Death, continued

In Book X that we had read for Thursday (class discussion was obviously a little limited that day), a big part of the action of the book is the decision on Adam's part - and eventually Eve's - to confess their sins and beg for repentance/forgiveness. Repentance was and is a huge theme of many of the books we have read both this semester and previously. Because Adam and Eve ask God for forgiveness, they manage what Satan did not, because he would rather "reign in Hell than serve in Heaven."

I feel like we have sort of seen this coming from the previous books, because although Satan is inherently evil (as evidenced by his contorted face even when assuming the form of a cherub), there was always that one shred of jealously and hatred that made him wish so badly to want to live in Paradise as the humans did. If he had only repented as a result of his despair (fear?) as they did, I wonder if he might have ended up differently.

Considering that, is Satan the Hero of this book? A lot of the action is focused on him. Maybe his stock "fatal flaw" was in this inability to feel remorse. Maybe it's Adam and/or Eve. Does a hero need to be a good person? Or can he literally be the Devil? If this is the case then I think Milton was pretty bold to make Satan the hero of his book in such times.

Milton in Art

William Blake, Satan, Sin, and Death, 1808, Watercolor.

Just wanted to share this interesting image of Paradise Lost. It is Blake's rendition of Satan, Sin, and Death, and I like it because it is so luminous and bright. Instead of being completed with oil-based paints, it is a watercolor, which allowed Blake to portray Death as that terrible transparent shadow (in line with the way Milton described Death). There is also a lot of movement in it, and I especially like the creepy serpent coiled around at the bottom. Do you like it?

Paraíso Perdido

Wood engraving: Gustave Doré, 1866.

Satan's Descent. Isn't this an eerie picture?

We have been talking a lot in class about the concepts of light and dark, but there was one thing I did not have a chance to bring up on Thursday. I thought I would draw everyone's attention to the concept of the Tree of Knowledge. In Book IV, lines 510-520, we are told how Satan sees Adam and Eve walking and becomes very jealous of them (I like Milton's portrayal of Satan's complexity, by the way). I must be honest when I say I am not sure who is talking at that point, because at first I thought it was Satan, miserably watching as Adam and Eve are "imparadised in one another's arms," but the lines I wanted to discuss are these:

"...all is not theirs it seems:

One fatal tree there stands of knowledge called,

Forbidden them to taste: Knowledge forbidd'n?

Suspicious, reasonless. Why should their Lord

Envy them that? Can it be sin to know,

Can it be death?..."

I highlighted those as I was reading, because I think something remains to be said for the phrase "knowledge forbidd'n," and the possible consequences for Adam and Eve having gained it (sin, or possibly death). What kind of knowledge is this? Does the Knowledge (capital K) differ for Adam and for Eve? What about Knowledge of the truth of God (or, maybe like we discussed, "light?") Therefore, I wonder if Knowledge would then be equated with "shame," "perversion," or "sin." Although I cannot offer a definitive answer in this blog, maybe we could talk about this kind of apparently forbidden Knowledge more in class. What do you think that Knowledge could mean in any of these cases?

Why does war remain...

...the so-called profession of kings? Why does war seem to be necessary for "glory?" What kind of glory is that? I am referring to the discussion I brought up in Cultural History on Friday... I cannot get past that whole "seeking glory through the agency of military conquest." Wouldn't a king be taking a huge gamble by embarking in warfare? I guess "glory" would only be achieved in the case of whopping success. Does that mean shame for failure in military pursuits? That just doesn't seem to make much sense to me, I suppose.

Anne Bradstreet

Well, I have to agree with the other girls in the class in saying that Anne Bradstreet was a great read. I loved exploring her life and learning not only about her experience (as a young woman, a colonist, an Elizabethan, a poet, the first American poet, etc.) but also a bit about Puritanism ideology and beliefs. I studied American History my junior year of high school, but we barely touched upon Puritanism, so I thought the book made a great examination of it.

However, you have to take a look at this article I found. It discusses a recent study that found that New England has surpassed the West Coast as the least religious region in America. It even mentions such "obvious suspects" as the "pedophilia scandal in the Catholic Church." It's a super interesting article, especially given everything we just read about the God-fearing religious fervor of the Puritans and the fact that they came to America to pursue their Utopia.

I was discussing this with some of the other girls, and we were thinking a lot about why exactly the Puritans came to the New World in the first place. Rather than promoting the idea of religious freedom, I feel like they came here to form that utopian society where they (as the dissenters) could flourish in their own Puritan mindset. There was no religious freedom here, as evidenced by the fear they had of other religious ideas, but rather they wanted to be exclusive in who they would accept into their community. I guess the end of the article put it best when it said that "religions are like denominations... They tend to shift." Have a look at it and tell me what you think!

"We have more curiosity than understanding. We grasp at everything, but catch nothing except wind."

Michel de Montaigne himself.

Love that quote! Seems especially fitting at times for the things we discuss in HUST (or perhaps me in Physics class). It comes from the very top of page 106 in the reading from Montaigne, "On Friendship" and "On Cannibalism" (2 hilariously different topics, in my opinion). It makes me wonder how much we really know for sure. I don't know, I don't really have a definitive response to this quote, but I thought I would bring it to your attention in case you hadn't already noticed it. It's kind of like the way he opens it, by stating that he wants to appear simple and natural, and that it is himself that he is going to portray. I like that: he is writing about what he knows best.

I enjoyed the Friendship reading too, but thought it a bit eerie the level of emotional investment this guy had in his friendships. I could see being extremely devoted to a lover or something like that, but on page 97 he discusses "some inexplicable power of destiny that brought about our union. We were looking for each other before we met..." That sounds awesome, but I'm not sure how much I believe in that. Don't get me wrong, friendships are great! No one likes friendships more than me! I am lacking in comments so if you see this and comment on it I'll send you my life story in a minute or less. But the friends I have, I met by chance - I doubt I would have my HUSTies if I never became a major, for example. I wonder why Montaigne seemed to be so invested in his friendships.

One final thing I thought I would bring up here is the matter of what Montaigne has to say about women, as seen in both the Friendship and Cannibalism books. In the former, he doubts that females have the capacities to undertake the relationships he talks about having with his friends. He states that "their souls do not seem firm enough to bear the strain of so hard and lasting a tie." Why? I disagree. On the other hand, in the Cannibalism book, he says of women that "some of their women employ themselves in the meantime with the warming of their drink, which is their principal duty." Why is that the women's principal duty? Did you notice any other comments about women in this article too?

King Lear

I wish Hooper and Brigette could have joined us for the presentation of King Lear from AFTLS! The actors' talent was very impressive, especially given that there were only 5 actors for far more than 5 roles in the play. It was a very well done job, and I loved how "into it" the actors were (especially the blonde guy). Although I can see it required a lot of talent to play dual roles, it made it somewhat confusing and a bit harder to follow, and I had never read King Lear before, either. There also were not that many props (or they were not real - i.e., a stick for a sword), no elaborate costume changes (such as a simple scarf or hat for a different character) and no outrageous scenery. At first I thought that those things would really take away from the play, or at least make it harder to get in to and imagine it. But, by the time the play was over, I realized that I didn't really miss those additions, because they are not always necessary to make a drama production really good. The talent of the actors was what shone through the most, not the props they carried or a special backdrop.

All in all, a well-done show. Can't wait for Navy Pier in October! And props (ha?) to the HUST department for reimbursing the ticket cost. Much appreciated.