Which key?: Unlocking Milton (social proof and scholarship)

I don’t think I have ever been more satisfied with a research paper in my whole career of paper writing! Maybe its because I had it almost entirely done a full day before it was due or because my ideas had had plenty of conversation and percolation. I actually managed to get to the point where I was in control of the paper rather than the paper in control of me.

The Milton controversy with Christianity and paganism was something we talked about from the beginning of the course. My blog posts pretty well document the progression of my idea itself (first here, then here and here). I initially thought I would focus on what kind of Christ Milton was depicting and why. But research, interviewing with Dr. Burton, and some of your suggestions led me more in the direction of why the use and then rejection of classical allusions and just letting the Christ and Christianity aspect work itself in.

The social proof aspect was what I think really made this project for me. Realizing that anyone could be a potential help, even if its just that I am able to reach a higher plane in talking with them made it exciting. I bounced ideas off of my husband, was super helpful in that regard. We so often assume people won’t be interested that we don’t say anything. (But really, we are writing the paper so that people will be interested, right? And if we hope to publish we need people to be interested.)
Another cool moment (that didn’t even hit me till right now) was actually in talking with my mother-in-law. In passing she asked what my paper was about, while I was working on it and I started to go through my thoughts. We had a nice little conversation about it, about Christ and classical learning, etc. What I had forgotten was that she was born and raised in the Catholic church before she became a member of the LDS faith and so had more of a background in to Milton’s world and what he was dealing with than I ever will. As it was, our brief talk helped me start to think more along the lines of what of Milton’s environment would have lead him to write what he did.

I started to get a little anxious-crazy when I realized I had a question and a good start on research but not really an answer. My vital claim was missing. Turning to the text in an in-depth effort to locate the bits and pieces I had been finding in my research cleared this up for me. The text sparked my question and after a look at what was going on, gaining an understanding of the pertinent background other than my own limited one, my answering could be found by returning to the text.

It’s like finding a lock and searching the whole house for the key. Once you’ve found a couple likely ones you can’t remember exactly what the lock looks like and so you have to take them all back to see which one fits.

Milton's Paradox: Justifying Classical Allusions

Whoa, I missed the memo we were posting these on here;] So here's mine!

Social Proof Update!

So this was my email to Professor Insalaco and here is her response.

Elise,

Erasmus is a very good place to start, especially his work on the Praise of Folly. He employs a lot of classical allusions in that piece, as well as some allusions to the comedia del arte that was popular in the Italian middle ages and Renaissance. The mixing of those two tends also leads one to think of the passion plays that were also popular at that time. So, Erasmus definitely relies on both the Bible and the mythological tradition in his writing, using it to defend the Church.

I would also look at Montaigne's Essays. Although he leans more heavily on Classical models, he also combines Biblical and Classical references. He is interesting because his education was almost entirely humanistic, with little influence of the Church, which was rare at that time in France. So, he is at one extreme of the spectrum.

Another author is Thomas More and his Utopia. Many of the practices of the Utopian society can be seen in the Spartans of Greece. Again, his allusions are mainly Classical, but the story is being retold by Raphael Hythloday, so there are overtones of Christianity in his work. However, the Utopian society's religion, or lack thereof, is certainly far from Christianity. Although More's work is more Classical than Christian, More himself was a devout defender of the faith.

I would also look at some of the art at the time. Michelangelo's paintings of the Sistine Chapel are very interesting since they combine Classical and Biblical allusions simultaneously. He paints Sibyls next to Biblical prophets on the pendants of the ceiling. Moreover, Michelangelo paints many of his figures like Greek and Roman gods and goddesses in ancient statues. Also in the Vatican is a famous painting of the School of Athens by Raphael. Here there are no Biblical references, only pagan philosophers engaged in teaching and learning. Interesting that this painting appears in a chapel in the Vatican where Christian theologians were teaching, learning, studying and influencing Christian doctrine.

This topic is complex since there are no cut or dry answers. These artists and authors were mainly devout Christians who had studied the Classics and appreciated the ancient ideas. They also realized that art and literature have languages all their own. Much of that artistic language uses pagan symbols to convey ideas, even if they are Christian ideas.

Offhand I cannot think of anyone who is an authority on that subject, but a good place to start would actually be C.S. Lewis. His scholarly works cover the time period that you are talking about and he himself was a Christian dealing with the pagan tradition. I know that Bruce Young in the English department has done a lot of work on C.S. Lewis and Christian themes in English literature in general. I would contact him as well.

Good luck!

Sister Insalaco

And a second email a little bit later...

Elise,

I just looked at my copy of the Praise of Folly, and I found some authors who are experts on humanism during that time period. I would research the writings of Robert M. Adams as well as Paul Oskar Kristeller. Mikhail Bakhtin may also have some research on your topic as well.

Hope that helps!

Sister Insalaco

Not all of this will work into my paper as I'm focusing on Milton but having ideas and examples from other people will definitely help to back my argument!

Social Proof Efforts, pt. 1

Social Proof thus far:

Annotated Bibliography: Research Process

As I am researching more and more I’m beginning to think that maybe I’m not going deep enough. In addition to the thesis below I’ve been gathering information specifically regarding Milton’s deviation from traditional methods, and perchance utilizing these deviations to point out Christ’s superiority (meaning c. The thesis below is still bumbling but it isn’t as long. Is it too general? Too narrow? 

Working Thesis #2: Although Milton’s heavy use of classical pagan allusions can be a cause of confusion as far as his Christian directives, Milton is further defining his divine calling that they are a means to an end, that end being a personal understanding and relationship with Christ as the pinnacle of all learning. As demonstrated in Christ’s rebuttal of classical scholarship in “Paradise Regained."

Christ vs. Classical Learning: Milton's Divine Calling

Working Thesis: Milton’s use of classical allusions throughout his works and then refutal of them through Christ in “Paradise Regained” is in order to establish the view of Christ as the pinnacle of intellectual learning. We learn of all these things (Milton's upbringing and classical training), we copy them, imitate their works, trying to perfect them when in reality the image of perfection we should be striving for is Christ. Don’t let the copia and of these secular/classical writers get in the way. They are a means to an end. And Christ/Christianity (in its truest form) is that end. 
(It is big, bumbling, and wordy but it gets the point across which is what I am most concerned about currently.)

Milton bends these traditions - by writing Paradise Lost as an epic, but turning it away from the traditional, pagan stories. In fact, he uses those stories to further his divine cause, to expand understanding of God and Christ.
Milton is using what people are familiar with in order to relay something new. Traditional forms but new content. Higher, elevated content. Christianity. 
He is rendering into "common tongue” (of the time period, what people are familiar with.)  

Milton’s sense of divine calling - it begins as an effort to justify the ways of God to man, Milton begins to realize that in order to justify these things we need to understand the nature of Christ. This explanation would qualify the disparity of characteristic between Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained. In Paradise Lost we are sucked into as Hillier describes "Milton’s Christocentric universe, charged with the Son’s grandeur.” The Son is treated with an awe-like deference. In Paradise Regained he becomes a person, a man, albeit an elevated one, but with a personality, characteristics, someone we could come to know. People care about him (Andrew & Simon, Mary.) And demons fear him (Satan…the other demons.) And that knowing, that coming to understand Him is what Milton feels he is called to call us to do.

What does this mean for all of those classical allusions?

Following the grapevine

On the Milton Society of America's webpage they have a page of recent or in-progress publications which I thought was interesting and quite helpful! Not only does it have the latest on Milton academia but also the latest scholars working on it. I found a couple articles that have been recently published as well as some that are still forthcoming. I jotted down the names of the authors to look them up and maybe try talking to them! If you're stuck and/or looking for people and information I would suggest taking a glance.

Milton: Classical Philosophers vs. Christ...or Lacking an angle

Shorter post, I am still trying to pick a research topic. Slow I know, but I also know the consequences of picking a hasty, malformed one and that is positively torture!

One thing I've really been interested in the whole time is Milton's classical allusions. I might be more excited about them because I've recently taken a class where we have read from a lot of what Milton references so I actually get some of the allusions!

That is where I've gotten a wee bit stuck because what do I argue beyond the obvious? Yep, Milton uses classical allusions. A lot. In nearly every single one of his works. Huge, broad, ugly paper.
But then, I finished reading Paradise Regained and this passage through me for a loop.

[Satan long blurb going on and on about ancient and classical philosophers...]

To whom our Savior sagely thus replied.
"Think not but that I know these things, or think
I know them not; not therefore am I short
Of knowing what I ought: he who receives
Light from above, from the fountain of light,
No other doctrine needs, though granted true;
But these are false, or little else but dreams,
Conjectures, fancies, built on nothing firm.
The first and wisest of them all professed
To know this only, that he nothing knew;
the next to fabling fell and smooth conceits,
A third sort doubted all things, though plain sense...
For all his tedious talk is but vain boast, 
Or subtle shifts conviction to evade.
Alas what can they teach, and not mislead;
Ignorant of themselves, of God much more,
And how the world began, and how man fell
Degraded by himself, on grace depending?"
(IV.287-296, 307-312)

(it goes on for a bit more along the same vein.)
Within the context of the Christ and Satan discussion this makes some sort of sense to me. But when you think about Milton saying it, what does that mean? If there is anyone who loves classical philosophers and connections it is Milton. To say these are "false or little else but dreams" seems to be cutting down/undermining all that Milton has previously written about.
Still working on it...any thoughts?

Provoking thoughts

This is the Socrates dialogue (Plato's Crito) I made mention of in Monday's class. If you have 20 minutes or so to kill I would suggest reading it if you haven't already. Not only is a great example of what it might have been like to talk to Socrates, it was brought to my mind as I read the prison scene with Samson and his father. Samson and Socrates are both incarcerated and when presented with deliverance choose to remain where they are and face whatever end is coming, explaining their reasoning to their hopeful deliverers.

The point in class I was bringing up was the distinct difference between the presence of God in Plato's piece versus Milton's, or Socrates deference to God vs. Samson's deference to God. Socrates is very much about devotion to the state and abiding by the rules that have been set forth (though I'm pretty sure that Socrates wasn't exactly guilty of what he was charged...I could be wrong though). Samson does the same not in consideration of the state and government but to the rules and mandates of God (unfortunately for him in retrospect of his disobedience).

But when I was looking for a copy of Crito to link to I happened to scroll down to the very last line. And it threw me and my original assumption a bit. It is as follows...

             Crito: I have nothing to say, Socrates. 
             Socrates: Then let me follow the intimations of the will of God. 

I'm still not sure what to make of it. I still stand by my point but I wanted to give Socrates credit for not completely disregarding deity.
I know it is off topic, but if you guys have any thoughts or explanations I'd be interested. So far what I have found is that Socrates' religious orientation was labeled as "western philosophy." What does that mean? What god is he referring to? It is definitely singular. Just questions and questions:]

"For inferior who is free?"

Paper! (It was hard to fit all I wanted to in the 3-4 pages...potential research paper topic?) The argument seemed to develop in different directions as I wrote and fleshed out what evidence I had gathered. I actually am really excited about maybe using this as a research paper topic, simply because I feel I wasn't able to do justice to what I was trying to say in these pages (probably a good indicator that I need to be less wordy and more to the point) and because there were some really interesting ideas that hit me that I would like to explore! And rather discomfiting at times to be jumping all across an event that I hold so sacred in order to argue someone else's view of it. (That really doesn't represent mine.) But thats the joy of English and literary analysis, isn't it?

Why is censorship integral to Milton's depiction of the Fall of Adam and Eve? Click here to find out!

Pre-write! Censorship and the Fall of Adam and Eve

Working Thesis:
Milton utilizes his points established in Areopagitica to orchestrate the action in Paradise Lost in order to suggest that censorship is the cause of the Fall of Adam and Eve. (in order to further his point that censorship really stinks).

[I've been reworking and narrowing my thesis a bit. What do you think? Too broad? Too narrow? Too vague? Not worded well? Just right?] I'll obviously dress the last parenthetical part up a bit but is adding that giving me too much to chew in just a 3-4 page paper?

[Interesting Intro]
[Common Ground] (Milton is depicting the story of the Creation and Fall of Mankind because he wants to write the "English Epic" for the sake of glory, honor, tradition, etc.)
[Disrupting the Common Ground] While this is true, Milton also uses Paradise Lost as a narrative platform to demonstrate the points he has attempted to refute within society. I claim that Milton is making the claim that censorship is the root of the cause of the Fall. (in order to further his point that censorship really stinks).
[Support/Explain]
 - Areopagitica - major points, especially the pieces that have the most significance to what happens in the Garden
 - Raphael, Adam, and Eve - where does censorship occur? (pick one or two instances, the most significant ones that you think are what lead to the Fall! You don't have enough room for them all.)
 - Why do these instances necessarily lead to the Fall/how are they related to what Milton was arguing for in Areopagitica?
[Conclusion]

Pointing Fingers: "The Doctrine of Responsibility"

It shouldn't be surprising that there are times while reading Paradise Lost and while discussing the story of the Fall in general that I have been affronted/offended/indignant of the blame and inherent sin that is associated with Eve and the rest of the female sex. I don't think I have to label myself as a feminist to resent that smear for simply being born with the sensibilities of a woman.

So it wasn't Eve's fault that humanity fell?

Well, I don't think it is fair to put the entirety of the blame on Eve. When someone makes a big mistake what do we look at to figure out why? Their background, their understanding, their environment, their influences, and their relationships.

It was Adam's fault, then? 

Some see it that way. "Dennis Burden cogently argues that Milton would not allow so important an event as the fall to occur under circumstance arrived at only by chance...To exercise independent choice, says Burden, is a liberty improper to woman." He argues that it was actually Adam's fault that Eve ate the fruit because with his higher intellectual reasoning power should not have given into her passion and weaker intellect.
Frankly, I resent that argument, too.

Accidental or Purposeful Action: Sacrifices for the Greater Good

I feel so clever that I came up with that meme all on my own;] First one ever! Not that that is necessarily something to be proud of...but I feel in context of Milton it is the "one job to do" of all "one job to do"'s.

This particular conundrum is actually one of the main reasons I decided to take the Milton course. I think this little seeming paradox is fascinating. God told them to be fruitful and multiply but told them not to eat the fruit...which in our LDS faith we generally believe is what gives them the knowledge of how to do that ("plenishing" the earth I mean). Milton's account obviously depicts differently.In fact, it is pretty evident from the text that Adam and Eve fully expect other people to join them.

Two men, justifying the ways of God to man

"The grassy clods now calved, now half appeared

The tawny lion, pawing to get free

His hinder parts, then springs as broke from bonds,

And rampant shakes his brinded main...

"...the swift stag from under ground 

Bore up his branching head: scarce from his mold

Behemoth biggest born of earth upheaved

His vastness"

(excerpts from "Paradise Lost," Location 18139).

The images of the creatures being born from the "womb" of the earth reminded me so much of the scene from C.S. Lewis's "The Magician's Nephew" as the land of Narnia is being created and Aslan is bringing into being the animals.

After this the comparisons and similarities started popping out at me. So I read a bio on C.S. Lewis (thank you Wikipedia) and connections seemed to start flying all over the place!

So I made this. Most of them aren't direct comparisons. Just general thoughts that occurred to me as I looked them up.

I promise I didn't put a filter on it...even though it looks like I did;] Click to enlarge.

Will C.S. Lewis be included as a Major Authors course option in another couple hundred years or so?

The Heralds: Those That Go Before

Milton was extremely self-motivated. Or he just thought very highly of himself and had the brains to support it. When something bothers him - he addresses it. Me, I might be bothered but I usually think "ahh, it will work itself out. Or someone else will address it." or "It doesn't really bother me that much, right?" Milton is like a…non-profit activist for the public good…and about issues and rights you didn't know you wanted or were entitled to have/you'd never even contemplated before! I'm not saying Milton wasn't influential - but I do think his works, words, and efforts probably have a more lasting/significant impact for change and at the forming of America as well as the revolutions of America and France (as stated in the introduction.)

This quote exemplifies and deepens this point…


"But the importance of Milton's pamphlet is not to be measured by its effect on the political situation which was its immediate occasion. In his enthusiasm for liberty, the master passion of his life, he rose far above the politics of the hour; and the "Areopagitica" holds its supremacy among his prose writings by virtue of its appeal to fundamental principles, and its triumphant assertion of the faith that all that truth needs to assure its victory over error is a fair field and no favor."

When I started contemplating this post…I had one mindset. Of Milton oftentimes being a hyperactive lobbyist for human rights. Which may still in part be true. But another thought and subsequent example came to my mind that altered my thinking. Milton believed he had a calling in life to create some great work. [We discussed this one time in class and someone mentioned it, if you can recall]. His religiosity and belief in man's capabilities (humanism, etc.) just added to this idea. Milton believed he had some commission to complete, per God's command, and his continual writings are just him trying to figure that out. The release of Areopagitica was not a glorious reception, as we've discussed. Who knew that his writings would one day influence our founding fathers and shape key ideas within the Constitution of the United State of America.

the downward spiral

As we read Areopagitica we were prompted to look beyond the obvious notion that Milton is refuting the censoring and licensing of written text. So that is how I've been reading it. And what I've found so far (in the first half) is quite intriguing...and a little bit scary.

Milton is making the case, that is to say, he is more concerned with what will happen to the government and state as a result of censoring books than he is at the fact that his books will need to be censored and licensed (although he has a major beef with that.) He is afraid of what it will lead to. It's apparent through his other writings that Milton is good at extrapolating and coming up with potential projections of his ideas. And his projection, coupled with past examples, is not a great one. 

He brings up examples to illustrate his point citing the latter reign of Rome ("From hence we shall meet with little else but tyranny in the Roman Empire, that we may not marvel, if not so often bad as good books were silenced"), the Roman Catholic Inquisition, as well as an offshoot, the Spanish Inquisition, ("but from the most anti-christian council and the most tyranneous inquisition that ever inquired.")

In a way, it's similar to how some people are looking at the government in the U.S. now. Milton saw tendencies and recursions to past institutions that either ended badly or were from the start, corrupt. Some today claim/fear that the current government is okay with ideas that were held in regimes past that are very un-American and exactly what our forefathers fought so dearly to protect. And we can see the outcries from those that are watching and paying attention (I don't claim to be one - though I am trying to find my niche in it all.) 

Milton knows history - there is no denying that - and while at the first, most accessible level, it might be a treatise demanding freedom of speech (or the freedom to let speech be "tried" by the public) it is really a warning and command to stop before the path is too far tread they lose what they have been fighting so hard to attain. 

Separation of Church and State

It is obvious that during the reign of the Tudors and Stuarts and others throughout this time period separation of Church and State was not in effect. Not really a hint of an idea really. It hit me sitting in class, how strange that would be. To have the person who advised me on my spiritual matters and personal beliefs also in charge of the raising and lowering of my taxes…what a strange world that would be. Granted, that would work if said ruler was perfect, equally just and merciful but taking a look at old Eddie, Lizzy, and Queen Mary herself…they are far from it. 
How would it feel to be under the rule of a religious leader that used their political power to sentence to death hundreds of people based on their religious views ("Mary Bloody Mary")? And then the next day show up to church and tell you that God in Heaven commands us to be good and keep the commandments. It's not difficult to see that someone as determinedly advocating freedom as Milton did would have some serious issues. Sometimes in the past people have been okay with this, for instance, the notion during the beginnings of the Roman Empire that nothing was so important as the perpetuation of the state of Rome.

The Pantheon in Rome, Italy

If obstacles arose any action was fair game as long as Rome came out on top. And everyone was just fine with it. One difference, I should mention, is that these people refused to be subjected to kings (instead they eventually vested this power to emperors that they all pretended didn't hold supreme power over them. Interesting tidbit: according to my Classical Traditions professor you could walk up to a Roman citizen when Caesar Augustus conducted the Roman Empire and he would declare that he was a free citizen in the republic of Rome. So crazy!) 
Anyway, I think it is more important to contemplate that while Milton is pushing more radical ideas (Eikonoklastes, accrediting regicide, reformation in general) his ultimate goal is to create a platform for freedom. Freedom from the arbitrary decisions of a corrupt and/or very hard-of-hearing monarch. 

Has not freedom been the cry of people for thousands and thousands of years? Milton is laying more bricks in effort to continue building the "pantheon" of freedom. 

Questions: Is it fair or plausible to boil Milton's arguments down to simply a cry for freedom? Do you think that Milton is at all suggesting a separation between church and state? 

|n e o l o g i s m s|

{I should have written this post when the ideas were flowing fast or, as Milton would say, when the Muse was upon me but I didn't. It makes me much more appreciative of why Milton and others would invoke the "Heavenly Muse" because writing without it is stinkin' hard! I think it must be simply a state of mind but it feels as if every word as it flows from my brain, down the veins of my arms, and out of my fingertips has been turned to something akin to molasses instead of the liquidity of hemophiliac blood. (Igh…that metaphor felt gross to write.) Regardless, here it goes.}

The introduction to "Of Reformation" conveyed that Milton was not the most wonderful of intellectual prose writers when he first began..."Long, convoluted, and sometimes broken sentences make this the most difficult of Milton's prose works to read in unmodernized form (even here, with sentences repunctuated and often divided, some difficulty remains)"..."He unleashes a torrent of graphic images suggesting the bestial nature of the bishops and the disease and deformity they have inflicted upon a once pure church." It wasn't until later that "…Milton moved toward a more functional, readable style, more sparing of imagery and neologisms."
Neologisms!! (had no idea what that meant - except maybe something along the lines of "new") 
According to the New Oxford American Dictionary (linked to in the Kindle text) a neologism is "a newly coined word or expression."
I have taken to, as I've been reading, highlighting the most outlandish, odd, l o n g, unknown, and/or perfectly-placed words that Milton uses. So this little nugget of information was especially intriguing to me. (Meaning it gave relevance to the little nit-picky things I've been doing;) It turns out that Milton (according to John Crace) has created, invented around 630 words in the English language. 630 words!!



Milton was living in a time where word-creation was widespread due to the fact that English was still being coalesced. Usually the words were formed from a combination of French and Latin which a majority of other people would be able to understand. What is significant about Milton is that while many people were making up words, his were the ones that stuck.

  [examples: liturgical, debauchery, besottedly, unhealthily, padlock, dismissive, terrific, embellishing, fragrance, didactic, love-lorn, complacency, pandemonium, sensuous…]

I think the reason why I found this information so fascinating is I find myself wanting to make up words and creating "convoluted" metaphors as I write…and I always delay over whether I should let people puzzle out my genius or avoid seeming ridiculously illiterate. Problems, problems. There is a certain level of confidence, clout, experience, and intelligence necessary to make up word now that English has been codified. Finally, Crace claims that Milton's freedom and ability with language and words is directly related to his beliefs and perpetuation of "personal, political, and religious freedoms." What do you think? How would Milton's beliefs in the above freedoms relate to his ability/propensity to create words?


Crace, John. "G2: Shortcuts: John Milton - our Greatest Word-Maker." The Guardian: 3. Jan 28 2008. ProQuest. Web. 7 Oct. 2013 <http://search.proquest.com/docview/244177796?accountid=4488>.

The War in Heaven (in which I use far too many parentheticals)

I mentioned the other day on Google+ that I'm a Brandon Sanderson fan and he just put a new book out. Well, I spent the last 6 hours or so devouring it in between classes (I managed to save myself from at least 3 curbs and one trashcan), during breaks at work, and as I cooked dinner. (Maybe I should be doing this with our PL reading...) I finished it! Wonderful book, very intriguing.
Before I'd read it, I had gotten the notion that the people that were fighting in the book were invincible. Turns out its the bad guys that are nearly invincible (each has one weakness that can be exploited but generally only they know what it is) and the humans have some nifty gadgets and ways to protect themselves but will go down in a fight just like the rest of us. Despite the fact that it wasn't an epic battle between immortals (Ha! I made another pun! Though, unfortunately, you won't get it unless you read the book...I hate when people do that. Sorry for the anti-climatic moment;) my thoughts were thrown to the the War in Heaven that Raphael is describing.
We've talked about how this concept is kind of ridiculous. Angels that can't die wailing on each other with enormous two-squadron destroying swords and molten-rock spitting cannons? Someone's been hitting the laudanum a little bit harder than they should for that gout...

I thought this depiction was interesting because
 Satan is portrayed as a dragon. Yikes!
Not exactly the image I got while reading.
But seriously, check out the sword.

But after poking around, it turns out that Milton's ideas aren't drug induced at all, in fact, according to Jason P. Rosenblatt, Milton extracted pieces of the battle from the Old Testament, mainly, Exodus and the Johannine texts (which I discovered are the epistles of John and the Book of Revelations). Milton even used particular verses that can apparently be picked out as one reads Book VI (though Rosenblatt emphasizes that they are taken from the sporadic and diverse verses from Revelations.)
Milton is writing an epic, he's got to have a book dedicated to describing a battle. It would hardly be an epic without one. Remember he's working from pieces like The Iliad, The Odyssey, and The Aeneid. Good battle scenes are a staple. Milton acknowledges the disconnect "though strange to us it seemed/ At first, that angel should with angel war..." but after looking at what Milton had to work with, this seemed like a good depiction to him (PL.VI.91-92). I doubt this section was intended to be comic relief.



Structural Unity and Temporal Concordance: The War in Heaven in Paradise Lost
Jason P. Rosenblatt PMLA  Vol. 87, No. 1 (Jan., 1972), pp. 31-41 Published by: Modern Language Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/460782

|t r u t h b e n t| or Satan: all in one and one in all

There is a lot to say about Milton's depiction of those darn devils. I think its interesting that Milton uses rhetoric with them, in their speeches and claims as to what should be done, but a lot of times their rhetoric and persuasions are contradictory. For instance when Moloch is speaking, he is lauding that they should rally and attempt to regain Heaven again whether they won or were completely destroyed, that Moloch "rather than be less, cared not to be at all" (l.47-48).

Moloch's POV reminds me a lot of the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon and how they twisted history to better fit and justify what they wanted to do. Look at what you did to us! This was definitely not our fault so we're going to make life as miserable as we can for your people and drag as many of you down with us as possible. Not to mention, hold a grudge for all eternity. And yet just shortly after Moloch's spiel, Belial stands up and says referring to the end of their war, "What when we fled amain...and besought the deep to shelter us?" l.165-167. So in one instance they were thrust down to Hell and another they fled headlong to its "sheltering" darkness.

Things start to get messy when it is like this - with the different representations we begin to lose sight of what is truth and lead ourselves to believe that everything is relative and subject to what we personally want or feel we deserve (as with the Lamanites, as with the devils, as with humanity a whole lot of the time.)

After noting these things and continuing to wonder, the daily inspiring quote I receive from lds.org pinged in my inbox and, honest to goodness, this is what it said. 

"We believe in absolute truth, including the existence of God and the right and wrong established by His commandments. ... We also know that evil exists and that some things are simply, seriously, and everlastingly wrong." Elder Dallin H. Oaks

If that doesn't lay out what we believe and where Satan is wrong, I don't know what does. So what is Milton's point?