/lit/ - Literature

Paradise Lost is the greatest poem of the 17th century.

Here's a challenge /lit/. Discuss John Milton without discussing Paradise Lost. Pretend he never wrote it.

Speak of the devil!

Be the last one out to get this bough? No way
Love one of you schizo-headed crokes? No way
Hit the sheets, then we break the ode? No way
Hit the takes, when they on scroll? No way

>>21880494
>North marching was Washington

John Milton was American, this is what they don't want you to know.

>It was from out the rinde of one apple tasted, that the knowledge of good and evill as two twins cleaving together leapt forth into the World. And perhaps this is that doom which Adam fell into of knowing good and evill, that is to say of knowing good by evill. As therefore the state of man now is; what wisdome can there be to choose, what continence to forbeare without the knowledge of evill? He that can apprehend and consider vice with all her baits and seeming pleasures, and yet abstain, and yet distinguish, and yet prefer that which is truly better, he is the true wayfaring Christian.

>>21639622
Who cares? As for which one is better, I'd say Milton because he's vastly more contemporary on a thematic level.

> Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav'n.
Umm, Milton sweaty, I think you meant to write "than" here instead of "then"; also, while you often do use a comma before "then", you, again, clearly meant to use "than" here so the comma is misplaced.

>Miguel de Cervantes
>John Milton
>Cavafy
>Flann O'Brien
Any other great writers who were civil servants?

Who are the most imaginative philosophers or non-fiction writers of the canon? Plato, Emerson, Montaigne, Freud, and Nietzsche are some of my favorites. I'm very ambivalent towards philosophers who have classification systems and categories which they use to catalogue aspects of human experience, like Locke and Kant for instance. If their works aren't open to an infinite amount of creative readings and responses, there isn't much to take away from them, to be honest. What do you think?

I started paradise regained but it seems a lot worse than paradise lost so far, the writing seems rushed. Anyone have better Milton recommendations?

I come across this book all the time and occasionally read reviews that are mostly positive. It seems to be a classic. I read a little about it and i'm just wondering if it's something that anyone can enjoy, people of faith, or atheists? I know it's about Satan, Adam and Eve and whatnot. I'm not sure if it's just telling stories from the bible in the authors own interesting way (something like Dante's Inferno) or if it's by a religious author that is biased and puts nothing in the story for non believers. I read Milton's purpose for the book is to "justify the ways of God to men". That doesn't sound appealing to me.

>John Milton (9 December 1608 – 8 November 1674) was an English poet and intellectual who served as a civil servant for the Commonwealth of England under its Council of State and later under Oliver Cromwell. He wrote at a time of religious flux and political upheaval, and is best known for his epic poem Paradise Lost (1667). Written in blank verse, Paradise Lost is widely considered to be one of the greatest works of literature ever written.
>Writing in English, Latin, and Italian, he achieved international renown within his lifetime; his celebrated Areopagitica (1644), written in condemnation of pre-publication censorship, is among history's most influential and impassioned defences of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. His desire for freedom extended into his style: he introduced new words (coined from Latin and Ancient Greek) to the English language, and was the first modern writer to employ unrhymed verse outside of the theatre or translations.
>William Hayley's 1796 biography called him the "greatest English author", and he remains generally regarded "as one of the pre-eminent writers in the English language", though critical reception has oscillated in the centuries since his death (often on account of his republicanism). Samuel Johnson praised Paradise Lost as "a poem which ... with respect to design may claim the first place, and with respect to performance, the second, among the productions of the human mind", though he (a Tory) described Milton's politics as those of an "acrimonious and surly republican". Poets such as William Blake, William Wordsworth and Thomas Hardy revered him.

>John Milton (9 December 1608 – 8 November 1674) was an English poet and intellectual who served as a civil servant for the Commonwealth of England under its Council of State and later under Oliver Cromwell. He wrote at a time of religious flux and political upheaval, and is best known for his epic poem Paradise Lost (1667). Written in blank verse, Paradise Lost is widely considered to be one of the greatest works of literature ever written.[1]
>Writing in English, Latin, and Italian, he achieved international renown within his lifetime; his celebrated Areopagitica (1644), written in condemnation of pre-publication censorship, is among history's most influential and impassioned defences of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. His desire for freedom extended into his style: he introduced new words (coined from Latin and Ancient Greek) to the English language, and was the first modern writer to employ unrhymed verse outside of the theatre or translations.
>William Hayley's 1796 biography called him the "greatest English author",[2] and he remains generally regarded "as one of the pre-eminent writers in the English language",[3] though critical reception has oscillated in the centuries since his death (often on account of his republicanism). Samuel Johnson praised Paradise Lost as "a poem which ... with respect to design may claim the first place, and with respect to performance, the second, among the productions of the human mind", though he (a Tory) described Milton's politics as those of an "acrimonious and surly republican".[4] Poets such as William Blake, William Wordsworth and Thomas Hardy revered him.

>>19377978
Don't listen to this faggot, he sucks cocks.

John Milton, who wrote paradise lost, was secretly a heretic. He was antitrinitarian and an Arian Christian. Of course John Milton kept it a secret in his own lifetime as Arianism was seen among one of the worst heresies even in 17th century Protestant England and he would have been punished and ostracised if he publicly wrote about it. However, John Milton did secretly write about it his Arian beliefs in a theological treatise, which he kept hidden and wasn’t discovered until 1823. Some have doubted its authenticity because it goes against Paradise lost and Paradise regained which expressed Trinitarian beliefs, but after nearly a century of interdisciplinary research, it is generally accepted that the manuscript belongs to Milton.

>>17645212
>Did Milton not believe in an omnipotent God?
Yes, he even calls him omnipotent.

>I get that God was able to destroy Lucifer’s army with one blow, but then Lucifer and his friends can just do whatever they want when they’re in Hell.

They could only do what God allowed them to do.

>Does God’s power not extend to all his creation, and did he not create Hell? Shouldn’t God have known that Lucifer was on his way to corrupt Adam and Eve?

Yes, God allowed Satan to corrupt Adam and Eve, and allowed them to Fall, for the GREATER GOOD that would result from God then needing to save humanity by becoming incarnate as Jesus. Now, in all the ages of heaven, we will know God as redeemer and savior, as opposed to just knowing him as creator.

>Or did Milton just not take what he was writing too seriously?

Milton spent his entire life as a sort of preparation leading up to the writing of Paradise Lost.

Where to start with Milton?

>>17492197
It might be interesting to make the "medley ... incorporated" a little stronger, to bookend it with that earlier theme of writers being both active and passive recipients of tradition to create an "organic," ever-changing literary tradition. Again, nitpicky and subjective here, but "medley" sounds too much like optional window-dressing to me, and "incorporated" sounds like they just tossed it in as garnish. But my personal preferences in studying reception theory are coming in here, since I instinctively think more about that active/passive interplay, e.g., how these writers both had the Greeks as a RESOURCE to draw from, but also were TASKED with receiving the Greeks, in ways that entailed emergent complexity in their interactions. For example, if we are "incorporating" the ancients, presumably we must have a stance on how we relate to them: are we standing on their shoulders? late imitators of their natural greatness? or are we standing alongside them, even surpassing them? (You've probably heard of the famous "quarrel between the ancients and moderns.") Not to say you have to include all this as a digression - my only point is that a slight change in metaphor ("medley ... incorporated" --> something more active, reactive, live) might be stronger.

This does come out in your "classical and modern, pagan and Christian," but paradoxically I wonder if "fusion" is TOO strong -- that is, if the metaphor of fusion is too straightforward: simply the equal melding of two parts. Surely there's more to it than a completely EQUAL melding? Doesn't the modern constitute the more active component? This comes out better (to me) when you talk about Milton's merging of Christian and pagan elements, because (to me) it's obvious there that MILTON is doing the merging. (This is getting hyper-nitpicky now though and I don't want to make you doubt yourself.)

I think the Johnson thing is neat. Although I have to say: I don't know what you are applying for, its stylistic norms, etc., so I don't know if your choice of quoting several authorities throughout the proposal is kosher. It did stand out to me that you're citing/quoting and naming specific sources you've consulted a fair bit. Is that normal for this sort of proposal?

"Chain of progression," again, might imply whiggishness on your part.

Again, I don't know what you study or what is kosher, but would you look good if you included a statement that you are taking some time to study early modern English history as well? The 16-17th centuries are such an exciting time, and so much of intellectual and I imagine literary developments are in dialogue with the political revolutions.

"... and then led me to consider HIS" seems like an ambiguous antecedent to me. When I read that sentence I first read "HIS" as "Cicero's," because Cicero was the initial subject of the sentence.

Maybe nitpicky: "I became instantly gripped" --> "I was instantly gripped?" Do you "become" gripped?

>masters every language

Honestly his prose moved me more than his verse.

This blind nigga

My most wondrous boy hath just turnet eight! Blessed be all ye here that partaketh in my joy!
Portrait I commissioned: