Righteous Hypocrite

It's been so interesting to see how Milton uses rhetoric implicitly as well as explicitly to get on the good side of his audience. In his first Prolusion he even goes as far as to state the rules:

It is a frequent maxim of the most eminent masters of rhetoric, as you know well, Members of the University, that in every style of oration, whether demonstrative, deliberative, or judicial, the speaker must begin by winning the good will of his audience; without it he cannot make any impression upon them, nor succeed as he would wish in his cause. If this be so (and, to tell the truth, I know that the learned are all agreed in regarding it as an established axiom), how unfortunate I am and to what a pass am I brought this day. At the very outset of my oration I fear I shall have to say something contrary to all the rules of oratory and be forced to depart from the first and chief duty of an orator. For how can I hope for your good-will, when in all this great assembly I encounter none but hostile glances, so that my task seems to be to placate the implacable?

In expressing that he is more humble than those who have the fortune to win their audience, he does not patronize his audience, therefore, ironically, winning their trust. It is Milton's use of what he outwardly condemns that I feel completely characterizes him as one of the greatest authors of all time. It is this characteristic that leads me to the question, is Milton's condemnation of what he uses hypocrisy if it is for a "righteous" cause?

Melancholy and Mirth, Opposition and Assimilation

I love the duality of Melancholy and Mirth that Milton so beautifully displays in his poems, "L'allegro" and "Il Penseroso." The two ideas are so opposing in definition, but the two poems also have similarities. Both are steeped in a very intense emotion, both talk of similar things, but see them in different light. This beautiful opposition shows Milton's ability to take two opposing elements, and while he showcases their differences, he also finds ways to blend their similarities together. 

For example, Melancholy and Mirth are against each other, but don’t seem to show extensive animosity. The two poems acknowledge the other, then reject them, preferring their own way of life to follow. It’s very interesting for Milton to write two poems, displaying both sides to two very different ways of life. In a strange way, it works.  They are different but they are also similar and they work together to provide a set of poems that both oppose and complement each other. He does this by making the form the same for both poems. An example of this is that in each poem, there's the acknowledgment and rejection of the other poem, the invocation of the muse, the description of that way of life, then the invocation of the muse. Both follow the same "storyline" and both talk about their way of life that brings, in their opinion, true happiness.

I believe that Milton is talking about happiness itself, by bringing together these two poems of extreme opposing forms of true happiness. Perhaps, according to Milton, both are right and both are wrong. It's that duality that I'm learning to love in Milton.