My first post on this blog tied the book we were reading (Paradise Lost, by John Milton) to The Lord of the Rings. For my last post on this blog, I will again be tying the current text (this time Good Omens, by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett) to The Lord of the Rings, but in a different way. The first time, I pondered whether scenes in the films by Peter Jackson could possibly have been directly influenced by Milton. Tonight, I will talk about how a specific group of characters in Good Omens is not like a group found in The Lord of the Rings.
What am I talking about? For as long as I can remember, I always visualized the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse as appearing very much like the Nine Ringwraiths in The Lord of the Rings: armored riders cloaked all in black on black steeds with fiery red eyes. I'm not exactly sure why I imagined them this way, but that was my image and I was sticking to it. However, while reading Good Omens and encountering the Four Horsemen (riding motorcycles!), I did a bit of exploring. Apparently, Gaiman and Pratchett were closer to the correct image than I was.
In Good Omens, the Four Horsemen appear all decked out in different colors, with motorcycles to match. In looking at The Bible, both Zechariah and Revelations make reference to the Four Horsemen, and it turns out that the colors end up corresponding: War is red, Pestilence (Pollution) is white, Famine is black, and Death is pale green. Indeed, even their names match (Famine's chosen first and last names, Raven Sable, are both shades of black), and the parcels they recieve correspond to things they are reputed to carry in Revelations: War the sword, Pestilence (Pollution) the crown, Famine the scales, and Death just himself.
I think it's very interesting how, in addition to not actually looking like I imagine, The Horsemen in Good Omens have evolved to come almost unnoticed into the present day. War takes the form of an arms dealer, spreading and perpetuating armed conflict throughout the Third World; Pollution has replaced Pestilence since the invention of penicillen and through industrial waste is choking the environment; Famine is creating a worldwide sensation by making people think they're actually eating healthy when in reality they are inducing death by starvation; Death blends in amongst the crowds and is everywhere at all times. This was a really clever way of re-casting and depicting these ancient harbingers of the Apocalypse, and it makes you wonder if perhaps they're riding among us today.
(For more, check out Emily's post.)
Monday, December 1, 2008
What's in a name?
A few other people have posted on the whole "Nature vs. Nurture" debate that goes on throughout Good Omens. Basically, the argument centers around the question of whether or not Adam will end up being the Antichrist who brings about Armageddon just because he is the offspring of Satan. After the babies get switched, it turns out that Adam grows up to be a fairly normal eleven-year-old who would much rather go play with his friends and his dog than go perform an act of evil. Likewise, Aziraphale and Crowley often wonder to themselves if, being angel and demon, they can only end up doing good and evil, respectively. We end up seeing that both of them are able to make choices which are sometimes independent of what one might believe to be the stereotypical angelic or demonic thing to do.
However, in the posts I've seen on all the blogs, nobody has yet addressed a third instance of this debate: Dog. On his eleventh birthday, the child who is the Antichrist is sent a hell-hound as a companion in doing evil and bringing about the end of the world. Because of the fact that Adam knows nothing about his true origins, we obviously know how that puts a wrench in the plan. The hell-hound is to be given a name that "would give it its purpose, its function, its identity." And his master ends up naming him "Dog" of all things. At the exact instant when the hell-hound receives this name, he is permanently changed, and much of the evil within him is extinguished, a process which will continue little by little through the end of the world.
Now, as I've stated before, I believe the main message of Good Omens is that our individual choices define who we are. If this is the case, and I think it is, why would Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett create a character who is unwillingly molded into what he ultimately becomes: a normal dog and man's (well, "boy's" actually) best friend?
I think that Dog is really meant to show the ability of anyone and anything to be redeemed, especially by the power of innocence. I know that sounds a bit trite, but bear with me here. Dog is sent to earth as a hell-hound, a pure-bred evil canine from the fiery pits of the Inferno whose purpose is to serve the Prince of Darkness in carrying out dastardly and devilish deeds of discord. However, in being named Dog by his master, that becomes his purpose: to be a just a regular dog. Adam was raised with no knowledge of his true origins, thinking himself the natural product of Mr. and Mrs. Young. He's just a normal boy, and through coming into contact with Dog, he is able to turn Dog from a evil hell-hound into force of good. Perhaps this is meant to show that through the power of good and pure intentions, even the most vile creature can be turned into something decent and wholesome.
For more on this "Nature vs. Nurture" concept, here are the other blog posts:
"Nature and its Role", by Lauren at Writers Lost (Group 3)
"Nature vs. Nurture in Good Omens", by Merideth at Writers Lost (Group 3)
"Where English meets Psychology", by Sarah at Forbidden Fruit (Group 4)
However, in the posts I've seen on all the blogs, nobody has yet addressed a third instance of this debate: Dog. On his eleventh birthday, the child who is the Antichrist is sent a hell-hound as a companion in doing evil and bringing about the end of the world. Because of the fact that Adam knows nothing about his true origins, we obviously know how that puts a wrench in the plan. The hell-hound is to be given a name that "would give it its purpose, its function, its identity." And his master ends up naming him "Dog" of all things. At the exact instant when the hell-hound receives this name, he is permanently changed, and much of the evil within him is extinguished, a process which will continue little by little through the end of the world.
Now, as I've stated before, I believe the main message of Good Omens is that our individual choices define who we are. If this is the case, and I think it is, why would Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett create a character who is unwillingly molded into what he ultimately becomes: a normal dog and man's (well, "boy's" actually) best friend?
I think that Dog is really meant to show the ability of anyone and anything to be redeemed, especially by the power of innocence. I know that sounds a bit trite, but bear with me here. Dog is sent to earth as a hell-hound, a pure-bred evil canine from the fiery pits of the Inferno whose purpose is to serve the Prince of Darkness in carrying out dastardly and devilish deeds of discord. However, in being named Dog by his master, that becomes his purpose: to be a just a regular dog. Adam was raised with no knowledge of his true origins, thinking himself the natural product of Mr. and Mrs. Young. He's just a normal boy, and through coming into contact with Dog, he is able to turn Dog from a evil hell-hound into force of good. Perhaps this is meant to show that through the power of good and pure intentions, even the most vile creature can be turned into something decent and wholesome.
For more on this "Nature vs. Nurture" concept, here are the other blog posts:
"Nature and its Role", by Lauren at Writers Lost (Group 3)
"Nature vs. Nurture in Good Omens", by Merideth at Writers Lost (Group 3)
"Where English meets Psychology", by Sarah at Forbidden Fruit (Group 4)
What's the deal with apples, anyway?
On Group 5's blog "Introduction to Authors", Sheryl wrote a post about how the end of Good Omens is essentially a direct connection to Adam and the Fall of Mankind by eating the apple in the Garden of Eden. In her post entitled "Apples....Again" she writes:
In class we've often talked about how John Milton's purpose in writing Paradise Lost was to explain the ways of God to man. As I was reading Good Omens, I kept trying to look for what Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett's purpose was, and whether it was similar or different to Milton's. As I stated in my previous post about choices, as I was approaching the end of the novel I came to the conclusion that choices were the central point of the novel; that our choices were what defined us, not who we were born to be. But I think, in the end, there's a little bit more to it than that.
After I got to the end of the book and I read the above quotation, I came to amend my theory on what Gaiman and Pratchett are trying to get across through Good Omens. I think what they're trying to say is that even when we might get in trouble for the choices we make, and even when those choices might directly contradict mandates from the powers which directly affect our lives, when push comes to shove the end of the world will probably take place when we least expect it, so we should make every choice according to what we believe to be right in our hearts because it could be the last decision we make on earth.
"There were numerous quotes from Good Omens that stick out in my mind, but one that is particularly humorous and thought-provoking to me comes right at the end of the novel. The quote goes, "And there was never an apple, in Adam's opinion, that wasn't worth the trouble you got into for eating it."I, too, was really struck by this quote. But in addition to the humor which it provides, it struck me for another reason.
To me, this quote pretty much sums up the views of the Adams of both Good Omens as well as Paradise lost."
In class we've often talked about how John Milton's purpose in writing Paradise Lost was to explain the ways of God to man. As I was reading Good Omens, I kept trying to look for what Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett's purpose was, and whether it was similar or different to Milton's. As I stated in my previous post about choices, as I was approaching the end of the novel I came to the conclusion that choices were the central point of the novel; that our choices were what defined us, not who we were born to be. But I think, in the end, there's a little bit more to it than that.
After I got to the end of the book and I read the above quotation, I came to amend my theory on what Gaiman and Pratchett are trying to get across through Good Omens. I think what they're trying to say is that even when we might get in trouble for the choices we make, and even when those choices might directly contradict mandates from the powers which directly affect our lives, when push comes to shove the end of the world will probably take place when we least expect it, so we should make every choice according to what we believe to be right in our hearts because it could be the last decision we make on earth.
The Element of Choice
I think one of the major themes of both Paradise Lost and Good Omens is that of choice. The most critical events of both these works have to do with a character making a conscious decision about whether or not to take a certain action.
In Paradise Lost, Satan makes the choice to rebel against God, taking his followers with him on a course that leads to expulsion from Heaven and damnation to Hell. Among those followers is the angel Abdiel, who chooses to repent of his errant ways and return to the folds of Heaven. Later, Eve makes the choice to obey the serpent and eat of the Tree of Knowledge, thereby willingly disobeying God. And when she goes to Adam and tells him what she did, he makes the choice to follow her in sin and also eats of the Forbidden Fruit.
In Good Omens, the whole idea of choices defining who we are is revisited. There are several instances where Crowley and Aziraphale go against what they believe might be expected from them by their superiors in order to carry out what they see fit to be the right order of things. For example, Aziraphale chooses to give the Flaming Sword to Adam and Eve because he takes pity on them, even though he's supposed to be using the sword to guard the gates of Eden. Much later in the book, Crowley actually defies the demons sent to capture him (including the Duke of Hell) in order to go find Aziraphale and see what's actually happening. Perhaps the most striking example of choice in Good Omens is the one involving the boy named Adam, who's namesake was part of the choice which brought about the Original Fall. Instead of doing evil deeds and undertaking hellish endeavours, Adam chooses to do things that he and his friends believe to be the nice thing for the world, like growing rainforests and freeing the wales. More importantly, Adam makes the conscious choice not to destroy the world with his awesome powers.
In both of these works, choices are the crux on which are formed the main events of the stories. All three of the authors want to stress the importance of the fact that our choices define us, for better or worse, not who we were born or the name that is given us.
In Paradise Lost, Satan makes the choice to rebel against God, taking his followers with him on a course that leads to expulsion from Heaven and damnation to Hell. Among those followers is the angel Abdiel, who chooses to repent of his errant ways and return to the folds of Heaven. Later, Eve makes the choice to obey the serpent and eat of the Tree of Knowledge, thereby willingly disobeying God. And when she goes to Adam and tells him what she did, he makes the choice to follow her in sin and also eats of the Forbidden Fruit.
In Good Omens, the whole idea of choices defining who we are is revisited. There are several instances where Crowley and Aziraphale go against what they believe might be expected from them by their superiors in order to carry out what they see fit to be the right order of things. For example, Aziraphale chooses to give the Flaming Sword to Adam and Eve because he takes pity on them, even though he's supposed to be using the sword to guard the gates of Eden. Much later in the book, Crowley actually defies the demons sent to capture him (including the Duke of Hell) in order to go find Aziraphale and see what's actually happening. Perhaps the most striking example of choice in Good Omens is the one involving the boy named Adam, who's namesake was part of the choice which brought about the Original Fall. Instead of doing evil deeds and undertaking hellish endeavours, Adam chooses to do things that he and his friends believe to be the nice thing for the world, like growing rainforests and freeing the wales. More importantly, Adam makes the conscious choice not to destroy the world with his awesome powers.
In both of these works, choices are the crux on which are formed the main events of the stories. All three of the authors want to stress the importance of the fact that our choices define us, for better or worse, not who we were born or the name that is given us.
Where English meets Psychology
When reading page 58 of Good Omens I had flashbacks to previous PSYC 1100 lectures and a reading assignment here at UConn. No, Crowley was not attempting brain surgery (although that could be entertaining) and Aziraphale was not preaching of the great thinkers and their opinions. No, instead the two bring up what I learned in pysc to be the nature/nurture debate.
This discussion starts when Aziraphale asks Crowley what would become of the young anti christ if he is not raised in a Satanic home. Crowley responds with "probably nothing." Aziraphale then mentions genetics. Crowley responds back saying that they mean nothing, that it's all about how this child is raised.
Aziraphale believes that the child must have some genes for him to be evil, that the child is naturally evil and won't have to learn the ways of evil from those who raise him. This puts Aziraphale on the nature side of the argument. He is in good company though, as Immanuel Kant also sided with the nature belief. This side in general thinks that a person is "destined" to be or do something.
Crowley tells Aziraphale that the child's upbringing is everything. "Look at Satan. Created as an angel, grows up to be the Great Adversary." he says. It's about potential to Crowley, "Potentially evil. Potentially good, too, I suppose. Just this huge, powerful potentiality, waiting to be shaped." (p. 58). The child can be either or, it's all about how he is raised. Crowley, too, has some famous names who think the same way, John Locke and Sigmund Freud. This side is known as the nurture side, where they believe that things can be learned, such as the liking of something or the ability to do a task well.
So in the world of psychology, who is right? In the book, Crowley appeared to have won the dispute, but Aziraphale certainly isn't as forceful as he is when it comes to debating this idea.
Both are right.
According to the article that PSYC 1100 for Dr. Miller read (What Makes You Who You Are, aka, Article #6 in the book) both genes and upbringing are key. Author Matt Ridley tells readers that a nature can lead to a nurture. Using the fear of snakes as an example, he says that the fear is not inherited, but rather "a predisposition to learn a fear of snakes- a nature for a certain kind of nurture." Language is another strong example given in the article. Language must be learned from others who speak it, however "this capacity to learn is written into the human brain by genes...". This article tells how both nature and nurture cross over and that both can be critical when a child is being raised.
It will take both nature and nurture to raise the young anti christ to be what he is meant to be. Of course, it does help if he goes to the right family to be raised first...
This discussion starts when Aziraphale asks Crowley what would become of the young anti christ if he is not raised in a Satanic home. Crowley responds with "probably nothing." Aziraphale then mentions genetics. Crowley responds back saying that they mean nothing, that it's all about how this child is raised.
Aziraphale believes that the child must have some genes for him to be evil, that the child is naturally evil and won't have to learn the ways of evil from those who raise him. This puts Aziraphale on the nature side of the argument. He is in good company though, as Immanuel Kant also sided with the nature belief. This side in general thinks that a person is "destined" to be or do something.
Crowley tells Aziraphale that the child's upbringing is everything. "Look at Satan. Created as an angel, grows up to be the Great Adversary." he says. It's about potential to Crowley, "Potentially evil. Potentially good, too, I suppose. Just this huge, powerful potentiality, waiting to be shaped." (p. 58). The child can be either or, it's all about how he is raised. Crowley, too, has some famous names who think the same way, John Locke and Sigmund Freud. This side is known as the nurture side, where they believe that things can be learned, such as the liking of something or the ability to do a task well.
So in the world of psychology, who is right? In the book, Crowley appeared to have won the dispute, but Aziraphale certainly isn't as forceful as he is when it comes to debating this idea.
Both are right.
According to the article that PSYC 1100 for Dr. Miller read (What Makes You Who You Are, aka, Article #6 in the book) both genes and upbringing are key. Author Matt Ridley tells readers that a nature can lead to a nurture. Using the fear of snakes as an example, he says that the fear is not inherited, but rather "a predisposition to learn a fear of snakes- a nature for a certain kind of nurture." Language is another strong example given in the article. Language must be learned from others who speak it, however "this capacity to learn is written into the human brain by genes...". This article tells how both nature and nurture cross over and that both can be critical when a child is being raised.
It will take both nature and nurture to raise the young anti christ to be what he is meant to be. Of course, it does help if he goes to the right family to be raised first...
Credits:
All Good Omens quotes come from page 58 of the text.
The article What Makes You Who You Are comes from Dr. Miller's Fall 2008 PSYC 1100 Student Manual. This article is by Matt Ridley and was originally printed in Time on June 2, 2003.
Crowley: Just Your Average 20th Century Fictional Bad Guy
Right from the start it's understood that Crowley (or formerly known as Crawley, because "he was thinking of changing it. Crawly, he decided, was not him" pg. 3) is the 'bad guy' in the book.
However he's a new breed of bad guy which can be seen in the beginning on pages 18 and 19 when the 'Deeds of the Day' are being discussed. Crowley goes for a more 20th Century approach to his bad deeds as he uses creativity and goes for as many people as possible. Meanwhile, Hastur and Ligur are "fourteenth- century minds."(pg 19) and would never use Crowley's methods as they tend to go for one person at a time.
This small portion of the book made me think of some of today's 'evil minds' from television and movies. They think quite a bit like Crowley and vice versa. When was the last time a hit crime show such as CSI had one simple murder, like a Hastur and Ligur approach? Not too recently. Lately TV has featured all sorts of creative plots that would be right up Crowley's alley. A series that I watched over break featured a bad guy that basically admitted that it's about creativity. I don't remember his exact words, but the point was that anyone can shoot someone, it takes creativity to have a guy choke on a hot dog or something similar to that.
Throughout the book, it becomes apparent that Crowley is able to blend in fairly well with modern society. He had Mr. Young thinking he was one of the doctors at the hospital when he was really there to switch one of the babies with the anti-christ. Today's fictional bad guys also have a way with blending in with society. If they didn't blend in, these hour crime dramas would take half the time because it would take half the time to catch the guy if you could find them easily. Some TV shows or movies will even have their bad guy be known for their ability to blend in with society, as a car mechanic, a secertary or even the UPS man.
By actions and appearance, Crowley proves to fit in with the standard 20th century bad guy as seen in television, movies and even read about in other books. He goes for the creative route when doing his bad deeds as opposed to going after just one person. Crowley may be seen as an 'odd bird' to some Londoner's, he blends in better than Hastur and Ligur since he has adapted to these new times.
However he's a new breed of bad guy which can be seen in the beginning on pages 18 and 19 when the 'Deeds of the Day' are being discussed. Crowley goes for a more 20th Century approach to his bad deeds as he uses creativity and goes for as many people as possible. Meanwhile, Hastur and Ligur are "fourteenth- century minds."(pg 19) and would never use Crowley's methods as they tend to go for one person at a time.
This small portion of the book made me think of some of today's 'evil minds' from television and movies. They think quite a bit like Crowley and vice versa. When was the last time a hit crime show such as CSI had one simple murder, like a Hastur and Ligur approach? Not too recently. Lately TV has featured all sorts of creative plots that would be right up Crowley's alley. A series that I watched over break featured a bad guy that basically admitted that it's about creativity. I don't remember his exact words, but the point was that anyone can shoot someone, it takes creativity to have a guy choke on a hot dog or something similar to that.
Throughout the book, it becomes apparent that Crowley is able to blend in fairly well with modern society. He had Mr. Young thinking he was one of the doctors at the hospital when he was really there to switch one of the babies with the anti-christ. Today's fictional bad guys also have a way with blending in with society. If they didn't blend in, these hour crime dramas would take half the time because it would take half the time to catch the guy if you could find them easily. Some TV shows or movies will even have their bad guy be known for their ability to blend in with society, as a car mechanic, a secertary or even the UPS man.
By actions and appearance, Crowley proves to fit in with the standard 20th century bad guy as seen in television, movies and even read about in other books. He goes for the creative route when doing his bad deeds as opposed to going after just one person. Crowley may be seen as an 'odd bird' to some Londoner's, he blends in better than Hastur and Ligur since he has adapted to these new times.
Bible Vs. Paradise Lost
Paradise Lost is a poem by Milton based on the Book of Genesis in the Bible. Milton did not follow Genesis in its entirety. There is a lot that he added like the name "Chaos" and the whole story about how Sin and Death came to be. There is no mention of this in the Bible. It annoys me though how Milton comes up with his own ideas on how the Earth was created and how Satan is portrayed not as demonic and evil like he should be! However, I guess that was why he wrote Paradise Lost. Even though Milton's thoughts on Heaven, God, Hell, Satan, Adam and Eve, and the angels were very interesting, speaking from a Christian stand point, it kind of pissed me off because i bet a lot of people who read this without any previous understanding or knowledge of the Book of Genesis in the Bible automatically assume that this was the actual story of how the Earth came to be. If this is not the case, then Paradise Lost can also question ones own beliefs because it gets you thinking. Paradise Lost was not my favorite thing to read so whenever I hear the word God, Satan, Hell, Heaven, Adam and Eve, i think of Paradise Lost. It is like a song you cannot get out of your head.
London Sights of Good Omens
It doesn’t take long to realize that Good Omens is a British novel set in London and the surrounding areas. Having traveled to London before, I pick up on the places that are mentioned within Good Omens and in many cases can visualize what place is being discussed. In some cases, I have pictures from these places.
The first place I noticed was Buckingham Palace that was on page 31. This instance was used as a reference to the royal family as Buckingham Palace is the London residence (Windsor Castle is another residence of the royal family, located outside of London) of the King or Queen. Currently, Queen Elizabeth II resides there.
Classic London Doubledecker: not hard to find zipping around all of these mentioned streets.
For me, finding places within the book that I had been not only had the book a lot more interesting and fun to read, but it also made it easier to understand. I always like to know where things are going on at, and since I've been to these places, I can visualize better how they happen.
*All of these pictures were taken by me in March of 2008 and were not copied from any other source.
The first place I noticed was Buckingham Palace that was on page 31. This instance was used as a reference to the royal family as Buckingham Palace is the London residence (Windsor Castle is another residence of the royal family, located outside of London) of the King or Queen. Currently, Queen Elizabeth II resides there.
Buckingham Palace on a wet, snowy March day.
After Buckingham Palace, St. James Park was mentioned. In the book-page 44 to be exact-, Crowley and Aziraphale are feeding the ducks at the park. St. James Park is next to Buckingham Palace and is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, of the royal parks. On my trip, we didn’t spend very much time there but the park is definitely on my list of places to visit when I do get to visit London again.
Overlooking St. James Park and the pond.
The next ‘spot’ I noticed is not a place in the book, but in actuality it is. On page 49 it is stated the “Charing Cross Bible”. After spending several days navigating the London Underground, or Tube, Charing Cross is a street and has a stop on the Underground. In addition, Charing Cross eventually turns into Tottenham Court Road.
Tottenham Court Road is mentioned in the footnotes of page 67, referring back to the line “of the old school” and saying that this old school, or night school rather, was located just off Tottenham Court Road. This is a road in central London. It’s a busy place with a fair amount of shops and places to eat. The underground station is just as busy as the actual road since several lines stop there.
Soho, page 52’s “book shop on Soho” is a district within London. Soho is a district known for its entertainment, both appropriate and inappropriate. This makes me wonder just what kind of books could be found here. The inappropriate (which I’d rather not discuss, just google Soho London England and you should come up with it) is being run out by more upscale establishments.
Oxford is a city north of London, probably about a two hour drive unless Crowley’s driving! In the book, Oxford is mentioned as a location of the hospital where the baby switch took place. In real life Oxford is the location of the famous Oxford University. Unfortunately I was unable to visit Oxford so I have no pictures of any of the university’s historic buildings.
Oxford Street, on the hand, is not located in Oxford, although if followed long enough it will go there. It is what is can be assumed it is from the book, a busy street in central London. This is the case, though technically it is Westminster that the road is going through. Almost every kind of store imaginable can be found here. On a lighter note, Oxford Street can also be a bear to cross, especially if you’re new to England and which way the traffic runs (luckily no one was injured in this discovery).
Oxford Street, on the hand, is not located in Oxford, although if followed long enough it will go there. It is what is can be assumed it is from the book, a busy street in central London. This is the case, though technically it is Westminster that the road is going through. Almost every kind of store imaginable can be found here. On a lighter note, Oxford Street can also be a bear to cross, especially if you’re new to England and which way the traffic runs (luckily no one was injured in this discovery).
Classic London Doubledecker: not hard to find zipping around all of these mentioned streets.
The traditional British phone 'box', now only found in Central London, specifically around Westminster (ie: Oxford St. )
For me, finding places within the book that I had been not only had the book a lot more interesting and fun to read, but it also made it easier to understand. I always like to know where things are going on at, and since I've been to these places, I can visualize better how they happen.
*All of these pictures were taken by me in March of 2008 and were not copied from any other source.
Temptation After the Fall
After the fall in Book 11, Michael shows Adam a vision of men working with metals and beautiful women appearing from tents. Adam has not been used to seeing other beautiful wommen other than Eve. This opens up temptation to Adam. He should remain faithful to Eve. Upon seeing the women, Adam says, "True opener fmine eyes, prime angel blest, / Much better seems this vision and more hope / Of peaceful days portends than those two past: / Those were of hate and death or pain much worse, / Here Nature seems fulfilled in all her ends (11. 598-602). Now that there are going to be more people onthe Earth, temptation to refrain from remaining chaste and faithful becomes stronger. Before their faill, Adam was the only male and Eve was the only female. They had each other and God. It was impossible for any means of aduultery. They fought over the little things. However, after the fal, sine and death seeped the Earth. There was still going to be temptation on Earth. Now that there was ging to be more beautiful women like Eve on Earth, for a moment there in Adam's quote, it seemed as if he was already falling for worldly pleasures rather than thinking of only Eve.
Paradise Lost Comes to an End
As Paradise Lost came to an end many of its readers thought that the conclusion seemed a bit anti-climactic. This may be because it lacked the creative edge the rest of the poem possessed.
“...The gate
With dreadful faces thronged and fiery arms.
Some natural tears they dropped but wiped them soon.
The world was all before them, where to choose
Their place of rest, and Providence their guide.
They hand in hand with wand’ring steps and slow
Through Eden took their solitary way,” (12. 643-649).
Adam and Eve simply left the gates of Eden after Michael tells them of their future and what is expected of them. The reader would have anticipated a similar banishment to that of the angels being thrown down from Heaven into Hell. The reader I feel had also hoped to see Adam and Eve’s reactions to their new world.
I would have liked to see the poem end a little less generically by including a sudden twist or previously unseen insight or side of Adam and Eve as Milton’s used so often through out any of his previous descriptions of them. I would have liked to see more of the changes in their characters such as Eves new found sense of responsibility and Adam’s lack there of. I would have been pleased with seeing some of Eve’s independent side or Adam’s commitment (or now lack of commitment) to Eve.
All in all I can see the difficulty in bringing this poem to an en since we are here today and know that it can only end one way. I understand that there is a sequel to the poem and would be curious to know how this text addressed the issue of Adam and Eve’s failing marriage or their struggle with their new form of worship of God, knowing that they have created the rest of the human race and we still believe in God today so they must have gotten past this issue some how. -Megan
Paradise Lost vs. Twilight
As many of my classmates have found I have found similarities between Paradise Lost and the recent movie Twilight. If you are unfamiliar with the movie or books then you may want to view the attached website and trailer (http://www.twilightthemovie.com/).
In both Paradise Lost and Twilight we are instantly allowed to feel that both Satan and the character Edward Cullen are both of a form that as human beings we are made to fear and hate. Both demons and vampires pose a threat to our lives and afterlives. This is something we are taught out of basic survival. Then why is it that we are drawn to view these characters as the protagonist and want to see them succeed? This is because of a carefully plotted plan on the writer’s part to allow the reader to be swept up in the characters emotions and sympathize for them. This allows us to see the other side of the story. Without this viewpoint we would never trust or follow these characters and would not understand the poet/author’s purpose.
Where do these characters differ? Through the progression of the text and movie our alliance with Satan’s character diminishes while our bond with Edward Cullen grows. This is part of the overall plan of the author because while Milton wishes to justify God’s actions to people Meyer wishes to justify Bella’s devotion to Edward. Both writers have a common purpose however Milton wishes to show the fault in Satan while Meyer wishes to show the good in Edward Cullen.
Both characters require the reader/viewer to take a leap of faith in trusting them and to view an unconventional character as the protagonist in the story. -Megan
Guardian Angels
In both Paradise Lost and Good Omens the angels can be witnessed helping out the humans and watching over them. In Paradise Lost, the Angels are given the task of warning and helping the humans. The angels share deep bonds with Adam and hold many deep and meaningful conversations with him. The angels serve as a line of communication with God and also as a means of understand the past and future. The angels become a means of protection to Adam and Eve as they warn them about faults they are making and serve as mentors to help them become closer to God. After the fall they comfort Adam by telling him that the world will be ok and that God will provide a means of absolution.
In Good Omens we are shown the role of an angel through Aziraphale’s actions. Aziraphale has the ability to directly step into the human’s lives through miracles. This is a power that Milton’s angels do not possess. Gaiman and Pratchett’s angels walk amongst humans and have very little direct contact with God. However both types of Angels have a deep nurturing attitude towards the humans and want to protect them and sympathize with them. Aziraphale also possesses a human body while he is immortal the body he possesses is not. This makes him more like a human and thus he can identify with their feeling and needs.
The angels are presented in different ways because Gaiman and Pratchett wish to show how good will always prevail in the world while Milton wishes to justify the actions of God to man. This is why Milton’s angels are viewed more as servants to God while Gaiman and Pratchett’s angels are meant to be a positive influence and equal protector of the humans.
The different angels share common responsibilities and values because they are both working in the effort to protect the souls of the humans however their method in fulfilling this differs between texts because of the limitations and physical representations of the angels. -Megan
God and Satan
Even though God and Satan are still themselves in both Paradise Lost and Good Omens they hold very different roles and are expressed in very different ways.
In Paradise Lost, Satan is known to be evil while God is known to be pure and good. However as discussed in class, Satan and God hold a very active role in this text while in good Omens they are seen as distant figures with less direct involvement into the lives of their followers.
What does this mean to the intent of the text? Paradise Lost is designed to justify the ways of God to man. This means that the reader must fully understand the personalities and intents of Both God and Satan. While in Good Omens the intent, in my opinion, is to show the prevalence of nurture over nature and that the good in people will always prevail (even in some demons). For this purpose Satan and God do not need to have such an upfront role and in fact are never seen directly. This is because God and Satan are the two exceptions that can never be swayed to see the other side. While angels, demons, and humans are all in a constant battle between right and wrong.
The lack of the physical presence of God and Satan in Good Omens allows the reader to focus on the purpose at hand while the constant view of both the thoughts and actions of God and Satan in Paradise Lost make it very easy for the reader to see he true purposes of their actions.
Does this influence the pleasure in reading both texts? I believe that for me personally this is one of the key factors that make Good Omens a more pleasurable text to read because the reader has an easier time of personally identifying with the characters and can find pieces of themselves within the text. The reader can then find answers to their own personal struggle between the forces that surround us on our earth. -Megan
Hope Found Revised
Paradise Lost by John Milton
“This horror will grow mild, this darkness light,/Besides what hope the never-ending flight/Of future days may bring, what chance, what change/ Worth waiting since our present lot appears/For happy though but ill, for ill not worst,/If we procure not to ourselves more woe,” (book #2, 220-225)
After blogging about this quote previously I learned in class discussion that my previous understanding of this quote was in fact false and I am writing now to correct myself.
The speaker of this quote was in fact Belial speaking. Belial is described I the test as “slothful” this is because Belial would rather stay in Hell and become accustomed to it than to try and fight God again. Belial believes that the fallen angels have received the punishment that they deserved and that they should remain in Hell and hope that God will forgive them after they have served their punishment. This act of sloth is one of the seven deadly sins that can b found in those who reside in Hell.
This quote still holds importance to show the overall presence of democracy in Hell because Belial is allowed to have this view that does not follow with the rest of the group yet he is not punished for his belief.
Is there any merit to Belial’s statement? I believe that demons and angels share many human qualities with us. And one of these qualities is the ability to adapt to their surroundings. I believe that given time the fallen angels would not view Hell as such a punishment because they would become adapted to it as they already have building an entire city in Hell. Where I do not believe Belial is in his belief that God will one day forgive them. I believe that when you are immortal then you have passed up your ability to make mistakes and repent for your sins. There is no knowledge of anyone ever being able to leave Hell and return to Heaven and regain Gods love and trust. This denial exhibited by Belial may be simply a symptom of his laziness. As the other angel’s do we should use this quote as a means to understand Belial’s character and Milton’s Hell but not as a means to understand God or to be a potential way to get back into Heaven.
By exhibiting a deadly sin so clearly we can understand the true motives of those who reside in Hell and their persuasive hold over the reader has begun to be stripped away. -Megan
Commentary on “Think Again” by Stanley Fish
In this article Stanley Fish, a well-known Milton critic, discusses Dennis Danielson’s recent translation of Milton’s paradise Lost into a prose that can be more easily understood and interpreted by the reader. (A link to the article is given at the bottom of the page.) Danielson’s intent is to provide a translation of John Milton’s Paradise Lost that would allow it to be widely read and understood. The author of this new translation understands that a prose would change some of the very purpose of Milton’s text however the stronger argument is that it could be used a learning tool when read along with the original Paradise Lost and would allow a greater number of readers to be able to read and understand Milton.
I believe that this new translation of paradise Lost would help to decrease the use of, “Classic Comics and Cliff Notes precedents; …designed for the students who don’t have time to, or don’t want to, read the book,” (Fish). I believe that this text would decrease the use of these unmerited sources and would help students understand the poem rather than giving up on it while still following the true text.
The other benefit of this text would be to bring in other non-academic readers of Milton who may not have been able to understand or have the desire to read Milton previously. I believe that this will help to draw in more readers in an electronic society where we struggle to grasp new readers to pick up a book.
Some people do not agree with Danielson’s translation because they feel that it ruins Milton’s purpose in writing Paradise Lost the way that he did. I disagree with this statement because t is simply on person’s interpretation of Milton’s text that anyone is entitled to read at his or her own will. The translation is coupled side by side with the original text which I believe gives it more merit because the reader does not need to go out of their way to reference back to Milton and make their own opinion as to what Milton meant.
In conclusion I feel that what may be lost in translation will be made up for by the vast increased distribution, accessibility, and reading of Milton. I also believe that this is a valuable learning tool and agree with the publishing of this translation and feel that it would be a far more valuable tool than footnotes. -Megan
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/paradise-lost-in-prose/?ref=opinion
Enhancing Suggestions, Christopher Ricks
Found in the back of the edition of Paradise Lost that we are using for class can be found a variety of additional essays about Milton and his thoughts and works. A small article that I recently read was by Christopher B. Ricks within the Enhancing Suggestions section.
Ricks's main discussion or topic is Milton's use of words and his language used within Paradise Lost. This is a shorter article, but it goes through some of the recurring words and what they really meant. The word 'error' goes along with the Fall or fallen.
Ricks also explains and discusses Milton's Latinisms. If my understanding is correct, Ricks is trying to say that how a person understands that Latinism's depends on how they understand Milton. This makes sense. To understand what an author is saying sometimes, especially from centries ago, sometimes an understanding of them is required.
One of Ricks's statements that I thought helps to clarify Milton is "So one of the reasons why Milton often uses 'words in a proper and primary signification'( Newton) is because he thereby re-create something of the pre-lapsarian state language." I don't know what the pre-lapsarian state language is, but at least it gives me an idea of why Milton chooses the words he does.
Ricks made note of how the OED, Oxford English Dictionary, can help to understand Milton's words. Definitions have changed since Milton was alive. We may think he means the 21st century definition, but he could mean something completely different. How was he to know words would change and at the same time, how were we to know they were ever different? Bottom line is when in doubt, check the OED.
Ricks includes this line in his final paragraph and I've chosen to use it in mine, "It does not seem true that 'the mind that invented Milton's Grand Style had renounced the English language". To me, Ricks is telling us that Milton intended to take the English language to another level. I think he succeeded as Milton's work is on another level from anything I've ever read.
Ricks's main discussion or topic is Milton's use of words and his language used within Paradise Lost. This is a shorter article, but it goes through some of the recurring words and what they really meant. The word 'error' goes along with the Fall or fallen.
Ricks also explains and discusses Milton's Latinisms. If my understanding is correct, Ricks is trying to say that how a person understands that Latinism's depends on how they understand Milton. This makes sense. To understand what an author is saying sometimes, especially from centries ago, sometimes an understanding of them is required.
One of Ricks's statements that I thought helps to clarify Milton is "So one of the reasons why Milton often uses 'words in a proper and primary signification'( Newton) is because he thereby re-create something of the pre-lapsarian state language." I don't know what the pre-lapsarian state language is, but at least it gives me an idea of why Milton chooses the words he does.
Ricks made note of how the OED, Oxford English Dictionary, can help to understand Milton's words. Definitions have changed since Milton was alive. We may think he means the 21st century definition, but he could mean something completely different. How was he to know words would change and at the same time, how were we to know they were ever different? Bottom line is when in doubt, check the OED.
Ricks includes this line in his final paragraph and I've chosen to use it in mine, "It does not seem true that 'the mind that invented Milton's Grand Style had renounced the English language". To me, Ricks is telling us that Milton intended to take the English language to another level. I think he succeeded as Milton's work is on another level from anything I've ever read.
Comparison of Satan and Crowley as Protagonists
Comparison of Satan and Crowley as Protagonists
Upon the completion of both Paradise Lost and Good Omens I found many similarities between the two texts. The example I will discuss in this blog is the great likeness of Milton’s Satan and Gaiman and Pratchett’s Crowley as protagonist characters.
Paradise Lost is written I such a way that the reader instantly sympathizes with Satan and views him as the victim. The reader’s pre-notions of God are then tested as Satan uses his persuasive verbal skills to cause the reader to believe that God is in fact a tyrant. The reader then feels bad that Satan has been banished to Hell and is brainwashed into feeling that Satan has been unfairly treated. As the poem progresses this sympathetic feeling fades, however its strength within the poem must be duly noted.
The character, Crowley, in Good Omens also is viewed as a protagonist even though the obvious viewpoint of a demon would be that the reader would hope for his downfall. The reader instead becomes attached to Crowley and in scenes such as when Hastur and Ligur have been sent to retrieve Crowley and bring him back to Hell to be punished by Satan, the reader is found rooting for Crowley’s escape. The reader often sides with Crowley because like Satan he possesses many human like qualities.
Both characters are designed specifically to be protagonists of their works. I believe that this is because both writers want the reader to question all that they know about their faith and gain an understanding for the actions of others. One difference between the two characters that must be noted is that as time progresses Satan becomes more evil while Crowley feels more and more remorseful and even becomes willing to fight against Satan after seeing the wrong in Satan’s plan. However at the time when the reader is captured into the spell of both protagonists both characters are known to be against God. -Megan
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Artwork
For my last in class paper, my topic was to discuss artwork that had been done to depict Milton’s epic poem. There are more pictures than can be described in 10 pages and not all of them will fit together to make a nice, put together paper. There was one picture that was left out of my paper that I wanted to discuss which I will do so here.
The picture I will be writing about is the following picture. However, if for some reason it cannot be viewed within the blog, it can be seen at the link posted at the end.
(Sorry for the poor quality, please check out the link at the bottom for better quality!)
What hit me as interesting with this image is how different it is from my understanding, and possibly the general understanding, of Eve taking the fruit from the serpent.
I never envisioned the serpent to be wrapped all around Eve’s body. This picture has the serpent wrapped all up around her body. The artist takes a different than normal view and perhaps a new interpretation of the text written, both by Milton and even in the Bible.
The second part of this picture that grabbed my attention as different is how Eve is receiving the fruit from the serpent. In this picture the serpent is seen feeding her the fruit. I never imagined that to be how it went. I don’t know my Bible like many do, but I always thought the Bible said Eve took the fruit and ate. It could be taken that she took the fruit from the serpent’s mouth, but I’m not sure how common that thought is.
Whoever the artist is of this work, they were certainly trying to think outside of the box as to the standard belief. This artist may firmly believe that this is how this event played out. Not to be cruel, but odds are, the artist has passed on and we may never quite what he was thinking.
Special thanks to the darkness visible website: http://www.christs.cam.ac.uk/darknessvisible/index.html Once again, if the picture is not loading, go to this link as the picture I’ve discussed is on the homepage.
The picture I will be writing about is the following picture. However, if for some reason it cannot be viewed within the blog, it can be seen at the link posted at the end.
(Sorry for the poor quality, please check out the link at the bottom for better quality!)
What hit me as interesting with this image is how different it is from my understanding, and possibly the general understanding, of Eve taking the fruit from the serpent.
I never envisioned the serpent to be wrapped all around Eve’s body. This picture has the serpent wrapped all up around her body. The artist takes a different than normal view and perhaps a new interpretation of the text written, both by Milton and even in the Bible.
The second part of this picture that grabbed my attention as different is how Eve is receiving the fruit from the serpent. In this picture the serpent is seen feeding her the fruit. I never imagined that to be how it went. I don’t know my Bible like many do, but I always thought the Bible said Eve took the fruit and ate. It could be taken that she took the fruit from the serpent’s mouth, but I’m not sure how common that thought is.
Whoever the artist is of this work, they were certainly trying to think outside of the box as to the standard belief. This artist may firmly believe that this is how this event played out. Not to be cruel, but odds are, the artist has passed on and we may never quite what he was thinking.
Special thanks to the darkness visible website: http://www.christs.cam.ac.uk/darknessvisible/index.html Once again, if the picture is not loading, go to this link as the picture I’ve discussed is on the homepage.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Movie Time!
As a confessed movie lover, I constantly am comparing things I read to movies I’ve seen. Less than halfway through Pratchett and Gaimen’s Good Omens I have already found a few connections to movies from the last few years that I have watched numerous times.
The first movie connection is with one of my personal favorites, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, aka the 2nd Pirate movie.
On page 54, Crowley and Azriphale discuss the Kraken, a sea monster. According to Aziraphale, the Kraken is a “great big bugger… sleepth beneath the thunders of the upper deep.”
As a Pirates fan, I remember the Kraken all too well and was able to visualize this “said terrible beasty” (as Capt. Jack would call it) that Crowley and Aziraphale discussed. In the movie, the Kraken was also a great big bugger that was found in the sea. The movie also showed how fierce this sea creature was, which can be seen in the following clip. (I'm including the URL at the end in case the video doesn't embed properly)
The first movie connection is with one of my personal favorites, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, aka the 2nd Pirate movie.
On page 54, Crowley and Azriphale discuss the Kraken, a sea monster. According to Aziraphale, the Kraken is a “great big bugger… sleepth beneath the thunders of the upper deep.”
As a Pirates fan, I remember the Kraken all too well and was able to visualize this “said terrible beasty” (as Capt. Jack would call it) that Crowley and Aziraphale discussed. In the movie, the Kraken was also a great big bugger that was found in the sea. The movie also showed how fierce this sea creature was, which can be seen in the following clip. (I'm including the URL at the end in case the video doesn't embed properly)
First Post: Take Two!
Part of developing writing skills is going back and correcting or re-writing a piece that had already been written. This is the second take of my first post that was titled Not Just From the Bible.
Many of the fellow English 1011-12 blog writers have made note of the biblical references within Paradise Lost thus far. There have been numerous posts centered around a variety of biblical tales and events. I too noticed that when reading, but in addition to Bible references, I noticed a step (or two) back in time, back to the classic writings of the Greeks and Romans.
Within the first few pages, Milton refers to Homer and/or Virgil who were very prominent writers; Homer the Greek writer and Virgil the Roman writer.Shortly after that, Milton dives into the world of Greek mythology,
"Nine times the spaces that measures day and night..."(1.50)In Milton's book, Satan and his fellow fallen angels spent nine days falling into hell. In Greek mythology, the Titans spent nine days falling to Earth.
Milton continues his Titan reference a few pages later by describing Satan as,
"As whom the fables name of monstrous size: Titanian or Earth-born that warred on Jove, Briareos or Typhon whom the den By ancient Tarsus held..." (1.197-200)
Milton tells us that Satan is as strong as the Greek Titans and Giants who fought battles against Jove. A little more research into the Titans has led me to believe that the Titans and Satan and his followers have a bit more in common. The Titans reigned and ruled high above like Gods, similar to how Satan was once in heaven, although he did not reign or rule in heaven like a God. After some time, the Titans lost a battle with the Olympians, thus sending them to Tartarus, a very deep point of Hades. Hades is in basic terms the Greek mythology version of hell. Similarly, Satan and other angels who sided with him fought in a war against God, lost their place in Heaven and were sent to hell.
One final portion that I chose to discuss focuses heavily on the Greeks and their fighting spirit and way.
"Their visages and statures as of gods, Their number last he sums. And now his heart Distends with pride and, hard'ning in his strength, Glories. For never since created Man Met such embodied force as named with these Could merit more than that small infantry Warred on by cranes, though all the giant brood Of Phlegra with th' heroic race were joined That fought at Thebes and Ilium, on each side Mixed with auxiliar gods, and what resounds..." (1.570-579)
Milton is telling us that this army of fallen, or rebel as mentioned in the book, angels are mightier than any Greek army. That is a strong and bold statement as the Greeks were quite the warriors. The Spartans from Sparta were known for their fighting spirit and ability and were trained to fight at a young age. The Greek armies that fought in wars at Troy were responsible for the well known Trojan Horse that attacked Troy from within. Yet, these rebel angels make these big fighting forces look small and weak.
Now that we know some of Milton's Classical references this far, we haven't answered this question: why did he refer to them? Did he see himself as the second Homer or Virgil? Was he personally fascinated by these periods of history? Or did he think he'd toss in some classic references just for the fun of it?
In Milton’s era of writing, which some may call the Renaissance (however new names are being probably being created as I type this), referring back to the classical writings was a common trend. Many writers from his time chose to ‘turn back the clock’ and incorporate the classics into their writings.
To end, I think I should list (or cite) my additional sources. I don't know everything about the Titans and Greek mythology, so I needed a little support!www.greekgods.info and www.greekmythology.com
Many of the fellow English 1011-12 blog writers have made note of the biblical references within Paradise Lost thus far. There have been numerous posts centered around a variety of biblical tales and events. I too noticed that when reading, but in addition to Bible references, I noticed a step (or two) back in time, back to the classic writings of the Greeks and Romans.
Within the first few pages, Milton refers to Homer and/or Virgil who were very prominent writers; Homer the Greek writer and Virgil the Roman writer.Shortly after that, Milton dives into the world of Greek mythology,
"Nine times the spaces that measures day and night..."(1.50)In Milton's book, Satan and his fellow fallen angels spent nine days falling into hell. In Greek mythology, the Titans spent nine days falling to Earth.
Milton continues his Titan reference a few pages later by describing Satan as,
"As whom the fables name of monstrous size: Titanian or Earth-born that warred on Jove, Briareos or Typhon whom the den By ancient Tarsus held..." (1.197-200)
Milton tells us that Satan is as strong as the Greek Titans and Giants who fought battles against Jove. A little more research into the Titans has led me to believe that the Titans and Satan and his followers have a bit more in common. The Titans reigned and ruled high above like Gods, similar to how Satan was once in heaven, although he did not reign or rule in heaven like a God. After some time, the Titans lost a battle with the Olympians, thus sending them to Tartarus, a very deep point of Hades. Hades is in basic terms the Greek mythology version of hell. Similarly, Satan and other angels who sided with him fought in a war against God, lost their place in Heaven and were sent to hell.
One final portion that I chose to discuss focuses heavily on the Greeks and their fighting spirit and way.
"Their visages and statures as of gods, Their number last he sums. And now his heart Distends with pride and, hard'ning in his strength, Glories. For never since created Man Met such embodied force as named with these Could merit more than that small infantry Warred on by cranes, though all the giant brood Of Phlegra with th' heroic race were joined That fought at Thebes and Ilium, on each side Mixed with auxiliar gods, and what resounds..." (1.570-579)
Milton is telling us that this army of fallen, or rebel as mentioned in the book, angels are mightier than any Greek army. That is a strong and bold statement as the Greeks were quite the warriors. The Spartans from Sparta were known for their fighting spirit and ability and were trained to fight at a young age. The Greek armies that fought in wars at Troy were responsible for the well known Trojan Horse that attacked Troy from within. Yet, these rebel angels make these big fighting forces look small and weak.
Now that we know some of Milton's Classical references this far, we haven't answered this question: why did he refer to them? Did he see himself as the second Homer or Virgil? Was he personally fascinated by these periods of history? Or did he think he'd toss in some classic references just for the fun of it?
In Milton’s era of writing, which some may call the Renaissance (however new names are being probably being created as I type this), referring back to the classical writings was a common trend. Many writers from his time chose to ‘turn back the clock’ and incorporate the classics into their writings.
To end, I think I should list (or cite) my additional sources. I don't know everything about the Titans and Greek mythology, so I needed a little support!www.greekgods.info and www.greekmythology.com
Monday, November 17, 2008
Comparison to Paradise Lost by aralias
Comparison to Paradise Lost by aralias
By Megan Novak
This blog compares the actual text of John Milton’s Paradise Lost to the clay representation by aralias found on YouTube. The clay representation (link given below) is a brief and simplistic representation of the scene in which Adam and Eve are created by god and then ultimately execute the original sin. In the clay representation the hand represents God. Adam is created first as he is in Milton’s text. The first difference is that God then creates Eve equally, and there is no evidence to prove that Eve is created from Adam. Then Eve is tempted by the serpent (Satan) and eats the fruit. This process in the clay form shows no doubt or consideration as Eve has in Milton’s text. However this representation does exhibit the traditional belief that the original sin is Eve’s fault as I believe that Milton is trying to disprove. Adam then makes a rather quick decision to sin with Eve as doe’s Milton’s Adam. God then punishes Adam and Eve and forces them out of Eden, as does Milton’s god (however this process takes longer in Milton’s text due to the story of the future told by the angels.)
Even though this version varies in many key elements of the text the creativity of the filmmaker must be noted. This cute story of the original sin scene provides a basis for the reader as to what the common conception o the story of genesis is with out getting into the heads of the characters as Milton does. I believe that it is in this key difference between previous renditions of the fall of man that makes Milton’s poem such a masterpiece. The creative way in which this scene was represented makes me wish that the filmmaker had created the entire text, because it is both comical and easy to understand with out the need of speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jE2FgIkGlE
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Stanley Fish: Gladly Mixing
At the end of my edition of Paradise Lost, there are criticisms. Stanley Fish's criticism in the book (p. 498) falls under the category of christian ideology. His article is about Abdiel, "the zealous loyalist", a character Milton creates "more or less out of whole cloth that he can even imagine what it would be like not to feel the stirrings he describes as 'that last infirmity of Noble mind'." Stanley Fish goes on to explain how Abdiel is seen as visibly heroic because he was the only fallen angel who decided to remain faithful to God and drop Satan. Stanley Fish goes on to describe the way in which Abdiel takes flight from Satan: "All night the dreadless Angel unpursu'd / Through Heav'n's wide Champaign held his way, till Morn, / Wak't by the circling Hours, with rosy hand / Unbarr'd the gates of Light (PL, VI, 1-4). Staney goes on to say that the effect of this image is "to further undercut the urgency and point of Abdiel's linear flight." Stanley goes on to say how God is basically telling him "Good job at being Abdiel, Abdiel." He says that Abidel is what he is, does what he does, and is the servant of God. Staney Fish goes on to talk about Milton and questions what Miltn conceives of himself--his idenity, faith, etc. Stanley Fish ends his criticism with a long question having to do with what Milton' goal is and questions whether or not Milton wants to fail/fall and wander.
Stanley Fishs' criticism kind of confused me. From the introduction, i thought that his criticism was going to be on Abdiel. Most of it was with quotes reflecting Abdiel's flight from Hell to Heaven and God congradulatin him for choosing the good side and remaining faithful to him. The part that confused me was the title of this article is "gladly mixing" and the only thing Fish says that attains to this is: "Abdiel would have been glad to report and he just as gladly mixes--that is, loses himself in a host already composed without his reportorial aid." Maybe this means Abdiel did not report the informaion Satan wanted him to? Or Abdiel is mixed up between Satan and God? Whatever it may mean, I am glad that Stanley Fish recognizes Abdiel because Abdiel was the only one to remain faithful to God. Althought Stanley's article was a bit confusing, overall it was interesting to read.
Stanley Fishs' criticism kind of confused me. From the introduction, i thought that his criticism was going to be on Abdiel. Most of it was with quotes reflecting Abdiel's flight from Hell to Heaven and God congradulatin him for choosing the good side and remaining faithful to him. The part that confused me was the title of this article is "gladly mixing" and the only thing Fish says that attains to this is: "Abdiel would have been glad to report and he just as gladly mixes--that is, loses himself in a host already composed without his reportorial aid." Maybe this means Abdiel did not report the informaion Satan wanted him to? Or Abdiel is mixed up between Satan and God? Whatever it may mean, I am glad that Stanley Fish recognizes Abdiel because Abdiel was the only one to remain faithful to God. Althought Stanley's article was a bit confusing, overall it was interesting to read.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Summary and Reaction to A.S.P. Woodhouse
Included in our edition of Paradise Lost is an excerpt from an article by A.S.P. Woodhouse on the impact of Christian ideology on John Milton's writing of the epic poem. In the first section of the article, Woodhouse compares "Milton's deliberate effort to write a classical epic on a Christian theme" with "its two great models, the Iliad and the Aeneid." Woodhouse contends that the main difference between Milton and his predecessors Homer and Virgil is their attitude towards fate based on their respective religious beliefs (Christian and Olympian): "In Homer the hero is by no means the master of his fate, but he is the captain of his soul. In Milton he is in some degree the master of his individual destiny, but Christ is the captain of his soul." Woodhouse means that in Homer the hero (Achilles in the Iliad) has a fate dominated totally by the gods, while he himself determines his motivations and adherence to his own principles within the confines of that divine control; meanwhile, in Milton the hero (Adam) is given free will but it is his adherence to God which sets his motivations.
Speaking of heroic figures, the second half of the article is where Woodhouse compares and its two models based on their heroes. Here Woodhouse asserts that the central difference is that while in "Homer and Virgil hero and protagonist are, accordingly, one," it turns out that "in Milton they are two". Woodhouse rejects the theory that Satan is hero or protagonist, saying instead that he is the "antagonist", as Hector and Turnus were in the classics. He argues that in Paradise Lost Adam is the protagonist and The Son is the hero. But Woodhouse also states that while in the classics the hero is demonstrative of all heroic qualities, in Milton both hero and protagonist are shown in relation to a so-called "heroic standard": Adam, failing, falls sub-standard while The Son's perfect victory places him above.
There is one aspect of Woodhouse's article where I find it lacking, and that is where it shows little to no similarity between Paradise Lost and its classic models, aside from the obvious inferences that both are based on religious ideology and both have heroic figures. Specifically, I would like to have seen Woodhouse address the specific similarities between Milton's hero of The Son in comparison with Achilles and/or Aeneas. An example of one similarity is the way in which the heroes are presented in the style of an aristeia. By definition, an aristeia is a scene where the hero is depicted in a glorious demonstration of his prowess and skill as a warrior, usually by defeating hordes of enemies single-handed. In Homer's Iliad, for instance, there is a scene in which Achilles takes on the entire Trojan army, proceeds to find Hector the Trojan champion, kills Hector, and then drags Hector's body through the streets to proclaim his victory. This can be likened in epic nature to the scene where The Son dominates the rebel angels and expels them from Heaven in a blaze of divine power, actually having to restrain himself so as to not totally annihilate his enemies. Thus, while Woodhouse does an excellent job of highlighting how Paradise Lost, the Iliad, and the Aeneid are uniquely epic works, it could have been done to greater effect by showing how each story uniquely presents similar characteristics.
Speaking of heroic figures, the second half of the article is where Woodhouse compares and its two models based on their heroes. Here Woodhouse asserts that the central difference is that while in "Homer and Virgil hero and protagonist are, accordingly, one," it turns out that "in Milton they are two". Woodhouse rejects the theory that Satan is hero or protagonist, saying instead that he is the "antagonist", as Hector and Turnus were in the classics. He argues that in Paradise Lost Adam is the protagonist and The Son is the hero. But Woodhouse also states that while in the classics the hero is demonstrative of all heroic qualities, in Milton both hero and protagonist are shown in relation to a so-called "heroic standard": Adam, failing, falls sub-standard while The Son's perfect victory places him above.
There is one aspect of Woodhouse's article where I find it lacking, and that is where it shows little to no similarity between Paradise Lost and its classic models, aside from the obvious inferences that both are based on religious ideology and both have heroic figures. Specifically, I would like to have seen Woodhouse address the specific similarities between Milton's hero of The Son in comparison with Achilles and/or Aeneas. An example of one similarity is the way in which the heroes are presented in the style of an aristeia. By definition, an aristeia is a scene where the hero is depicted in a glorious demonstration of his prowess and skill as a warrior, usually by defeating hordes of enemies single-handed. In Homer's Iliad, for instance, there is a scene in which Achilles takes on the entire Trojan army, proceeds to find Hector the Trojan champion, kills Hector, and then drags Hector's body through the streets to proclaim his victory. This can be likened in epic nature to the scene where The Son dominates the rebel angels and expels them from Heaven in a blaze of divine power, actually having to restrain himself so as to not totally annihilate his enemies. Thus, while Woodhouse does an excellent job of highlighting how Paradise Lost, the Iliad, and the Aeneid are uniquely epic works, it could have been done to greater effect by showing how each story uniquely presents similar characteristics.
Friday, October 31, 2008
An Image From The Past?
As I was reading Book Eleven of Paradise Lost, there was a short section that caught and held me fixed:
Another interesting connection is with the quelling of Adam's "best of man". In Macbeth, when Macbeth realizes that he is facing the man destined to kill him, he states that the news "hath cow'd [his] better part of man", meaning in both cases that their manly courage has been put down by the situation. In the case of Adam, it is the compassion that Death shows in delaying his final strike which moves Adam to have his courage quelled, while in the case of Macbeth it is fear of an impending death in the form of Macduff who will not stay his blade. Thisconnection is more of a similarity, with death being a fear-inspiring entity in both Paradise Lost and Macbeth.
Because our course is focused primarily on Paradise Lost, it might be tempting to conclude that Shakespeare "borrowed" at least these two images from Milton. However, Macbeth was written before John Milton was even born. This quite possibly could have been one of the first instances of Shakespeare having directly influenced what has become a major example of English literature, or it could all have been coincidence. I am inclined to think the former, simply because I think it likely that Milton would have been at least somewhat familiar with Shakespeare's work, maybe in the form of only having heard passages from it in passing before he sat down to hash out his own masterpiece. In the final paper that we've been working on for a short while now, I've been looking into the ways that Paradise Lost may have influenced Peter Jackson when creating the film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. Though I knew the influence may mostly have been from Milton onto J.R.R. Tolkien, who by default influenced the films, it never occured to me that there could very well be at least one more degree of influence, that of Shakespeare onto Milton onto Tolkien onto Jackson.
"Adam could not but wept,It was not until we were hovering in that general vicinity during the class discussion that it finally dawned on my why that passage in particular had raised a flag; there are two image which are strikingly similar to ones presented in the climax of Shakespeare's Macbeth nearly a century earlier. The main character of the play, Macbeth, was told by three witches that he could only be defeated by someone not "of woman born". Though the footnote in our edition of Paradise Lost asserts that Adam is the only man to be "not of woman born", meaning the only man without a mother, Shakespeare uses this phrase in a different way. In Macbeth, the character of Macduff is announced to have been "from his mother's womb/ Untimely ripped." In that sense, he was not "born" of his mother, having been delivered by C-Section apparently. So whereas in Paradise Lost, the character who is "not of woman born" is thought to "be less inclined to weep" (see footnote, page 273, Teskey edition), in Macbeth that character is foretold to be the one to defeat Macbeth; in one story that character is partially responsible for the downfall of mankind, while in the other story that character is the savior of Scotland. I thought those to be two very interesting differences, juxtapositons if you will.
Though not of woman born. Compassion quelled
His best of man and gave him to tears
A space till firmer thoughts restrained excess..." (11.495-498)
Another interesting connection is with the quelling of Adam's "best of man". In Macbeth, when Macbeth realizes that he is facing the man destined to kill him, he states that the news "hath cow'd [his] better part of man", meaning in both cases that their manly courage has been put down by the situation. In the case of Adam, it is the compassion that Death shows in delaying his final strike which moves Adam to have his courage quelled, while in the case of Macbeth it is fear of an impending death in the form of Macduff who will not stay his blade. Thisconnection is more of a similarity, with death being a fear-inspiring entity in both Paradise Lost and Macbeth.
Because our course is focused primarily on Paradise Lost, it might be tempting to conclude that Shakespeare "borrowed" at least these two images from Milton. However, Macbeth was written before John Milton was even born. This quite possibly could have been one of the first instances of Shakespeare having directly influenced what has become a major example of English literature, or it could all have been coincidence. I am inclined to think the former, simply because I think it likely that Milton would have been at least somewhat familiar with Shakespeare's work, maybe in the form of only having heard passages from it in passing before he sat down to hash out his own masterpiece. In the final paper that we've been working on for a short while now, I've been looking into the ways that Paradise Lost may have influenced Peter Jackson when creating the film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. Though I knew the influence may mostly have been from Milton onto J.R.R. Tolkien, who by default influenced the films, it never occured to me that there could very well be at least one more degree of influence, that of Shakespeare onto Milton onto Tolkien onto Jackson.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Adam vs. Eve
Adam vs. Eve
I believe that John Milton’s Adam and Eve from Paradise Lost were not created equal. “Then their different physical qualities are interpreted as emblems of their unequal natures and roles,” (Lewalski 467). However a definite conclusion as to whom is above the other is a difficult task. Adams role is to act above Eve and to lead the relationship. This could give the allusion that he is above Eve because he is the one who in turn is supposed to talk directly to God. Adam has also been seen in a new light based on the way he views a situation. Eve can think things over and come up with new solutions, while Adam becomes fixated on the tragedy at hand (as seen in their reaction to the original sin). Eve also had to submit to marrying Adam, “Eve, however, complicates the reading of her story as a simple submission to patriarchy,” (Lewalski 470). The exhibition of Adams reasoning to fall with Eve because he is afraid to be alone again reminds us that he was also created first. And even though God had intended on giving him a companion God was waiting for Adam to ask him for one. If Adam never had, Eve may never have been created. Another key point from this argument is that Eve was created as just that, a companion for Adam, someone for him to talk to and keep him company.
Is Adam better because he has more power? No, he does not. In my opinion Eve actually has a stronger ability to properly analyze a situation and then take action, she does slip up once, no doubt, but this must be overlooked when comparing the skills each of them possess. Eve has the ability to “accept Gods judgment humbly”(Lewalski 473) while Adam “blames both Eve and God who gave her to him,”(Lewalski 473). This shows who is more capable of accepting responsibility and to better make long-term decisions. Because Adam’s sin is just as great as Eve’s for following her over God. There was no misled temptation in this decision.
All in all, I feel that the argument can be made that Eve is a stronger person than Adam however God has created them in such a way that Adam is superior to Eve.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
British Literature Meets American History
As a more history minded person, when reading this book, I'm not always reminded of other works or picking up on interesting literary techniques. Instead, I could be going along reading and then stop and think 'this sounds like (insert historical moment here).' Brought on by being further along in the book and the topics choices of our second paper, I'm seeing a connection to the American Revolution from the 1700s, more specifically around 1775 and 1776.
A quick run-through of Paradise Lost thus far tells us that there was a war in Heaven between God and his followers versus Satan and his followers. They challanged God for personal gain including ,but not limited to, liberty, freedom and perhaps powers. Satan and his followers came up (very) short losing to God, thus being sent to Hell to rule down there. Satan takes the role of leader with some of his right hand demons being Beelzebub, Belial, Moloch and Mammon.
In order for this to work, the revolting colonists of America are related to Satan and his followers while the British crown and King George represent God's followers and God himself. I'm sure not many Americans appreciate the idea of their founding fathers being connected to Satan and the other assorted demons, but an 18th Century British citizen or Loyalist (colonist who chose to remain loyal to the crown) would probably approve of these connecetions.
Like Satan and the demons, American colonists felt there was more to life than serving for the crown. They were unhappy with the ruler they had and decided to take matters into their own hands and go to war. War raged for only a few days in Heaven between the two sides while war between the two Earthly sides carried on much longer. Eventually, they both recieved the freedoms they sought, however Satan and his followers ended up in Hell, not where they imagined being free.
The colonists also took it a step forward and composed a document, The Declaration of Independence, declaring themselves free from British rule. Of course Satan could've done that, but composing a document to declare yourself free from a ruler was a new coming idea that may not have crossed Milton's mind or was not considered since this was not done for the revolution that was fresh in his mind.
Obviously Milton didn't intentionaly write about the American Revolution seeing that he died in 1674 and the physically fighting part of the war was heating up 100 years later in 1774. What he did do was create a story of revolution that many people can relate to other revolutions. He intended for it to be about the revolutions that had happened up to his lifetime in history with the English Revolution and overthrowing King Charles I the centerpoint. However, history has a way of repeating itself as this story can now be related to other revolutions after Milton's lifetime.
(If anyone- group member or not- has any other ideas to expand on this or to take it in another direction, feel free to do so with a new post.)
A quick run-through of Paradise Lost thus far tells us that there was a war in Heaven between God and his followers versus Satan and his followers. They challanged God for personal gain including ,but not limited to, liberty, freedom and perhaps powers. Satan and his followers came up (very) short losing to God, thus being sent to Hell to rule down there. Satan takes the role of leader with some of his right hand demons being Beelzebub, Belial, Moloch and Mammon.
In order for this to work, the revolting colonists of America are related to Satan and his followers while the British crown and King George represent God's followers and God himself. I'm sure not many Americans appreciate the idea of their founding fathers being connected to Satan and the other assorted demons, but an 18th Century British citizen or Loyalist (colonist who chose to remain loyal to the crown) would probably approve of these connecetions.
Like Satan and the demons, American colonists felt there was more to life than serving for the crown. They were unhappy with the ruler they had and decided to take matters into their own hands and go to war. War raged for only a few days in Heaven between the two sides while war between the two Earthly sides carried on much longer. Eventually, they both recieved the freedoms they sought, however Satan and his followers ended up in Hell, not where they imagined being free.
The colonists also took it a step forward and composed a document, The Declaration of Independence, declaring themselves free from British rule. Of course Satan could've done that, but composing a document to declare yourself free from a ruler was a new coming idea that may not have crossed Milton's mind or was not considered since this was not done for the revolution that was fresh in his mind.
Obviously Milton didn't intentionaly write about the American Revolution seeing that he died in 1674 and the physically fighting part of the war was heating up 100 years later in 1774. What he did do was create a story of revolution that many people can relate to other revolutions. He intended for it to be about the revolutions that had happened up to his lifetime in history with the English Revolution and overthrowing King Charles I the centerpoint. However, history has a way of repeating itself as this story can now be related to other revolutions after Milton's lifetime.
(If anyone- group member or not- has any other ideas to expand on this or to take it in another direction, feel free to do so with a new post.)
Thursday, October 2, 2008
A Summary of The Restoration of Charles II
A Summary of The Restoration of Charles II
by Megan
(From General Monck by Maurice Ashley)
General Monck was an influential leader in the restoration of England in 1660. Monck came to London, England on February 3rd with the goal to “re-establish a stable government”(192). Monck wanted a king, an undivided church, and a loyal parliament. He planned to accomplish this goal through a strategic plan that would not be revealed until the last moment. When Monck arrived in England his first act, as commander-in-chief was to pay off the mutinous soldiers to leave London. He did not want any fiction amongst his army. He went along with the restoration of the Rump and acclaimed its success to God. Monck made his first move to change Parliament when he voted to create a parliament where members could be elected without taking an oath. This declaration was not popular with the House of Parliament, but was meant to give Monck the added time he needed. The Londoners wanted a free parliament and when Monck did not give them their request immediately “the city refused to pay taxes as long as the rump stayed in power” (197). Monck tore down posts and chains but would not remove the gates and portcullises of the city showing that he was complacent with Parliament but would not anger the citizens any further. On February 10th Monck revolted against Parliament, left Whitehall, asked for new elections immediately, and wanted to repair the damage he had created in the city. Monck was demoted to one of five commissioners but was making progress towards his cause. On February 17th Monck met with Hesilrige, Scott, and other Rumpers to create a national settlement. After much debate and a storming of the House of Parliament an unconditional Parliament was created (despite much friction with Colonel John Okey). Ninety percent of Parliament was in favor of the restoration of Charles II. Monck was elected Knight of the Shire for Devonshire, commander-in-chief, (in England, Scotland, and Ireland), and General-at-Sea with Edward Mountagu. On May 25 the King came to Dover and promised free/general pardon, liberty to general consciences, and that parliament would decide land sales (207). Monck was honored with the insignia of the Order of the Garter and was honored for being the one to bring about the unconditional restoration of Charles II.
Ashley, Maurice. “15 The Restoration of Charles II.” General Monck.
London: Jonathan Cape, 1977. 192-210.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Major Players in the Restoration--Group Entry
In our group research, we found a few people to be important to the British Restoration: Charles II, General Monck, Andrew Marvell, and the parties involved with the fall of Parliament. Not only were these people involved in the Restoration, but they also impacted Milton’s life and works.
Our first person, Charles II, succeeded his father “by the inherent birthright and lawful and undoubted succession.” However, because of the fall of the British monarchy he didn’t rule until May of 1660. Most of his pre-reign life was spent out of England and in religious messes. Some of the places he spent time in where France, Brussels and Scotland. The religious messes he found himself in dealt with the Scottish. In order to gain their support, he had to accept their religion, Presbyterianism. By 1660, he was the king and he was not a fan of committees or councils. He eventually would form a committee that he promised he would listen to their suggestions. In my mind, Charles II could be compared to Satan. Satan, like Charles II, tried to find a way back to the throne in Heaven, or for Charles II the throne in London. As mentioned, Charles II did not go out of his way to form committees or seek other opinions from people. Satan is a similar person, as he does not approve of committees or seek much help. In the end, they both find one committee or council that they could trust. How much of this comparison Milton noticed, or if he even intended for Charles II to be like Satan, we may never know, but I do see a connection between the two.
General Monck is thought to be solely responsible for the return of Charles II. Through his plan to create a new and free parliament he won the affection of the city of London and was proclaimed commander-in-chief and General-at-Sea. His plan was to “re-establish a stable government” (Ashley 192), and he succeeded. There had been much upheaval between parliament and the Londoners. The people of the city did not want certain members of parliament ruling over them and did not support the preceding oath upon entering office. The resolution was a crafty Monck who pretended to be a supportive member of Parliament until he sprung his plan on them and revolted against Parliament. This lead to a national settlement where eventually through much debated a free parliament was created. This then lead to the return of Charles II who stated that his goal was have free/general pardon, liberty to general consciences, and that parliament would decide land sales (Ashley 207). I believe that General Monck is similar to The Son in John Milton’s Paradise Lost. Both have been sent down to correct the sins/troubles of others. Monck and The Son both prevailed in the end. This shows that Milton was supportive of General Monck because he modeled his character after him.
Andrew Marvell was a poet and politician, making a name for himself at about the same time as John Milton. The two first came together when Marvell asked Milton to recommend him for a position with a Mr. John Bradshaw, and Milton obliged. At that point Milton was involved with the Interregnum and very highly regarded within the government. As John McWilliams writes in his critical essay on the relationship between Milton and Marvell, at that point the latter was still “dependent on the generosity of such men as Milton, Bradshaw, Oliver Cromwell, and Sir Thomas Fairfax for his living,” (McWilliams 159). However, Marvell slowly began to make his way through the rank and file of government; by the time of the Restoration he was not so high as to be prosecuted by the monarchy, but was able to place himself in the new Parliament without altogether renouncing his views and loyalties. When Milton was brought under charges of being complicit in the revolutionary ousting of Charles I, it was through Marvell speaking out in Parliament that Milton found leniency and extortionate fines which had been levied on him were dropped. As McWilliams writes, “In this period, then, and for the rest of Milton’s life, Marvell, as a member of Parliament, was the man with a certain amount of power and influence and Milton was not only relatively powerless but also was somewhat in Marvell’s debt for his personal liberty and safety,” (McWilliams, 160). Meanwhile, Milton continued writing against the tyrannous monarchy; many at the time believed “Paradise Lost” to be one such piece, for which Marvell was forced to defend him once again. But though this may have made theirs “a relationship that was variously fraught with envy, embarrassment, and the severest political pressure,” the last record we have regarding this relationship is a poetic homage to “Paradise Lost” written by Marvell. In the end, John Milton remains the better known figure, but that is thanks in large part to the determined efforts of Andrew Marvell to assist and protect his friend who advanced their mutually cherished ideas, just in a very different manner.
The parties involved in the fall of Parliament were the Whigs and Tories opposing the loyalists and the crown. There was a lot of confusion and chaos during this period from 1681-1682. Whigs and Tories contested their tactics and strategies in courts while loyalists and the crown vowed to change public opinion in their favor. Loyalists favored the crown and king and influenced urban and country reading “to encourage loyal address of thanks to the king for the Oxford dissolution and for his Declaration” (223). Milton incorporated some of the ideas from this fiasco into Paradise Lost. The fallen angels and Satan versus the good angels and God can be compared to the loyalists and crown opposing the Whigs and Tories. Either side could stand for the fallen ones or the good angels, however, Satan is often seen as a king himself and the language in the play depicts him as king-like. Because of all the chaos going on between Heaven and Hell, Milton uses this to stand for the connection to the political upheaval of different parties when Parliament fell during the Restoration.
In conclusion, we found that these four important people/groups not only had a strong impact on the Restoration time period, but also influenced Paradise Lost and its author.
Works Cited:
Ashley, Maurice. “15 The Restoration of Charles II.” General Monck.
London: Jonathan Cape, 1977. 192-210.
Davies, Godfrey. Essays on the Later Stuarts. San Marino, California: The Huntington Library, 1958.
De Krey, Gary S. “The contest for the city, 1681-1682: Introduction: The City without Parliament, 1681-1682.” London and the Restoration, 1659-1683. (2005): 221-225.
“Marvell and Milton's literary friendship reconsidered", John McWilliams,.
Our first person, Charles II, succeeded his father “by the inherent birthright and lawful and undoubted succession.” However, because of the fall of the British monarchy he didn’t rule until May of 1660. Most of his pre-reign life was spent out of England and in religious messes. Some of the places he spent time in where France, Brussels and Scotland. The religious messes he found himself in dealt with the Scottish. In order to gain their support, he had to accept their religion, Presbyterianism. By 1660, he was the king and he was not a fan of committees or councils. He eventually would form a committee that he promised he would listen to their suggestions. In my mind, Charles II could be compared to Satan. Satan, like Charles II, tried to find a way back to the throne in Heaven, or for Charles II the throne in London. As mentioned, Charles II did not go out of his way to form committees or seek other opinions from people. Satan is a similar person, as he does not approve of committees or seek much help. In the end, they both find one committee or council that they could trust. How much of this comparison Milton noticed, or if he even intended for Charles II to be like Satan, we may never know, but I do see a connection between the two.
General Monck is thought to be solely responsible for the return of Charles II. Through his plan to create a new and free parliament he won the affection of the city of London and was proclaimed commander-in-chief and General-at-Sea. His plan was to “re-establish a stable government” (Ashley 192), and he succeeded. There had been much upheaval between parliament and the Londoners. The people of the city did not want certain members of parliament ruling over them and did not support the preceding oath upon entering office. The resolution was a crafty Monck who pretended to be a supportive member of Parliament until he sprung his plan on them and revolted against Parliament. This lead to a national settlement where eventually through much debated a free parliament was created. This then lead to the return of Charles II who stated that his goal was have free/general pardon, liberty to general consciences, and that parliament would decide land sales (Ashley 207). I believe that General Monck is similar to The Son in John Milton’s Paradise Lost. Both have been sent down to correct the sins/troubles of others. Monck and The Son both prevailed in the end. This shows that Milton was supportive of General Monck because he modeled his character after him.
Andrew Marvell was a poet and politician, making a name for himself at about the same time as John Milton. The two first came together when Marvell asked Milton to recommend him for a position with a Mr. John Bradshaw, and Milton obliged. At that point Milton was involved with the Interregnum and very highly regarded within the government. As John McWilliams writes in his critical essay on the relationship between Milton and Marvell, at that point the latter was still “dependent on the generosity of such men as Milton, Bradshaw, Oliver Cromwell, and Sir Thomas Fairfax for his living,” (McWilliams 159). However, Marvell slowly began to make his way through the rank and file of government; by the time of the Restoration he was not so high as to be prosecuted by the monarchy, but was able to place himself in the new Parliament without altogether renouncing his views and loyalties. When Milton was brought under charges of being complicit in the revolutionary ousting of Charles I, it was through Marvell speaking out in Parliament that Milton found leniency and extortionate fines which had been levied on him were dropped. As McWilliams writes, “In this period, then, and for the rest of Milton’s life, Marvell, as a member of Parliament, was the man with a certain amount of power and influence and Milton was not only relatively powerless but also was somewhat in Marvell’s debt for his personal liberty and safety,” (McWilliams, 160). Meanwhile, Milton continued writing against the tyrannous monarchy; many at the time believed “Paradise Lost” to be one such piece, for which Marvell was forced to defend him once again. But though this may have made theirs “a relationship that was variously fraught with envy, embarrassment, and the severest political pressure,” the last record we have regarding this relationship is a poetic homage to “Paradise Lost” written by Marvell. In the end, John Milton remains the better known figure, but that is thanks in large part to the determined efforts of Andrew Marvell to assist and protect his friend who advanced their mutually cherished ideas, just in a very different manner.
The parties involved in the fall of Parliament were the Whigs and Tories opposing the loyalists and the crown. There was a lot of confusion and chaos during this period from 1681-1682. Whigs and Tories contested their tactics and strategies in courts while loyalists and the crown vowed to change public opinion in their favor. Loyalists favored the crown and king and influenced urban and country reading “to encourage loyal address of thanks to the king for the Oxford dissolution and for his Declaration” (223). Milton incorporated some of the ideas from this fiasco into Paradise Lost. The fallen angels and Satan versus the good angels and God can be compared to the loyalists and crown opposing the Whigs and Tories. Either side could stand for the fallen ones or the good angels, however, Satan is often seen as a king himself and the language in the play depicts him as king-like. Because of all the chaos going on between Heaven and Hell, Milton uses this to stand for the connection to the political upheaval of different parties when Parliament fell during the Restoration.
In conclusion, we found that these four important people/groups not only had a strong impact on the Restoration time period, but also influenced Paradise Lost and its author.
Works Cited:
Ashley, Maurice. “15 The Restoration of Charles II.” General Monck.
London: Jonathan Cape, 1977. 192-210.
Davies, Godfrey. Essays on the Later Stuarts. San Marino, California: The Huntington Library, 1958.
De Krey, Gary S. “The contest for the city, 1681-1682: Introduction: The City without Parliament, 1681-1682.” London and the Restoration, 1659-1683. (2005): 221-225.
“Marvell and Milton's literary friendship reconsidered", John McWilliams,