may have been overworked. He'd also just moved house. Joad Raymond From: Chris Hair [crhair0@pop.uky.edu] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 8:11 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Request > I am interested in this idea and very unsure why it is unfortunate that the "ideas and vision" of PL are not dead. Can you explain further? Chris Hair ----- Original Message ----- From: Carrol Cox To: Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 2:17 PM Subject: Re: Request > rwill627 wrote: > > > (and according to > > the philosopher, if they do not understand it, they are doomed to repeat > > it--a daunting concept) > > Two falsities: the source of the assertion and the assertion itself. It was > not "the philosopher" (or any philosopher) but a politician who made > this absurd claim. And the claim itself is false because it ignores both > the enormous contingency of history *and* the historicity of history -- > i.e., it is itself non-historical. > > It is non-historical, in fact aggressively anti-historical, because it > assumes that the same context endlessly repeats itself. Granted -- > this premise is Milton's own premise, but as I have argued elsewhere, > the greatness of Paradise Lost will become really recognizable > only when its ideas or vision are *really* dead, as unfortunately > they are not yet. (Probably the prejudice against dead ideas was > one basis for the unseemly grouching about Achilles on this > list a couple months ago.) A classical example of history *not* > repeating itself (when those in charge expected it to) was French > military strategy in World War 2. They had learned the lessons > of WW 1, believed this slogan, and therefore committed a > one new mistake after another. This is the usual case. That is, > usually we are unable to commit the mistakes of the past even > if we want to -- history moves on and doesn't give us that > chance. > > Carrol > > From: rwill627 [rwill627@camalott.com] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 6:07 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Request OK, if poor old Santayana is to be thrown out of the running, how about Hegel, who like so many philosophers was a bit of a grouch: "What experience and history teach us is this--that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it." Introduction to PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. Rose Williams From: Tmsandefur@aol.com Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 6:55 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Request Are you suggesting that people always learn from their mistakes? $ In a message dated 3/17/00 1:03:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, cbcox@ilstu.edu writes: << Two falsities: the source of the assertion and the assertion itself. It was not "the philosopher" (or any philosopher) but a politician who made this absurd claim. And the claim itself is false because it ignores both the enormous contingency of history *and* the historicity of history -- i.e., it is itself non-historical. It is non-historical, in fact aggressively anti-historical, because it assumes that the same context endlessly repeats itself. Granted -- this premise is Milton's own premise, but as I have argued elsewhere, the greatness of Paradise Lost will become really recognizable only when its ideas or vision are *really* dead, as unfortunately they are not yet. (Probably the prejudice against dead ideas was one basis for the unseemly grouching about Achilles on this list a couple months ago.) A classical example of history *not* repeating itself (when those in charge expected it to) was French military strategy in World War 2. They had learned the lessons of WW 1, believed this slogan, and therefore committed a one new mistake after another. This is the usual case. That is, usually we are unable to commit the mistakes of the past even if we want to -- history moves on and doesn't give us that chance. Carrol >> From: gary patrick norris [stroszek@earthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 12:45 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Request JLE (???) wrote: > > It seems to me that in this way, it might be possible > to relate Satan to modern conceptions of the cowboy - anit-order, > anti-social, anti-religious - and how those conceptions can fail when they > are placed under direct scrutiny. I am not suggesting a one-to-one > correlation, but it could prove an interesting line of questioning. Well, I think it is important to recognize that the cowboy can act *in-the-world* according to his desires. Satan must have an agent. Cowboys *really* aren't anti-order at all are they? They are wrapped up in order to the extreme Also, cowboys participate in a very rigid form of social conduct. There may be parallels along the line of cowboy and Satan as loner. But, once again, the cowboy's desire is actualized and visceral while Satan's desire is vacant and lacking. However, on some level all desire is a lack. Satan could never scalp the indian at the end of The Searchers...of course, John Wayne and Satan...now we may have some parallels! Gary Norris From: gary patrick norris [stroszek@earthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 12:53 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton's politics Hugh Wilson wrote: > Even in his public persona, Milton > was closer to Lilburne, Overton, Walwyn or Roger Williams than he was to > Hobbes or Filmer. I would be open to hearing more about how MIlton was like Roger Williams. At moment, I don't see it. I reread "A Key into the Language of America." But I may be overlooking your point? Gary Norris