“sober certainty of waking bliss”

While I have not finished reading “Areopagitica” (I have about 15 pages left) what I have read so far has really interested me - I even laughed at one point! I’m not sure why I understood and enjoyed this piece of Milton’s prose so much more than “Reason of Church Government” and “Apology for Smectymnuus” but perhaps they warmed up my brain for this (better) stuff. I’m going to break down some of this (it helps me understand it, maybe it can help someone else too).

First of all, there is no question to Milton’s point here: in his speech to Parliament, Milton is asking them to lighten up with the book licensing already. His following arguments are broken down so well - well, I can only say how delightful they are to read. He goes back to Greece and Rome, and how these very early societies were pretty much allowed to write about what they wanted…then the Christians took over, and it just got a little bit hairy, heretical books were examined and debated in general councils “and not till then were prohibited, or burnt by the authority of the Emperor” (205). But then Milton recalls that it got a little messier when Martin the Fifth took the throne, as he had people excommunicated on account of their heretical writings and this prety much continued all the way to the Council of Trent (it convened three times between 1545 and 1563, I had to look this one up). Milton points out that by this time, anything that wasn’t to their “palat,” anything they disagreed with (so no longer just heretical material) could be banned.

And then Milton made me laugh. Out loud. “Their latest invention was to ordain that no Book, pamphlet, or paper should be Printed (as if S. Peter had bequeth’d them the keys of the Presse also out of Paradise) unless approv’d and licenc’t inder the hand of 2 or 3 glutton friars” (206). Look, look he’s being funny! and clever!

Then Milton begins discussing the freedom of man and the importance of choice. “Read any books what ever come to they hands, for thou art sufficient both to judge aright, and to examine each matter” (210-211). If God granted people the ability to decide in other matter, why did he not allow people to choose what to read? Soon Milton twists their argument up onto itself; by their own standards, even the Bible would have to be banned. Oh how ironic. I can practically hear Milton’s glee; to me it seemed he had fun writing this one.

Perhaps part of me really enjoyed “Areopagitica” because of Milton’s ideas about good and evil being so entwined that you cannot really eliminated one without eliminating the other. I think I agree with Milton; a person cannot know what good is if they do not know what bad is, therefore you cannot simply take bad away to create people who know only good. It goes back to the binary thing again; you cannot have one without the other. It really bothers me how some parents try so hard to shelter their children from the realities of life on earth. My own parents tried so hard to keep me away from anything that had to do with sex, violence, sex, racism, sexism, you name it. Television and movies were strictly monitored. (I was the only one in my 5th grade class who did not see Titanic in the theater. I saw it 6 years later, when I had finally convinced my mother I should be allowed to see PG-13 movies). They weren’t that crazy. I was allowed to read pretty much anything I wanted, so of course, I read everything and anything I could get my hands on. I learned way way more about sex and love and violence and hatred through the books I read than through anything I ever watched on TV or at the movies. I would say that is still true (as now I am allowed to watch R rated movies too, haha). So while my parents thought they were protecting me by severely restricting my technology consumption (don’t even get me started on my Internet privileges, or lackthereof) they were in fact leading me to an even greater education through reading. My parents were so smart! They were teaching me to learn for myself, to think for myself. Those books (some classics a la To Kill A Mocking Bird and Anne of Green Gables, some not so classics like The Babysitter’s Club and some pirate romance novel I found in the basement) allowed me to absorb radical, new ideas slowly and think them over for myself. I can completely relate to Milton’s point in “Areopagitica”; if people can’t decide for themselves what’s good and bad - or see how they are intertwined, learn to discern for themselves - then they will never really understand what each is and they will never discover true knowledge.

I started this as a comment to one of my own posts, but I think it deserves a whole post of it’s own.

The conversations we had in class yesterday really helped clear up the issue of Milton’s arrogance for me. I realized (I think after reading ‘Lycidas’ and I also think I mentioned this in Milton’s Prose) that Milton didn’t question his abilities or purpose, he only questioned his opportunity to use those abilities to complete his larger purpose. As Professor Campbell said, “He is not humble, but he is not disobedient.” If Milton denied his gifts (bestowed on him by God) he would be, in a sense, denying God and God’s will. I know we talked a lot about this in class, but it really got me thinking. Why did I have such a problem with Milton explaining his credentials? Why was my initial reaction to label him as arrogant and stuck up? Was I jealous? Annoyed? I had such a hard time reconciling the man that was being presented in the prose and the man that wrote the beautifully moving poetry I now like so much. Our class discussion yesterday really helped me figure all this stuff out though, helped me understand Milton and remind me to lighten up.

See, I am one of those people that has wasted so much of my life wondering if I was good enough. Professor Campbell was speaking right to me (without knowing, obviously) when he recalled the anecdote about the paper he got an A on. The professor thought it was good, but was it really good? I won statewide awards for my writing in high school, professors do give me good grades…but somehow I feel like I’ve always just been fooling everyone. This self-doubt does not plague me in other areas of my life. I would call myself a confident, self-assured human being. But, of course, I fall in to this trap when it comes to a talent I seem to possess. I know I’m not alone. I know a lot of my friends constantly sell themselves short, no matter where their skills lie. They aren’t really beautiful or quick-footed or great at listening or imaginative writers. They aren’t naturally gifted. They’re okay. They could be a lot better. Why don’t they view themselves as the best? Couldn’t they be? And even if they’ll never been number one in their field, can’t they be really really good? Why does it take others to see what we cannot see within ourselves? How tragic that we will doubt ourselves and doubt others when we are praised and be ready to agree or accept when we are criticized? Milton is so great because he never doubts his talent, he never doubts himself. And instead of being annoyed or dismissive when encountering his self-promotion, I think we should be celebratory. Here is an awesome, awesome human being who was proud of himself, proud of the hard work he had done and proud of his natural abilities.

Milton would not want us to lord our talents and skill over others, he would not want us to brag about our “credentials”. Instead, I think Milton would want us to accept ourselves for who we are, talents and all. And he’d want us to use them. Maybe that’s what Milton was so afraid of, not dying before he could achieve his goals, but drowning in self-doubt before he could even begin. That’s definitely something I suffer from.

Anyway, what I really wanted to talk about was how Milton was also redeemed after I read the Preface and Chapter 1 of “The Reason of Church Government.” Here were the points he didn’t really make in the autobiographical section (or that I failed to see there). I liked how he starts off with “persuasion certainly is a more winning, and more manlike way to keepe men in obedience then feare.” This, I feel, is something Milton lives by and why he did oppose the monarchy and the direction of the Church’s political power. As a man so supportive of freedom, of course he advocates discussion over threats. Words you are free to oppose or agree with, a threat really provides only one option of response. The other part I found interesting was in Chapter 1: “And therefore all the ancient lawgivers were either truly inspired by Moses…because they wisely forethought that men would never quietly submit to such a discipline as had not more of God’s hand in it than mans.” I’m not absolutely sure what he means here; is it saying that laws have more clout and sway with people with God behind them? or is it that a combination, sort of a collaboration, between God and man creates the most effective system law?

In any case, I have a much greater understanding of Milton and Milton’s prose now (I’m really enjoying “Areopagitica”), at least something more to work with.

I have to be honest and say that I am really unsure about “Apology for Smectymnuus” and “The Reason of Church Government.” The sentences go on and on, often somewhat awkwardly (I found this especially in ‘Reason’) and I had so much trouble finding Milton’s meaning while wading through the verbiage. It might just be me; the archaic spellings and sentence structure of the 17th century clearly doesn’t appeal to my brain. While Milton’s poetry made me think about nature, beauty, life, death, religion, and government his prose caused me to think very little. While reading “Reason” I kept searching for something I could recognize as relating to the Episcopal Church or the Catholic Church, or government…Maybe I just totally missed the point. I’m going to reread it before class tomorrow, but this is one I’m going to have to figure out during our discussion.

A few things were clear(ish) to me, however. On page 52 of “The Reason of Church Government” it seems that Milton discusses his own artistic and poetic gifts and how he is grateful for his opportunity to peruse them: “Yet ease and leasure was given thee for thy retired thoughts out of the sweat of other men.” I’m glad that Milton seems to be expressing, if not gratitude, at least acknowledgment for the opportunities he has. His ability to attend school and pursue a career in writing is because of others who do the physical labor he’ll never have to. His privilege and position in society allow him this opportunity; what if Milton was born into a life of hard labor? Perhaps he would have felt the same burning purpose but would be unable to achieve much. What I got out of the rest, though, was kind of a brag-fest. “These abilities, wheresoever they be found, are the inspired gift of God rarely bestow’d, but yet to some (though most abuse) in every Nation” (57). Milton is obviously taking about himself… I wouldn’t go so far to say that he lacks all humility, but he is not afraid of stating what he think about himself. No low self esteem here. That’s something that’s interesting about Milton. Even when questioning his own mortality and ambitions in the poem “Lycidas,” Milton never doubts that God has given him these gifts, given him a great purpose. He just has doubts about his opportunity to reach all his dreams - will God kill him before he’s made something great out of his life (like he’s supposed to)? Goodness, looking at it this way, Milton was an arrogant boy. He must have been pretty annoying at times.

So, I definitely like the poetry better so far… This prose side of Milton is not one I’m fond of. Yet.

EDIT: So I just glanced at the extra reading Prof. Campbell sent and it looks like it has more meat than the excerpt in the book. This might help change my mind about this stuff.

What a beautiful poem. I love the beginning and the end. The middle I am still pretty unsure about; I don’t know if I like it, I don’t know if I understand what it’s about yet. The destruction and despair in the first part of the poem is so heartbreaking. The speaker’s desire to destroy the physical earth, the nature around him seems so right. When a loved one is dead the life on earth, the earth itself, is wrong somehow. It shouldn’t keep on growing and moving and living. It should stop too.

“Bitter constraint, and sad occasion dear, / Compels me to disturb your season due: / For Lycidas is dead” (lines 6 - 8).

His anguish and frustration, taken out on the nature around him, is clearly yet subtlety expressed. Oh, and the continued despair (”now thou art gone, / Now thou art gone, and never must return”)… I may just be feeling depressed myself, but I can just feel the anguish in those lines - I could practically cry. The injustice and utter horror Milton is feeling…

But this is why I love the end. And I’m beginning to feel like Milton has a thing for binaries (and perhaps a desire to hold both true at once (?), but I digress on that for now). There has been only pain and anger…but is this hope I sense towards the end? The poem feels like Milton is talking himself out of a deep deep depression. At first, he cannot contain himself, actually destroying what is around him, the living plants ripped and dead. But finally, around line 132, “the dread voice is past,” and while nature is wounded by the tragedy, full of tears, shrunken, and pale, the shepherds are told to stop crying. While their sorrow for Lycidas is not yet gone, he is not yet gone either. Milton describes where his friend has gone:

“So Lycidas sunk low, but mounted high, / Through the dear might of him that walked the waves, / Where other groves, and other streams along, / with nectar pure his oozy locks he laves, / And hears the unexpressive nuptial song, / There entertain him all the saints above, / in solemn troops, and sweet societies / That sing, and singing in their glory move, / And wipe the tears for ever from his eyes” (lines 172 - 182).

Besides being so beautiful, the section above must be describing heaven, where Lycidas has ascended, now “mounted high.” As a Christian, it makes sense for Milton to take comfort in the fact that his friend would live on in heaven, even though his earthly life had ended. His initial reaction makes sense, but a person of faith would eventually find comfort in his belief that we live on in heaven with God. This section of the poem seemed really familiar to me, and something quite similar can be found in the Bible, in the book of Revelation, chapter 21. Basically, the chapter outlines the new earth that God will create after the final judgment, an earth where God will live among men and the dead will rise, basically eliminated the need for us to ascend into heaven.

“Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Rev 21:3-4)

I think it is very telling that Milton alludes to (heck, he practically quotes it) this part of the Bible, this promise of God’s that one day there will be no more death or mourning. Milton will once again be reunited with his dear friend in heaven, but he must wait for his own death or for the promise of the new earth to be fulfilled. He is comforted by the fact that his friend is experiencing such comfort now, but he must wait. This part of the poem is screaming, “Delay, delay, delay!” (the beginning of the poem is obviously associated with loss, a very personal loss of a friend). I love the last line of the poem also, as the speaker has been sitting and thinking about his friend all day and now the sun is setting…it’s time to get up, “Tomorrow to fresh woods and pastures new.” Milton is deciding to feel hope for his own life and gladness for his own continued existence on earth, which I think is the struggle a person faces in the face of enormous loss. Finding a reason to get up the next morning. I doubt Milton came to that point as quickly as his poem seems to do, but I think it is a fascinating capture of some of those emotions.

I began reading this “masque” (my first experience with this genre, as I guess it would be called) searching for some of Milton’s energizing principles. I struggled to find good examples of them though, which slightly concerned me because they were pretty obvious traces of them in the poetry we read the night before. Brown’s essay Milton’s Ludlow Masque was very informative and helped me understand why this 33 piece didn’t seem as thematically Milton-y as his other poetry (Even though the language was beautiful. I honestly did not expect John Milton to be such a beautiful poet; in fact, most of my preconceived notions are pretty much out the window, on day three). Something that struck me was that Milton was commissioned to write this for a specific occasion and for a specific audience. Obviously he could not have the free reign of topic or philosophy that he had writing poetry for himself. A Masque seems much more restrained and politically correct, in some sense, than the other pieces we read. Another important detail that helped explain my dilemma was that children performed the play, and it clearly has a lesson about virtue and purity woven in to it. The support Milton shows for the protection of virginity and purity was a little startling because such conservative values were not as staunchly expressed in the other poetry. Perhaps womanly virtue was very important to Milton, but I feel as though the pedagogical nature of the piece shows that Milton was strongly influenced by the nature of the event and the young actors. As a supporter of divorce, I doubt that Milton esteemed female virginity above all other virtues.

While the principles pretty much eluded me, the first speech by the Attendant Spirit interested me a lot. The characters in the play were protected and tempted by pagan gods, but the Attendant seems to evoke a world living in sin (line 6 - 10) that doesn’t know God yet or redemption. “Yet some there be that by due steps aspire/To lay their hands on that golden key/That opens the palace to eternity” (lines 12 - 14). This line seems to express both ambition and delay, as this place and these characters are waiting for Christianity and for everything good it brings.

Is Milton saying that a virtuous life is the way to redemption, and he is simply using virginity and purity as an illustration or does he really champion those virtues? Is he really condemning revelry and celebration (because honestly, Comus seems like he’d be pretty fun to party with, minus his excess, I suppose), and if he is, isn’t that ironic because a masque is pretty much a party? Maybe I am missing a larger point here…or missing a key detail to guide my thoughts. Hopefully after class today this will seem less muddled in my head. Milton sort of confused me with this one, but I like it a lot.

and so the blogging begins…