I notice some unintentional irony in the exchange from lines 540 - 594. Adam tells Raphael that he knows Eve is his inferior in mental abilities, but whenever he sees her, reason and wisdom desert him. Raphael replies that Adam shouldn't blame nature but should be guided by wisdom to love his wife but not be ruled by passion. The irony is, that that both Eve and and Wisdom are in the feminine - Raphael speaking of both in the feminine pronoun actually creates a bit of confusion in the reader's mind, requiring a second reading - yet Milton insists the woman is naturally, pre-fall, the inferior of the man in wisdom.
Angels enjoying "whatever pure in the body thou enjoyest" raises an eyebrow. We know Jesus said that angels neither marry nor are given in marriage (Matthew 22:30). I suppose it could be said that rules regarding intimate union on earth are different than rules in heaven, but I doubt it. To quote G. K. Chesterton, "Reason and justice grip the loneliest star... On plains of opal, under cliffs cut out of pearl, you would still find a notice-board, "'Thou shalt not steal.'" (from The Blue Cross).
That is so well seen and articulated, Holly. I have read that Wisdom is personified as a woman in the Hebrew tradition because the Hebrew word is feminine (in the grammatical not the sexual sense). I am not sure if that is the only reason. But Milton certainly does more than that here in his personification of Wisdom (which by now follows a long tradition).
Since there were also be no marriage in heaven, I imagine the kind of union Milton has Raphael describes is something that transcends physical/sexual. The metaphorical layers of meaning of words like "consummation," "union," and even "marriage" itself remind us that God uses metaphors like this to help us understand (though I don't think we can fully now) what our eternal life with him will be like.
Yes, the Hebrew word for Wisdom is in the feminine. But the book of Proverbs goes to great lengths to develop the feminine-gendered word into Wisdom personified as a woman. Proverbs begins with contrasting the the choice between personified images of lady Wisdom vs. Folly, ends with the praise of the virtuous woman, and in the middle states, 'every wise woman builds her house, but the foolish pluck it down with their hands (Proverbs 14:1). Recall the 'wise-hearted' (KJV) women who wove and spun for the Tabernacle (Exodus 35:25-26), the wise woman Joab asks to help David and Absalom reconcile (II Samuel 14), and the wise woman who saved her city from destruction (II Samuel 20). And those are the unnamed wise women of Hebrew literature - we could add Rahab, Deborah, Jael, Ruth, Abigail and many others to that list. So I don't think the personification of Wisdom as a woman in Hebrew poetry is purely based on an accident of grammar.
On the point about the angelic union not being about sex, I would say marriage is not about sex. Sex in marriage is meant to be the outward physical expression of a much deeper union. True, much of human history has treated marriage as a social tool for reproduction, the getting of property, and the satiation of physical drives, but that was not its primary purpose in the Garden. Adam didn't just need a sexual partner, he needed someone like him, to work alongside him, to fellowship with, to be his equal everything. Milton is blinkered to that fact, pointedly insisting Eve was not given as great a dominion over Creation as Adam was, although Genesis makes no such distinction (Milton's Adam is alone when he is given dominion - the language of Genesis 1 indicates God spoke to both of them).
But the angels are a different order of being than humans. They are created 'ministering spirits' (Hebrews 1:14), each appearing to have a set purpose. Gabriel, for instance, is a messenger. The Seraphims' purpose is to circle the throne of God continuously, calling, 'Holy, holy, holy". My pastor once preached on Isaiah's vision of the Seraphim, saying the text indicates that they are constantly circling in utter awe, calling to each other spontaneously, 'Holy', as if it is new to them each time they say it. I would suggest the Seraphim need no other union than that which they experience attending the throne of God. Angels are fulfilled when they serve their created purpose. Similarly, humans in the Resurrection will not need marriage because we will be wedded to Jesus Christ. We will be complete, in a way Adam was not when he was naming the animals, in a way we cannot be, even if married, in this fallen world. Angels are already in that completed realm.
I agree marriage is not about sex. Sexual difference and union is simply how God chose for his image bearers to be multiplied. The union in heaven will be not about that either. I agree that Milton is blind to these aspects that you point out. I'm still amused and delighted that Adam asks Raphael this question and Milton chooses to have Raphael provide a kind of non-answer. I'm not sure if Milton's portrayal is more about Adam than about the angels.
I definitely agree that the personification of Wisdom as a woman is more than an accident of grammar. But I think the Bible ultimately portrays wisdom as a human virtue (as with Solomon) that transcends sex. (Unlike Milton, perhaps!)
These questions and concerns demonstrate careful reading! One consideration when thinking through such topics is that the human view of sex is mostly impoverished; even for many Christians—who worship an incarnate God— sex is carnal and therefore fallen. It is less "pure" than other forms of union, because we have a tendency to look down on physicality. (This is largely, but not only, pagan influence.)
Yet sex is at core pleasurable physical union, and Milton praises it as such in Bk4. Since creation in PL exists on a spectrum of material-to-spiritual, and we will all return to spirit in God, it is only natural that angels (who are *material* creatures, though closer in gradient to spirit) have physical pleasurable union, the same way they dance and enjoy feast. Milton (not me) would probably say that marriage as an institution formalizes the bonds of spiritual and emotional unity between people; in heaven, this a given. As such, Dr. Prior is probably right that M is describing that physical union as something different and superior to what we think of sex on earth.
There is something very interesting about the way that Adam asks God for an equal and then calls her “the inferior, in the mind and inward qualities,” holding less exactly the image of God. He claims it is her beauty, her outward qualities, that make her will seem (falsely) to be “wisest, discreetest, best.”
Milton’s view reverses the modern feminist one, in which too much attention to the outward appearance of women (whether praising it or insulting it) distracts from inward qualities, leading people to underrate rather than overrate them. I must concede, attractiveness in both men and women can indeed lead us to overrate their qualities. But I think the feminist complaint also holds substantial truth.
Raphael implies agreement, suggesting Adam not attribute “overmuch to things/Less excellent, as thou thyself perceivest.” Yet Raphael also counsels love. These days, many Christians would say that appreciating the image of God in a person is a central aspect of loving them. If Milton’s Adam finds that loving Eve makes it harder to see her as less reflective of God’s image, he may be more right than either he or Raphael (or Milton) knows.
This touches on one of the more interesting discussions of gender in PL, namely, that what characters state as matters of fact are sometimes in tension with M's representation. Milton's Eve is dynamic, hugely intelligent, and sometimes even sounds like Milton himself, echoing his language from other texts. It's as if Milton's imaginative expression refuses to fit into the little cultural boxes that he himself seems(?) to affirm.
The other thing to keep in mind when thinking about gender hierarchy, or really any hierarchy in PL, is that the hierarchy isn't set in stone. All created things are subject to change—either growth or deformation. So there exists a counterfactual world where Eve obeys and grows increasingly wiser, maybe even more wise than Adam. (She's probably not far behind if at all already. But there's no space to argue that here.)
Thank you so much for pointing out that tension- it really helps to make sense of what I've been struggling with here. I have a note I made from my last professor besides lines 383-4, "Among unequals, what society/ Can sort, what harmony or true delight?" saying that Milton considers Eve to be Adam's equal. The last sentence of your first paragraph made a reason for the apparent contradictions we've noticed in the work click into place.
That's great to hear, Candace. I do not think Paradise Lost is remarkable because Milton does a great job of translating scripture and theology into narrative (though he can clearly do that—see Book 7); indeed that strikes me as the wrong way to read PL. It's more like a lab experiment. What do you get when you take one of the most fervent, well-read, and imaginative writers alive and get him to work out his society's understanding of free will, political authority, gender, natural science, and morality through the story of Genesis 1-3? Well, you see the superstructures of hierarchy and history, and you see the natural tensions against it.
Milton claims to be a poet of freedom; how then is differential power justified or rightly expressed between genders or between people and their leaders? He claims to believe in Truth and the search for truth; to what extent then does God circumscribe knowledge and structure revelation? You see the cracks in PL and they are extremely instructive cracks.
I recently finished Tom Holland’s Dominion wherein he recounts Milton visiting Galileo while he was under house arrest. I thought this was interesting in light of Milton’s position on studying astronomy put forth in book 8.
“He and Eve will fall, of course, but that fall must make sense. And despite the weight of church history and our knowledge of the story, it is not obvious how a rational creature, made in the image of God and placed into utter delight, would choose to disobey.”
From Paradise Lost book 8 commentary by Dr. Manuel Cardenas.
The picture of Adam standing beside Eve as she takes a bit of the forbidden fruit in disobedience to God’s command needs some sort of explanation. Why was Adam at this point so lethargic, so apathetic, so uncaring? Surely he knew the fruit was forbidden although he did not know the consequences just yet. Could it be that the very perfection he saw around him - the peaceful animals, the harmony of nature, the predictable rotation of the cosmos - that these gave him (and Eve as well) as sense of unchanging reality that a mere bite of the fruit could not possibly undo? Do we thrive in our lives in part because of the turmoil around us that forces us to pay attention to how we live in all that turmoil? I can’t conceive of an Adam prior to sin being uncaring. He has the image of God in him, the very nature of love and care. But, perhaps even as a human who has not yet sinned, he can be distracted and fail to understand all the consequences of his actions. The absence of instinct and the presence of free will make possible the sin that he and Eve will indulge in. After all, even the fallen angels before they fell had a world of glory all around them and they still couldn’t resist disobeying God. Can man, living in this created world that seems so wonderful, be expected to not exercise his free will to sin, especially if he does not have the history of consequences that we have to deter him. - Jack
I wonder, since I am not reading ahead, whether the lines 540-594 I mentioned in my comment are setting up Milton's reasoning for the fall. In them, Adam says all his reason departs him when he sees Eve, and Raphael appears to be warning him not to let his passion for her drive away his reason.
Dr. Cardenas, thank you for joining us on our slow read of PL and for taking the time to catch up on our posts to date. As we have been reading, I have been thinking about how my college professor for PL had each of us choose either Satan or God to continue the narration of PL for our final exam. Most of us chose Satan because he was easier for us to relate to than God. Do you have thoughts about this and what it says about us as readers or about Milton as an author or both?
An interesting exercise! I don’t think it’s any surprise that Satan “speaks” to readers of PL, and historically a lot of discussion about the poem has been about Satan’s apparent attractiveness as a figure, or even God’s apparent distastefulness at times.
I think it has both to do with us as readers and the way Milton constructed the poem. Satan is very good at justifying his rebellion and giving voice to aggrieved conscience. We like underdogs and are skeptical of ultimate authority. And he also simply is the first to speak until Book 3, where Milton’s God is a far less dramatic figure than is Satan. I imagine if the poem began with Book 8 and then the Book 5 retelling of Satan’s rebellion, things might be different. Also, putting words in God’s mouth might not be a strategic way to “defend” him! In my opinion Abdiel does a lot more for the theodicy than does Book 3, though there are some beautiful lines there.
The key critical works here are probably Milton’s God by William Empson, Surprised By Sin by Stanley Fish, and Milton’s Good God by Dennis Danielson.
What do you think the tendency says about readers or about Paradise Lost? Have you much changed your mind reading it this time round?
I’ve just finished book 11 and have given more thought to the questions you posed. As fallen readers of a book written by a fallen author, I can understand the tendency to have Satan “speak” for us, but I cannot be more thankful for this opportunity to read Paradise Lost again and have a fresh reaction and new appreciation — even awe— of Milton’s work. Now, later in life when the pain and consequences of sin seem much more real, reading Paradise Lost has left me with absolutely amazement that God made a way out for us through his Son. In PL, Satan tempts Eve and is gone. His destruction is done. But God stays with his creatures and even saves them. Rereading PL has changed how I think about my sin and God’s grace and made me want to know this God and his Word better. I’m curious to learn more about how PL was initially received and how it has influenced readers — and especially writers — since its publication.
That’s a great question I will perhaps address in the last post of the series. I’ve already written this week’s post on Book 11, and I have a similar response as you. 🙂
I’m looking forward to your post for Book 11 and sad to soon come to an end of this reading of PL. while we’ve kept a steady pace (and I could not have gone much faster), I want to go back and dig in to certain parts. One line that keeps haunting me from Book 8 is when Eve’s hand leaves the hand of Adam. In solitude, we are often more easily tempted, and while there is a time and place for solitude, community is a great blessing to us all. I’m thankful for the community of The Priory.
Thank you, Dr. Cardenas. I appreciate your thoughtful response to questions I’ve had for a long time. And, thank you also for the critical works you recommended. I attended Duke University at the time Stanley Fish was a professor in the English department. My Milton class was taught by Reynolds Price, a colleague of Professor Fish. I am reflecting on the questions you posed and will come back on those.
Thank you, Dr. Cardenas for showing us the fellowship that existed between Adam and God in PL. It brought to mind Hebrews 4:16 "Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need." This made me think how long a period of time it was between Adam and Eve's initial confident relationship with God and the one that Jesus graciously offers us today through his death, Resurrection and Ascension. What a gift!
We were talking this weekend about Paradise Lost more generally and especially about Satan. And why Satan changes so much from his depiction in Dante’s inferno to Paradise Lost. And I wondered if it was Protestantism or what your thoughts were on this .
My pleasure, Miranda! It's a good question - one with several answers, I think.
If we take Satan to represent a fundamental evil, then how Dante and Milton portray Satan has to do with how they imagine evil and how they might convey that given the genres they write in and their historical context. Evil as monstrous force had good currency in the Medieval period, and indeed it has biblical warrant (think Revelation). Dante's allegory trades on graphic physical depiction and Inferno aims to inspire disgust and fear. So his Satan makes perfect sense within that context.
I don't think Milton's Satan could have been written before the Renaissance. Those characteristics of the specifically Miltonic Satan—who is parts classical hero, Elizabethan tragic hero, rhetorician, and self-pitying politician—all seem to need to come after the 16th century in England, when classical learning infused the school curriculum and was was as popular as, say, Marvel movies are today. Satan is King Charles I and probably also Cromwell. As for M's conception of evil, yes, I think we can partially ascribe that to a Protestant emphasis on interpretation: we need to read Satan carefully to avoid being fooled. And given his speech in Book 4, he might himself be caught in a kind of Calvinist despair!
Yes!!! That makes sense . We were thinking about Philip Pullman’s comment on Paradise Lost , ‘I am definitely on the devil’s side’ and that nobody could possibly say that after reading the Inferno
This is like a short course in world and literary history packed into this one reply. Thank you, Dr. Cardenas. So helpful!
I'd also remind (or direct) readers to our earlier series on Dr. Faustus, where Faustus is attracted to Lucifer for some similar reasons--a very Renaissance work!
By the way, I am enjoying’What in me is dark’ the story of how various readers throughout history have related with ‘Paradise Lost’ I am intrigued that Jefferson not only modelled Monticello on Milton’s description of paradise but also , while courting ‘may have drawn on the deeply romantic passages of ‘Paradise Lost’
Meanwhile Thomas Paine was inadvertently quoting Satan . The author adds ‘ Later events would make the connection between Milton’s Hell and America unavoidable’ Which seems harsh
I ordered mine from the library and I’m glad I did ! I like the quote at the beginning’’everybody talks about ‘paradise lost’ and nobody reads it ‘ As it absolutely doesn’t apply round this substack
I have some questions about lines 40-65, because they felt polarizing as a woman. I was just frustrated that Milton did not include Eve in the discussion at all. She's tending to the garden,—which is good, but it says in 53:
"Her husband the relater she preferred
Before the angel, and of him to ask
Chose rather..."
Is that implying that she defers to Adam in the conversation and did not want to talk to the angel? It felt like she was aloof beginning in line 40 and then made to look like she had nothing significant to add to the conversation in 53. Then in 55-63 it seemed like she was objectified. But perhaps I'm reading it all wrong. I had some trouble fully understanding what was happening there, I'll admit.
I did appreciate this essay and the thought that these were the final moments in which they were communing with God in the way He intended.
I think your reading is correct. Eve is present for some of Adam’s conversation with Raphael but seems to have “excused herself” from most. This is one aspect of Milton’s clear cultural reading of relations between the sexes. When I have more time I will see if I can find commentary on these lines.
This is a very interesting moment for me, because it seems entirely unnecessary to add from Milton's perspective. If his point is to suggest that women have no interest or competency in speaking of natural philosophy (science), then why does he add, "Yet went she not, as not with such discourse / Delighted, or not capable her eare / Of what was high" (8.48-50)? It's like he's dangling the misogynistic perspective in front of us, only to deny it.
My view on the passage has changed over time. My opinion is that Eve actually doesn't need to hear this lesson, because she already knows it. Adam begins talking about things remote from their knowledge, and Raphael softly rebukes him, telling him to start with things that concern him, and maybe in time, those questions will be relevant. But since, in my reading of the poem, knowledge in Eden has to be intimate and pleasurable (not some magical fruit you can eat and be done with), Eve is almost proving the point in wanting to hear from Adam interspersed with kisses. Her knowledge of the plants is itself intimate, as suggested when she walks away: she
went forth among her Fruits and Flours,
To visit how they prosper'd, bud and bloom, [9.45 ]
Her Nurserie; they at her coming sprung
And toucht by her fair tendance gladlier grew.
Gradual and pleasurable knowledge was always the goal.
That is so beautiful. Your point about how knowledge was supposed to be gained in the garden dovetails nicely with a BibleProject podcast on that topic. I’ll try to see if I can find it and link to it. I summarize it in my forthcoming book.
I realize that whenever a man writes an opinion about women, the piece might be replete with perspectives that can get him (read: me) into trouble. I am fully willing to recant everything I have written.
For well I understand in the prime end
Of Nature her th' inferiour, in the mind
And inward Faculties, which most excell,
In outward also her resembling less
His Image who made both, and less expressing
The character of that Dominion giv'n
Book 8 lines 545-550
One of the funniest and most cringe-inducing kinds of comedy these days is found in the posts under the heading "Men Writing Women."* The Harvard Crimson has this to say about this quality:
“Men Writing Women” refers to the pattern of defining female characters by insulting stereotypes and physical appearances, prevalent in many — perhaps most — male-authored books. This problem, pervasive in fiction, extends beyond the portrayal of women. Novelists’ cultural biases often permeate their work.†
One common through line in all of these writings is to focus on women's appearance in relationship to the culture's appraisal of what makes a woman attractive (especially to males). One might be tempted to simply overlook the descriptions in a book; but when the internet compiles several them in one spot, it is impossible to ignore. It is funny and then depressing.
Milton's description of Eve fits into this category of "the afterthought sex." She is regarded by comparing her to Adam (and thus the representative of humanity) rather than simply as a person. One is reminded of Jack Nicholson's boorish character in "As Good as it Gets." When Nicholson's Marvin Udall (a writer of cheap romance novels) is approached by a fawning receptionist about how he "writes women so well," he replies, "I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability." We might cringe, and yet isn't this what Milton believes what will ultimately lead Eve to transgress? In addition Adam is fully aware of the faculties which Eve is lacking but is himself anticipating that his attraction to her will be his undoing.
Rather than dismissing Milton though, it can be instructive to listen to Milton because the author believed he was pushing back about the sexism of previous generations. This is the outlook of an interesting essay by Paul N. Siegel entitled "Milton and the Humanist Attitude Toward Women." Siegel is less concerned with Milton's sexism but rather examines a more interesting quality of men of particular generations imagining that they are pushing back against sexism while viewing women as "second sex" through their own cultural assumptions.
In the essay, the author sees the renaissance humanists challenging the old chivalric caricatures of womanhood. He states that the previous generations had been marked by warrior men conquering women as they had conquered lands. Women, like the lands of old, were somehow lacking their full potential until the men came along and became their lord and master. (At least, that is what I am drawing out of this if I am reading it right.)
Yet, for the renaissance and enlightenment thinkers, this was no way to think of women. Instead, according to Siegel, a new neo-platonic emphasis on the life of the mind to the point of superior otherness. Using many examples of authors from Milton's day, he demonstrates how the rebellion against the previous generation manifested itself in carrying their rebellion over into how they discussed women. The men of Milton's generation viewed the chivalric literature to be barbaric not just because they viewed women as trophies to be won; but because in doing so, the estate of marriage was denigrated. They had carried their meditations of the ways in which to best rule the state, in other words; into the best ways to order a happy marriage.
Milton merges the Anglophone religious culture with the humanist musings upon the estate of marriage. We can see the confluence manifest itself in this passage in particular. For Adam (and to a lesser extent Eve) the goal of humanity is not conquest but fulfilling the innate duty of being a Creation. Adam and Rafael appear to believe that a man's duty is to wonder, to explore, and to care for that which has been given to mankind to care for. A woman's duty is to support her husband and look to him to be the mediator between her role and those higher instructions. This is revealed in Milton's declaration:
"Yet went she not, as not with such discourse / Delighted, or not capable her eare / Of what was high: such pleasure she reserv'd, / Adam relating, she sole Auditress; / Her Husband the Relater she preferr'd / Before the Angel, and of him to ask / Chose rather: hee, she knew would intermix / Grateful digressions, and solve high dispute / With conjugal Caresses, from his Lip / Not Words alone pleas'd her. O when meet now / Such pairs, in Love and mutual Honour joyn'd?"
The prelapsarian perfect spouse is capable of joining in discussion with the higher orders, Milton seems to say, but has been created to favor hearing her husband explain things. Of course, that leads us to enquire as to whether women's independent thinking is a consequence of the fall? It certainly seems to foreshadow how the fall will occur.
None of this discussion is irrelevant to questions in our current day and age. For instance, if we regard Milton's "writing about women" as retrograde; what does it say about our perspective when Milton regarded his ancestors' writings on women retrograde? Will men ever really be able to write women? In addition, the hot button issue of complimentarianism and egalitarianism (which I will not be discussing) is hinted at here. Seigel's insight that Milton and his generation were often writing in a way to rebut the "chivalric literature" of previous ages seems to muddy the simplistic arguments of the two factions (complimentarian and egalitarian) as neither misogyny nor Christian marital virtue are unbroken norms, but deeply contingent on the dialogue between one's stated faith and one's inhabited culture.
Men writing women is an endeavor that is at times comical and fraught. Yet, it seems to reveal more about the way in which men attempt to order society more than about how women see the world. While we may look at the superficial writing of women as compliment and foil to men's ambition with patronizing bemusement; we should also ask ourselves if our contemporary discussions about women is nothing more than a cultural construct of our perspectives of ideal womanhood.
*I admittedly fall somewhere between the penitent post-collegiate immature male and the performative male feminist. The former engage in misogyny because of a low self esteem and a comfort with easily shifting blame onto the female half humanity and the latter engage in self flagellation while accepting the easy dichotomies persecutors and persecuted. My own view is that men and women are different, but spending too much time trying to construct hard boundaries cheapens the shared qualities of being human together. Put simply, women do find themselves victimized in our culture; but in thinking of them as women first and people second, we tend to find excuses for all sorts of bad behavior. People are hurt and people shouldn't be hurt. People are viewed by subcategories more than by the virtue of their being human, and that causes us to see them as victims to be protected more than people who need our help.
What think'st thou then of mee, and this my State, Seem I to thee sufficiently possest Of happiness, or not? who am alone [ 405 ] From all Eternitie, for none I know Second to mee or like, equal much less. How have I then with whom to hold converse Save with the Creatures which I made, and those To me inferiour, infinite descents [ 410 ] Beneath what other Creatures are to thee?
Is the creation of Adam as the lone human amid all these inferior animals an oversight? Hardly. Before Eve could be created, as Milton indicates, Adam had to see his need for a companion on his own level - a thinking, sensuous being like him. Language requires community. We talk to ourselves only because we have spoken with other. Abram Van Engen makes that point in his study of poetry, “Word Made Fresh.” Without the trinity there would be no Word to form creation. Adam instinctively knows that without an Eve he would be mute - once he named the animals. The lesson for us is not to let male dominance subdue female intelligence and sensitivity. This has been a tendency in conservative evangelical circles - wives with little to say or merely echoes of their husbands. We need to start taking community seriously and recognize the damage that our extreme individualism does. By the way, I highly recommend Van Engen’s book for anyone interested in poetry from the inside out. You don’t have to be a poet to learn from this book.
As new wak't from soundest sleep Soft on the flourie herb I found me laid In Balmie Sweat, which with his Beames the Sun [ 255 ] Soon dri'd, and on the reaking moisture fed. Strait toward Heav'n my wondring Eyes I turnd, And gaz'd a while the ample Skie, till rais'd By quick instinctive motion up I sprung, As thitherward endevoring, and upright [ 260 ] Stood on my feet; about me round I saw Hill, Dale, and shadie Woods, and sunnie Plaines, And liquid Lapse of murmuring Streams; by these, Creatures that livd, and movd, and walk'd, or flew, Birds on the branches warbling; all things smil'd, [ 265 ] With fragrance and with joy my heart oreflow'd.
This passage takes me back to last Sunday when I and my church choir sang the uplifting anthem, “The Joy of the Lord Lives in Me.” As a collector of poetry, I made a copy of the lyrics of that anthem - see below. Our congregation so enjoyed this anthem that they erupted in applause when we finished. I wonder if the poet thought of Adam’s first vision of creation when composing this beautiful piece?
The Joy of the Lord Lives in Me
Words and Music by Patricia Mock and Douglas Nolan
Nor are thy lips ungraceful, Sire of men, Nor tongue ineloquent; for God on thee Abundantly his gifts hath also pour'd [ 220 ] Inward and outward both, his image faire: Speaking or mute all comliness and grace Attends thee, and each word, each motion formes. Nor less think wee in Heav'n of thee on Earth Then of our fellow servant, and inquire [ 225 ] Gladly into the wayes of God with Man: For God we see hath honour'd thee, and set On Man his Equal Love: say therefore on;
From Milton’s point of view God’s creation of man is a beautiful sight - both on the outside and on the inside. Here we are encouraged to think about God’s image that has been implanted in man. Raphael is assuring Adam that everyone in heaven approves of him in all comeliness and grace. Man at this stage is a wonderful being and even heaven will pay attention to the way God deals with man and vice versa. This seems to me to hold out the promise of an adventure - an exploration of what comes next with curiosity and anticipation. Anticipation is one of the great facts of a well lived life. It is not that everything we anticipate comes true but that we never know what surprises are in store and we have to pay attention. Paying attention is one of the great privileges of life - to discover in creation and in each other wonders we never knew were there.
I notice some unintentional irony in the exchange from lines 540 - 594. Adam tells Raphael that he knows Eve is his inferior in mental abilities, but whenever he sees her, reason and wisdom desert him. Raphael replies that Adam shouldn't blame nature but should be guided by wisdom to love his wife but not be ruled by passion. The irony is, that that both Eve and and Wisdom are in the feminine - Raphael speaking of both in the feminine pronoun actually creates a bit of confusion in the reader's mind, requiring a second reading - yet Milton insists the woman is naturally, pre-fall, the inferior of the man in wisdom.
Angels enjoying "whatever pure in the body thou enjoyest" raises an eyebrow. We know Jesus said that angels neither marry nor are given in marriage (Matthew 22:30). I suppose it could be said that rules regarding intimate union on earth are different than rules in heaven, but I doubt it. To quote G. K. Chesterton, "Reason and justice grip the loneliest star... On plains of opal, under cliffs cut out of pearl, you would still find a notice-board, "'Thou shalt not steal.'" (from The Blue Cross).
That is so well seen and articulated, Holly. I have read that Wisdom is personified as a woman in the Hebrew tradition because the Hebrew word is feminine (in the grammatical not the sexual sense). I am not sure if that is the only reason. But Milton certainly does more than that here in his personification of Wisdom (which by now follows a long tradition).
Since there were also be no marriage in heaven, I imagine the kind of union Milton has Raphael describes is something that transcends physical/sexual. The metaphorical layers of meaning of words like "consummation," "union," and even "marriage" itself remind us that God uses metaphors like this to help us understand (though I don't think we can fully now) what our eternal life with him will be like.
Yes, the Hebrew word for Wisdom is in the feminine. But the book of Proverbs goes to great lengths to develop the feminine-gendered word into Wisdom personified as a woman. Proverbs begins with contrasting the the choice between personified images of lady Wisdom vs. Folly, ends with the praise of the virtuous woman, and in the middle states, 'every wise woman builds her house, but the foolish pluck it down with their hands (Proverbs 14:1). Recall the 'wise-hearted' (KJV) women who wove and spun for the Tabernacle (Exodus 35:25-26), the wise woman Joab asks to help David and Absalom reconcile (II Samuel 14), and the wise woman who saved her city from destruction (II Samuel 20). And those are the unnamed wise women of Hebrew literature - we could add Rahab, Deborah, Jael, Ruth, Abigail and many others to that list. So I don't think the personification of Wisdom as a woman in Hebrew poetry is purely based on an accident of grammar.
On the point about the angelic union not being about sex, I would say marriage is not about sex. Sex in marriage is meant to be the outward physical expression of a much deeper union. True, much of human history has treated marriage as a social tool for reproduction, the getting of property, and the satiation of physical drives, but that was not its primary purpose in the Garden. Adam didn't just need a sexual partner, he needed someone like him, to work alongside him, to fellowship with, to be his equal everything. Milton is blinkered to that fact, pointedly insisting Eve was not given as great a dominion over Creation as Adam was, although Genesis makes no such distinction (Milton's Adam is alone when he is given dominion - the language of Genesis 1 indicates God spoke to both of them).
But the angels are a different order of being than humans. They are created 'ministering spirits' (Hebrews 1:14), each appearing to have a set purpose. Gabriel, for instance, is a messenger. The Seraphims' purpose is to circle the throne of God continuously, calling, 'Holy, holy, holy". My pastor once preached on Isaiah's vision of the Seraphim, saying the text indicates that they are constantly circling in utter awe, calling to each other spontaneously, 'Holy', as if it is new to them each time they say it. I would suggest the Seraphim need no other union than that which they experience attending the throne of God. Angels are fulfilled when they serve their created purpose. Similarly, humans in the Resurrection will not need marriage because we will be wedded to Jesus Christ. We will be complete, in a way Adam was not when he was naming the animals, in a way we cannot be, even if married, in this fallen world. Angels are already in that completed realm.
I appreciate the discussion on this passage as it was one I had a question mark beside as I was reading.
I agree marriage is not about sex. Sexual difference and union is simply how God chose for his image bearers to be multiplied. The union in heaven will be not about that either. I agree that Milton is blind to these aspects that you point out. I'm still amused and delighted that Adam asks Raphael this question and Milton chooses to have Raphael provide a kind of non-answer. I'm not sure if Milton's portrayal is more about Adam than about the angels.
I definitely agree that the personification of Wisdom as a woman is more than an accident of grammar. But I think the Bible ultimately portrays wisdom as a human virtue (as with Solomon) that transcends sex. (Unlike Milton, perhaps!)
These questions and concerns demonstrate careful reading! One consideration when thinking through such topics is that the human view of sex is mostly impoverished; even for many Christians—who worship an incarnate God— sex is carnal and therefore fallen. It is less "pure" than other forms of union, because we have a tendency to look down on physicality. (This is largely, but not only, pagan influence.)
Yet sex is at core pleasurable physical union, and Milton praises it as such in Bk4. Since creation in PL exists on a spectrum of material-to-spiritual, and we will all return to spirit in God, it is only natural that angels (who are *material* creatures, though closer in gradient to spirit) have physical pleasurable union, the same way they dance and enjoy feast. Milton (not me) would probably say that marriage as an institution formalizes the bonds of spiritual and emotional unity between people; in heaven, this a given. As such, Dr. Prior is probably right that M is describing that physical union as something different and superior to what we think of sex on earth.
I’m on the road speaking and can’t wait to catch up on these comments when I’m home!
There is something very interesting about the way that Adam asks God for an equal and then calls her “the inferior, in the mind and inward qualities,” holding less exactly the image of God. He claims it is her beauty, her outward qualities, that make her will seem (falsely) to be “wisest, discreetest, best.”
Milton’s view reverses the modern feminist one, in which too much attention to the outward appearance of women (whether praising it or insulting it) distracts from inward qualities, leading people to underrate rather than overrate them. I must concede, attractiveness in both men and women can indeed lead us to overrate their qualities. But I think the feminist complaint also holds substantial truth.
Raphael implies agreement, suggesting Adam not attribute “overmuch to things/Less excellent, as thou thyself perceivest.” Yet Raphael also counsels love. These days, many Christians would say that appreciating the image of God in a person is a central aspect of loving them. If Milton’s Adam finds that loving Eve makes it harder to see her as less reflective of God’s image, he may be more right than either he or Raphael (or Milton) knows.
Great observation, Gemma.
This touches on one of the more interesting discussions of gender in PL, namely, that what characters state as matters of fact are sometimes in tension with M's representation. Milton's Eve is dynamic, hugely intelligent, and sometimes even sounds like Milton himself, echoing his language from other texts. It's as if Milton's imaginative expression refuses to fit into the little cultural boxes that he himself seems(?) to affirm.
The other thing to keep in mind when thinking about gender hierarchy, or really any hierarchy in PL, is that the hierarchy isn't set in stone. All created things are subject to change—either growth or deformation. So there exists a counterfactual world where Eve obeys and grows increasingly wiser, maybe even more wise than Adam. (She's probably not far behind if at all already. But there's no space to argue that here.)
This characterization of hierarchy is really helpful. Thank you for it!
Thank you so much for pointing out that tension- it really helps to make sense of what I've been struggling with here. I have a note I made from my last professor besides lines 383-4, "Among unequals, what society/ Can sort, what harmony or true delight?" saying that Milton considers Eve to be Adam's equal. The last sentence of your first paragraph made a reason for the apparent contradictions we've noticed in the work click into place.
That's great to hear, Candace. I do not think Paradise Lost is remarkable because Milton does a great job of translating scripture and theology into narrative (though he can clearly do that—see Book 7); indeed that strikes me as the wrong way to read PL. It's more like a lab experiment. What do you get when you take one of the most fervent, well-read, and imaginative writers alive and get him to work out his society's understanding of free will, political authority, gender, natural science, and morality through the story of Genesis 1-3? Well, you see the superstructures of hierarchy and history, and you see the natural tensions against it.
Milton claims to be a poet of freedom; how then is differential power justified or rightly expressed between genders or between people and their leaders? He claims to believe in Truth and the search for truth; to what extent then does God circumscribe knowledge and structure revelation? You see the cracks in PL and they are extremely instructive cracks.
Oh my! I say almost this exact thing (in your first paragraph in my post tomorrow!) Love it.
So helpful and so eloquently expressed! Thank you. It is a privilege to learn from these cracks with you, Dr. Prior, and this group
What a beautiful reflection, Dr. Cardenas.
I would absolutely be up for a Zoom chat! This discussion is a joy.
I recently finished Tom Holland’s Dominion wherein he recounts Milton visiting Galileo while he was under house arrest. I thought this was interesting in light of Milton’s position on studying astronomy put forth in book 8.
I’m up for a Zoom meeting.
Great connection!
Thank you, Dr. Cardenas. Your commentary brought Book VIII to life for me.
I would make every effort to attend a ZOOM meeting to discuss PL.
This has been a sweet experience for me.
Thank you, Karen.
He really did bring it to life, didn't he?
“He and Eve will fall, of course, but that fall must make sense. And despite the weight of church history and our knowledge of the story, it is not obvious how a rational creature, made in the image of God and placed into utter delight, would choose to disobey.”
From Paradise Lost book 8 commentary by Dr. Manuel Cardenas.
The picture of Adam standing beside Eve as she takes a bit of the forbidden fruit in disobedience to God’s command needs some sort of explanation. Why was Adam at this point so lethargic, so apathetic, so uncaring? Surely he knew the fruit was forbidden although he did not know the consequences just yet. Could it be that the very perfection he saw around him - the peaceful animals, the harmony of nature, the predictable rotation of the cosmos - that these gave him (and Eve as well) as sense of unchanging reality that a mere bite of the fruit could not possibly undo? Do we thrive in our lives in part because of the turmoil around us that forces us to pay attention to how we live in all that turmoil? I can’t conceive of an Adam prior to sin being uncaring. He has the image of God in him, the very nature of love and care. But, perhaps even as a human who has not yet sinned, he can be distracted and fail to understand all the consequences of his actions. The absence of instinct and the presence of free will make possible the sin that he and Eve will indulge in. After all, even the fallen angels before they fell had a world of glory all around them and they still couldn’t resist disobeying God. Can man, living in this created world that seems so wonderful, be expected to not exercise his free will to sin, especially if he does not have the history of consequences that we have to deter him. - Jack
I wonder, since I am not reading ahead, whether the lines 540-594 I mentioned in my comment are setting up Milton's reasoning for the fall. In them, Adam says all his reason departs him when he sees Eve, and Raphael appears to be warning him not to let his passion for her drive away his reason.
This is the great gift of reading together like this, isn't it? Noticing, observing, predicting. I love it!
Dr. Cardenas, thank you for joining us on our slow read of PL and for taking the time to catch up on our posts to date. As we have been reading, I have been thinking about how my college professor for PL had each of us choose either Satan or God to continue the narration of PL for our final exam. Most of us chose Satan because he was easier for us to relate to than God. Do you have thoughts about this and what it says about us as readers or about Milton as an author or both?
An interesting exercise! I don’t think it’s any surprise that Satan “speaks” to readers of PL, and historically a lot of discussion about the poem has been about Satan’s apparent attractiveness as a figure, or even God’s apparent distastefulness at times.
I think it has both to do with us as readers and the way Milton constructed the poem. Satan is very good at justifying his rebellion and giving voice to aggrieved conscience. We like underdogs and are skeptical of ultimate authority. And he also simply is the first to speak until Book 3, where Milton’s God is a far less dramatic figure than is Satan. I imagine if the poem began with Book 8 and then the Book 5 retelling of Satan’s rebellion, things might be different. Also, putting words in God’s mouth might not be a strategic way to “defend” him! In my opinion Abdiel does a lot more for the theodicy than does Book 3, though there are some beautiful lines there.
The key critical works here are probably Milton’s God by William Empson, Surprised By Sin by Stanley Fish, and Milton’s Good God by Dennis Danielson.
What do you think the tendency says about readers or about Paradise Lost? Have you much changed your mind reading it this time round?
I’ve just finished book 11 and have given more thought to the questions you posed. As fallen readers of a book written by a fallen author, I can understand the tendency to have Satan “speak” for us, but I cannot be more thankful for this opportunity to read Paradise Lost again and have a fresh reaction and new appreciation — even awe— of Milton’s work. Now, later in life when the pain and consequences of sin seem much more real, reading Paradise Lost has left me with absolutely amazement that God made a way out for us through his Son. In PL, Satan tempts Eve and is gone. His destruction is done. But God stays with his creatures and even saves them. Rereading PL has changed how I think about my sin and God’s grace and made me want to know this God and his Word better. I’m curious to learn more about how PL was initially received and how it has influenced readers — and especially writers — since its publication.
That’s a great question I will perhaps address in the last post of the series. I’ve already written this week’s post on Book 11, and I have a similar response as you. 🙂
I’m looking forward to your post for Book 11 and sad to soon come to an end of this reading of PL. while we’ve kept a steady pace (and I could not have gone much faster), I want to go back and dig in to certain parts. One line that keeps haunting me from Book 8 is when Eve’s hand leaves the hand of Adam. In solitude, we are often more easily tempted, and while there is a time and place for solitude, community is a great blessing to us all. I’m thankful for the community of The Priory.
I do hope many will go back and re-read. The best books are the most re-readable ones.
I, too, love the community we are growing here. What a blessing and joy!
Thank you, Dr. Cardenas. I appreciate your thoughtful response to questions I’ve had for a long time. And, thank you also for the critical works you recommended. I attended Duke University at the time Stanley Fish was a professor in the English department. My Milton class was taught by Reynolds Price, a colleague of Professor Fish. I am reflecting on the questions you posed and will come back on those.
That sounds like it would have been a marvellous class!
Thank you, Dr. Cardenas for showing us the fellowship that existed between Adam and God in PL. It brought to mind Hebrews 4:16 "Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need." This made me think how long a period of time it was between Adam and Eve's initial confident relationship with God and the one that Jesus graciously offers us today through his death, Resurrection and Ascension. What a gift!
Thank you very much for all your insights.
We were talking this weekend about Paradise Lost more generally and especially about Satan. And why Satan changes so much from his depiction in Dante’s inferno to Paradise Lost. And I wondered if it was Protestantism or what your thoughts were on this .
My pleasure, Miranda! It's a good question - one with several answers, I think.
If we take Satan to represent a fundamental evil, then how Dante and Milton portray Satan has to do with how they imagine evil and how they might convey that given the genres they write in and their historical context. Evil as monstrous force had good currency in the Medieval period, and indeed it has biblical warrant (think Revelation). Dante's allegory trades on graphic physical depiction and Inferno aims to inspire disgust and fear. So his Satan makes perfect sense within that context.
I don't think Milton's Satan could have been written before the Renaissance. Those characteristics of the specifically Miltonic Satan—who is parts classical hero, Elizabethan tragic hero, rhetorician, and self-pitying politician—all seem to need to come after the 16th century in England, when classical learning infused the school curriculum and was was as popular as, say, Marvel movies are today. Satan is King Charles I and probably also Cromwell. As for M's conception of evil, yes, I think we can partially ascribe that to a Protestant emphasis on interpretation: we need to read Satan carefully to avoid being fooled. And given his speech in Book 4, he might himself be caught in a kind of Calvinist despair!
Yes!!! That makes sense . We were thinking about Philip Pullman’s comment on Paradise Lost , ‘I am definitely on the devil’s side’ and that nobody could possibly say that after reading the Inferno
This is like a short course in world and literary history packed into this one reply. Thank you, Dr. Cardenas. So helpful!
I'd also remind (or direct) readers to our earlier series on Dr. Faustus, where Faustus is attracted to Lucifer for some similar reasons--a very Renaissance work!
What a great question, Miranda!
By the way, I am enjoying’What in me is dark’ the story of how various readers throughout history have related with ‘Paradise Lost’ I am intrigued that Jefferson not only modelled Monticello on Milton’s description of paradise but also , while courting ‘may have drawn on the deeply romantic passages of ‘Paradise Lost’
Meanwhile Thomas Paine was inadvertently quoting Satan . The author adds ‘ Later events would make the connection between Milton’s Hell and America unavoidable’ Which seems harsh
I just came across this book in a lovely bookstore this week. It sounds fascinating.
I think you would enjoy it - it’s quite quirky
Thank you for reporting back on that book, Miranda. I’m going to consider getting it. It sounds very interesting!
I ordered mine from the library and I’m glad I did ! I like the quote at the beginning’’everybody talks about ‘paradise lost’ and nobody reads it ‘ As it absolutely doesn’t apply round this substack
😊😊😊
I have some questions about lines 40-65, because they felt polarizing as a woman. I was just frustrated that Milton did not include Eve in the discussion at all. She's tending to the garden,—which is good, but it says in 53:
"Her husband the relater she preferred
Before the angel, and of him to ask
Chose rather..."
Is that implying that she defers to Adam in the conversation and did not want to talk to the angel? It felt like she was aloof beginning in line 40 and then made to look like she had nothing significant to add to the conversation in 53. Then in 55-63 it seemed like she was objectified. But perhaps I'm reading it all wrong. I had some trouble fully understanding what was happening there, I'll admit.
I did appreciate this essay and the thought that these were the final moments in which they were communing with God in the way He intended.
I think your reading is correct. Eve is present for some of Adam’s conversation with Raphael but seems to have “excused herself” from most. This is one aspect of Milton’s clear cultural reading of relations between the sexes. When I have more time I will see if I can find commentary on these lines.
This is a very interesting moment for me, because it seems entirely unnecessary to add from Milton's perspective. If his point is to suggest that women have no interest or competency in speaking of natural philosophy (science), then why does he add, "Yet went she not, as not with such discourse / Delighted, or not capable her eare / Of what was high" (8.48-50)? It's like he's dangling the misogynistic perspective in front of us, only to deny it.
My view on the passage has changed over time. My opinion is that Eve actually doesn't need to hear this lesson, because she already knows it. Adam begins talking about things remote from their knowledge, and Raphael softly rebukes him, telling him to start with things that concern him, and maybe in time, those questions will be relevant. But since, in my reading of the poem, knowledge in Eden has to be intimate and pleasurable (not some magical fruit you can eat and be done with), Eve is almost proving the point in wanting to hear from Adam interspersed with kisses. Her knowledge of the plants is itself intimate, as suggested when she walks away: she
went forth among her Fruits and Flours,
To visit how they prosper'd, bud and bloom, [9.45 ]
Her Nurserie; they at her coming sprung
And toucht by her fair tendance gladlier grew.
Gradual and pleasurable knowledge was always the goal.
That is so beautiful. Your point about how knowledge was supposed to be gained in the garden dovetails nicely with a BibleProject podcast on that topic. I’ll try to see if I can find it and link to it. I summarize it in my forthcoming book.
Here is the podcast: https://bibleproject.com/podcast/tree-knowing-good-bad/
I realize that whenever a man writes an opinion about women, the piece might be replete with perspectives that can get him (read: me) into trouble. I am fully willing to recant everything I have written.
For well I understand in the prime end
Of Nature her th' inferiour, in the mind
And inward Faculties, which most excell,
In outward also her resembling less
His Image who made both, and less expressing
The character of that Dominion giv'n
Book 8 lines 545-550
One of the funniest and most cringe-inducing kinds of comedy these days is found in the posts under the heading "Men Writing Women."* The Harvard Crimson has this to say about this quality:
“Men Writing Women” refers to the pattern of defining female characters by insulting stereotypes and physical appearances, prevalent in many — perhaps most — male-authored books. This problem, pervasive in fiction, extends beyond the portrayal of women. Novelists’ cultural biases often permeate their work.†
One common through line in all of these writings is to focus on women's appearance in relationship to the culture's appraisal of what makes a woman attractive (especially to males). One might be tempted to simply overlook the descriptions in a book; but when the internet compiles several them in one spot, it is impossible to ignore. It is funny and then depressing.
Milton's description of Eve fits into this category of "the afterthought sex." She is regarded by comparing her to Adam (and thus the representative of humanity) rather than simply as a person. One is reminded of Jack Nicholson's boorish character in "As Good as it Gets." When Nicholson's Marvin Udall (a writer of cheap romance novels) is approached by a fawning receptionist about how he "writes women so well," he replies, "I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability." We might cringe, and yet isn't this what Milton believes what will ultimately lead Eve to transgress? In addition Adam is fully aware of the faculties which Eve is lacking but is himself anticipating that his attraction to her will be his undoing.
Rather than dismissing Milton though, it can be instructive to listen to Milton because the author believed he was pushing back about the sexism of previous generations. This is the outlook of an interesting essay by Paul N. Siegel entitled "Milton and the Humanist Attitude Toward Women." Siegel is less concerned with Milton's sexism but rather examines a more interesting quality of men of particular generations imagining that they are pushing back against sexism while viewing women as "second sex" through their own cultural assumptions.
In the essay, the author sees the renaissance humanists challenging the old chivalric caricatures of womanhood. He states that the previous generations had been marked by warrior men conquering women as they had conquered lands. Women, like the lands of old, were somehow lacking their full potential until the men came along and became their lord and master. (At least, that is what I am drawing out of this if I am reading it right.)
Yet, for the renaissance and enlightenment thinkers, this was no way to think of women. Instead, according to Siegel, a new neo-platonic emphasis on the life of the mind to the point of superior otherness. Using many examples of authors from Milton's day, he demonstrates how the rebellion against the previous generation manifested itself in carrying their rebellion over into how they discussed women. The men of Milton's generation viewed the chivalric literature to be barbaric not just because they viewed women as trophies to be won; but because in doing so, the estate of marriage was denigrated. They had carried their meditations of the ways in which to best rule the state, in other words; into the best ways to order a happy marriage.
Milton merges the Anglophone religious culture with the humanist musings upon the estate of marriage. We can see the confluence manifest itself in this passage in particular. For Adam (and to a lesser extent Eve) the goal of humanity is not conquest but fulfilling the innate duty of being a Creation. Adam and Rafael appear to believe that a man's duty is to wonder, to explore, and to care for that which has been given to mankind to care for. A woman's duty is to support her husband and look to him to be the mediator between her role and those higher instructions. This is revealed in Milton's declaration:
"Yet went she not, as not with such discourse / Delighted, or not capable her eare / Of what was high: such pleasure she reserv'd, / Adam relating, she sole Auditress; / Her Husband the Relater she preferr'd / Before the Angel, and of him to ask / Chose rather: hee, she knew would intermix / Grateful digressions, and solve high dispute / With conjugal Caresses, from his Lip / Not Words alone pleas'd her. O when meet now / Such pairs, in Love and mutual Honour joyn'd?"
The prelapsarian perfect spouse is capable of joining in discussion with the higher orders, Milton seems to say, but has been created to favor hearing her husband explain things. Of course, that leads us to enquire as to whether women's independent thinking is a consequence of the fall? It certainly seems to foreshadow how the fall will occur.
None of this discussion is irrelevant to questions in our current day and age. For instance, if we regard Milton's "writing about women" as retrograde; what does it say about our perspective when Milton regarded his ancestors' writings on women retrograde? Will men ever really be able to write women? In addition, the hot button issue of complimentarianism and egalitarianism (which I will not be discussing) is hinted at here. Seigel's insight that Milton and his generation were often writing in a way to rebut the "chivalric literature" of previous ages seems to muddy the simplistic arguments of the two factions (complimentarian and egalitarian) as neither misogyny nor Christian marital virtue are unbroken norms, but deeply contingent on the dialogue between one's stated faith and one's inhabited culture.
Men writing women is an endeavor that is at times comical and fraught. Yet, it seems to reveal more about the way in which men attempt to order society more than about how women see the world. While we may look at the superficial writing of women as compliment and foil to men's ambition with patronizing bemusement; we should also ask ourselves if our contemporary discussions about women is nothing more than a cultural construct of our perspectives of ideal womanhood.
*I admittedly fall somewhere between the penitent post-collegiate immature male and the performative male feminist. The former engage in misogyny because of a low self esteem and a comfort with easily shifting blame onto the female half humanity and the latter engage in self flagellation while accepting the easy dichotomies persecutors and persecuted. My own view is that men and women are different, but spending too much time trying to construct hard boundaries cheapens the shared qualities of being human together. Put simply, women do find themselves victimized in our culture; but in thinking of them as women first and people second, we tend to find excuses for all sorts of bad behavior. People are hurt and people shouldn't be hurt. People are viewed by subcategories more than by the virtue of their being human, and that causes us to see them as victims to be protected more than people who need our help.
† “A Call to Read Problematic Classic Novels | Arts | the Harvard Crimson.” n.d. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/4/23/a-call-to-read-problematic-classic-novels-men-writing-women-breasts/.
This is excellent commentary! Yes, to the pitfalls of “men writing women” and yes to Milton’s contextually-bound attempts to transcend the same.
And I appreciate very much your honest self-assessment of your place along this scale. We could all do with such candor.
What think'st thou then of mee, and this my State, Seem I to thee sufficiently possest Of happiness, or not? who am alone [ 405 ] From all Eternitie, for none I know Second to mee or like, equal much less. How have I then with whom to hold converse Save with the Creatures which I made, and those To me inferiour, infinite descents [ 410 ] Beneath what other Creatures are to thee?
Is the creation of Adam as the lone human amid all these inferior animals an oversight? Hardly. Before Eve could be created, as Milton indicates, Adam had to see his need for a companion on his own level - a thinking, sensuous being like him. Language requires community. We talk to ourselves only because we have spoken with other. Abram Van Engen makes that point in his study of poetry, “Word Made Fresh.” Without the trinity there would be no Word to form creation. Adam instinctively knows that without an Eve he would be mute - once he named the animals. The lesson for us is not to let male dominance subdue female intelligence and sensitivity. This has been a tendency in conservative evangelical circles - wives with little to say or merely echoes of their husbands. We need to start taking community seriously and recognize the damage that our extreme individualism does. By the way, I highly recommend Van Engen’s book for anyone interested in poetry from the inside out. You don’t have to be a poet to learn from this book.
I am going to put that book on my TBR list, Jack! Thank you for commending it and bringing it to bear here. Fantastic insights!
As new wak't from soundest sleep Soft on the flourie herb I found me laid In Balmie Sweat, which with his Beames the Sun [ 255 ] Soon dri'd, and on the reaking moisture fed. Strait toward Heav'n my wondring Eyes I turnd, And gaz'd a while the ample Skie, till rais'd By quick instinctive motion up I sprung, As thitherward endevoring, and upright [ 260 ] Stood on my feet; about me round I saw Hill, Dale, and shadie Woods, and sunnie Plaines, And liquid Lapse of murmuring Streams; by these, Creatures that livd, and movd, and walk'd, or flew, Birds on the branches warbling; all things smil'd, [ 265 ] With fragrance and with joy my heart oreflow'd.
This passage takes me back to last Sunday when I and my church choir sang the uplifting anthem, “The Joy of the Lord Lives in Me.” As a collector of poetry, I made a copy of the lyrics of that anthem - see below. Our congregation so enjoyed this anthem that they erupted in applause when we finished. I wonder if the poet thought of Adam’s first vision of creation when composing this beautiful piece?
The Joy of the Lord Lives in Me
Words and Music by Patricia Mock and Douglas Nolan
With hope I rise up in the morning,
The light of creation I see.
An altar of praise in me forming,
The joy of the Lord lives in me —
The joy of the Lord lives in me.
My heart fills with glad adoration. (Aleluia)
My spirit from darkness is free, (Aleluia)
For I am redeemed and forgiven, (Aleluia)
The joy of the Lord lives in me — (Aleluia)
The joy of the Lord lives in me..
Glory, honor and power!
Worthy, the Christ who redeems!
Holy, the Lord of creation
This is the day God has made.
The Joy of the Lord lives in me!
Restored to my life in the garden.
God’s mercy gives all that I need.
From all of my sin there is pardon,
The joy of the Lord lives in me —
The joy of the Lord lives in me.
Each day is a new revelation,
A calling to trust and believe.
This song is my true proclamation.
The joy of the Lord lives in me —
The joy of the Lord lives in me.
Glory, honor, and power,
Worthy, the Christ who redeems!
Holy the Lord of creation.
This is the day God has made.
The joy of the Lord lives in me.
Glory, honor and power!
Worthy, the Christ who redeems!
Holy, the Lord of creation.
This is the day God has made
The joy of the Lord lives in me!
The joy of the Lord lives in me!
Beautiful.
Nor are thy lips ungraceful, Sire of men, Nor tongue ineloquent; for God on thee Abundantly his gifts hath also pour'd [ 220 ] Inward and outward both, his image faire: Speaking or mute all comliness and grace Attends thee, and each word, each motion formes. Nor less think wee in Heav'n of thee on Earth Then of our fellow servant, and inquire [ 225 ] Gladly into the wayes of God with Man: For God we see hath honour'd thee, and set On Man his Equal Love: say therefore on;
From Milton’s point of view God’s creation of man is a beautiful sight - both on the outside and on the inside. Here we are encouraged to think about God’s image that has been implanted in man. Raphael is assuring Adam that everyone in heaven approves of him in all comeliness and grace. Man at this stage is a wonderful being and even heaven will pay attention to the way God deals with man and vice versa. This seems to me to hold out the promise of an adventure - an exploration of what comes next with curiosity and anticipation. Anticipation is one of the great facts of a well lived life. It is not that everything we anticipate comes true but that we never know what surprises are in store and we have to pay attention. Paying attention is one of the great privileges of life - to discover in creation and in each other wonders we never knew were there.
This is breath-taking. Thank you,
Jack.