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:

"Adam could not but wept,
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)

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.

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 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.    

 

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 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 10^th 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.

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, .

Summary/Commentary on Restoration Article

My article is about the fight for London, and the city without Parliament during the Restoration from 1681-1682. This article shows just how hectic things were for London when Parliament fell and how opposition within and of parties came to be. The city seems to be in chaos, and the restoration is causing a political upheaval between parties. There is a quarrel between the crown and loyalists on one side, and the opposition on the other. Loyalists and the crown took on strategies to try to change public opinion in their favor and against opposition. Opposition to the loyalists and crown were parties called the Whigs and Tories. They contested in the courts about what to do about the Oxford Parliament, as well as to how to settle the national Protestant order. Ever since Parliament fell, we can see the changes and differences that occur between peoples. In September 1681, Narcissus Luttrell quoted “Ever since the dissolution of the last parliament, the press has abounded with pamphlets of all sorts…some, branding the two late parliaments, and standing very highly for the church; the other side defending the parliament, and cryeing up…the true protestant religion, and opposing a popish successor” (De Krey 223). Loyalists influenced urban and country reading particularly “to encourage loyal address of thanks to the king for the Oxford dissolution and for his Declaration” (223). Sir Roger L’Estrange’s Observator is the best known journal that combined the reporting of news with serious and satirical commentary. Other struggles that resulted from the fall of Parliament dealt with control of the law and courts, Episcopal Church versus the Protestant order, and a struggle about control of the institutions and offices of the Corporation. Loyalists and Whigs advocated “Presbyterian plot’ and Popish Plot, which was anti-Catholicism. The plots were aired in the legal sessions of London which became the principal political arena of the nation. Verdicts from these helped the Tory journalists in portraying the Whigs as advancing their interests at the expense of law and justice.


Works Cited:
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.

Article Summary

For a recent project we were assigned, in groups, a topic relating to John Milton and Paradise Lost, charged with individual writing a summary of an important journal article and then as a group address the larger topic. Our group was assigned the English Restoration, and I chose Andrew Marvell as my more specific individual topic. Marvell was a poet and politician, making a name for himself as a staunch defender of his friend John Milton as a member of the post-Restoration Parliament. It was thanks to Marvell that Milton was able to avoid harsh punishment for his support of Oliver Cromwell and the Interregnum Government the followed the ousting of King Charles I.

John McWilliams, a professor of early modern English literature who has taught at several universities in England, recently wrote a critical essay entitled "Marvell and Milton's literary friendship reconsidered." in which he questions the nature of the relationship between the two men. From the days when Milton first recommended Marvell for a job with John Bradshaw, the relationship was one which centered around which man had the power and reputation, and which man was in need of a leg up. In McWilliams' words, "As will prove perenially to be the case for Marvell and Milton, these kinds of difficult personal and political circumstances impinge upon an easy, mutually admiring friendship," which would last until Milton's death in 1674 (159).

After Marvell found work within the Interregnum government, he slowly worked his way up the rank and file to a position of relative power. However, "Marvell was, at this time in his career, dependent on the generosity of men such as Milton, Bradshaw, Oliver Cromwell, and Sir Thomas Fairfax for his living," until the monarch was restored on the wings of war (159). Marvell was no so high up as to be included among the many who were either executed or imprisoned for their support of Cromwell and the Interregnum, and yet he was able to position himself in such a way as to claim for himself a seat in the new Parliament. Milon was not so fortunate. As McWilliams reminds us, "Several of of Milton's close associates in the Interregnum government lost their lives or their liberty, and Milton had to go into hiding for a while," (160). When he eventually was captured and imprisoned, it was Marvell who campaigned for his release, and then for the hefty fines levied on him to be dropped.

Years later, as Milton appeared to be writing against the government with such works as Paradise Lost, it was Marvell once again who defended Milton in Parliament. He even wrote, "[John Milton] was, and is, a man of great Learning and Sharpness of wit as any man. It was his misfortune, living in a tumultuous time, to be toss'd on the wrong side, and he writ Flagrante bello certain dangerous Treatises," (162). Though McWilliams suggests that Milton was a source of perpetual embarassment for Marvell, the last word was one of friendship, and not resentment. Marvell wrote a poem entitled "On Paradise Lost" which is a stunning homage to Milton's epic masterpiece. Indeed, McWilliams spends several pages analyzing the language of "On Paradise Lost" and details the parallels between the two which show the deferential meaning in the poem from one friend to the other.

In the end, John Milton remains the better known figurem but that is thanks in large part to the determined efforts of Andrew Marvell to assist and protect his colleage who advanced their mutually cherished ideals but in a way uniquely his own.

("Marvell and Milton's literary friendship reconsidered", John McWilliams, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/studies_in_english_literature/v046/46.1mcwilliams.pdf)

Taking back the throne

(Instead of taking an in depth look at a portion of Paradise Lost, this post will focus on a portion of the book Essays on the Later Stuarts. In particular, it will focus on Charles II, the first monarch to follow Oliver Cromwell's rule.)

"Charles the Second by the grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defneder of the Faith, &c." or simply put Charles II, finally gained his rightful place on the throne in May of 1660. Like all monarchs, he had to wait his turn to take the throne, but his wait was very different from theirs.

Because of the fall of the British monarch, the beheading of Charles II's father Charles I and the rule of Cromwell, Charles II waited eleven years between succeeding his father and actually taking the throne. Seeing that his father was not a popular figure in England, he spent those eleven years, along with three previous years, in other countries.

An interesting topic that appears regularly is Charles II's religion; what it was, was he faithful to it. He was born an Anglican, forced to accept Presbyterianism and then accepted as a Roman Catholic upon death.
This should probably be taken one religion at a time.
As the prince, he was naturally born into and raised in the Church of England. However, later in life before becoming king, he sought the help of Scotland, as Presbyerian country. Before Scotland would side with him, he had to accept their religious covenants, or state that he believes their religion. Later when he did reign as king, many people could notice behaviors that led them to believe Charles II would switch to the Roman Catholic faith. He wanted Catholics in England to be tolerated, meanwhile he was caught napping during many Anglican services. He never publically stated what he truly believed in beyond God. Finally, on the day of his death, he was accepted into the Catholic Church.

Charles exhibited many other interesting characteristics either as the king or in his personal life. He certainly had no problems in having a good time as he was a ladies man and enjoyed his share of alcohol. As the king, he was not quick to trust councils or committees and had been known to persuade the House of Commons with bribs.

In many aspects, Charles II, King of England was interesting man who had difficulties gaining the title that was his by birth.




Davies, Godfrey. Essays on the Later Stuarts. San Marino, California: The Huntington Library, 1958.