f a essay plan crit Flashcards
Introduction:
Milton purposefully glorifies Satan in order to remind the reader of how easily seduced they are, with the reader a conscious and willing participant in the morally-instructive exercise.
Para 1:
Milton unwaveringly maintains that they are unsympathetic
C.S. Lewis “many of those who say that they dislike Milton’s God only mean that they dislike God”
Inversion- many of those who find Milton’s fallen angels attractive only mean that they find Milton’s fallen angels attractive
Miltonic narrator repeatedly undermines and contradicts the rhetoric and allure of the fallen angels
Furthermore declared theodicy of “justify the ways of God to men”
Para 2:
Milton begins book one by asserting the unattractive nature of the angels- “Who first seduced them to that foul revolt?/ Th’infernal Serpent. He it was”
Q and A form pre-emptively address accusations that Milton sympathises and sets out dogmatic and shared opinion of Fallen Angels
Caesura adds emphasis to the evilness
Para 3:
More examples of Miltonic narrator undercutting attractiveness
Supports C.S Lewis view that this is the “dazzlingly simple” and “great moral which reigns in Milton”
Milton starkly contradicts long passage about the myth of Hephaestos’ casting down from Mount Oympus- “Thus they relate,/ Erring”
Delay of Erring with pause of line highlights the absurdity of the myth
Wider lesson to the reader not to admire the Classical World, despite the slick allure of rhetoric, as it is inherently pagan, despite them both being hugely important in the Renaissance world
Thus Miltonic Narrator shows a thorough dedication to steering the reader away from anything even related to the Fallen Angels
Para 4:
“Vaunting aloud but racked with deep despair”
Reminds reader of the undesirability of estrangement from God
Also reminds them of the dangerous sophistry of rhetoric, which cause the audience to trust in false logic
Para 5:
Miltonic Narrator also takes an emotional tack to turn the reader against the fallen angels
Similarity of the Great Consult with the parliament of Charles I
The debate is “dissolved” by Satan, sitting “High on a throne of royal state”
Obviously kingly imagery of throne
Charles I “dissolved” parliament which led to the English Civil War of 1642-1651
Para 6:
Stevie Davies goes further to argue that Satan is portrayed as an Eastern-Style despot
Many links made between Satan and the Orient
Explicitly sinister connotations for the reader
Satan’s throne is one “which far/ Outshon the wealth of Ormus and Ind.”
References to Persia and India- both bad for the reader
Also which Fallen Angel each pagan god is based on is described in horrific detail- “human sacrifice”
Reminds the reader any sympathy with the fallen angels is tantamount to paganism
Para 7:
Miltonic Narrator takes away the personal aspect of the Fallen angels, making them impossible to sympathise with
At the Great Consult, the Angels are seen to represent the Seven Sins
This makes them repulsive
Reminds the reader they are not fellow creatures but causes of human estrangement from God
Para 8:
Secular modern reader cannot comprehend the fundamentally religious world view of the contemporary reader
Modern reader finding the Fallen Angels attractive is simply anachronistic
A 17th century reader inculcated with both God-fear and understanding of the evil nature of Satan
Thus the MN’s reminders are simply reiterations of the already-held viewpoint
Para 9:
On the other hand
Fallen Angels undeniably and unmistakably attractive
Blake: Milton was “of the Devil’s party without knowing it”
Optimism of making “a Heav’n of Hell”
Resolute confidence in the belief that it is “Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven”
The tenacity of Satan’s announcement “I give not heaven for lost”
Difficult not join the rallying cry, let alone find the least bit attractive/sympathetic
Para 10:
Rhetorical skill of the Fallen Angels enough to woo any reader
Especially a contemporary one- who would have been educated in rhetoric
“a Heav’n of Hell, a Hell of ” – antimetabole, parison, alliteration, isocolon – makes the most unfeasible and deplorable concepts simple and appealing
Parison then seen again in the axiom “Better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven” – the balance is able to counterfeit sound logic
God on the other hand is unsympathetically perfect and a “tyrant”
God has an absolute monarchy- anathema to Republican readers
Para 11:
However
Not so simple as an unmitigated glorification or vilification
Lines 529-564 the Fallen Angels hold Classical style games, create divine music and philosophize
This would be attractive, perhaps even ideal to a renaissance reader
MN immediately negate their glory with the interjection “Vain wisdom all and false philosophy!”
Exclamatio conveys conviction of the narrator
Suggests MN purposely led the reader from God to remind them of the dangerous allure of sin
Para 12:
Fish: “Not so much a teaching but an entangling”
MN wants to demonstrate to readers the ease with which rhetoric can upturn even the reader’s most fundamental belief, their God-Fear
Again warning the reader of sophistry- potentially corrupting vehicle for evil concept
Para 13:
Fish’s viewpoint in part corrobates Blake’s- that Milton is “of the Devil’s party”
However consciously, deliberately and conscientiously
Moreover that God is uncharismatic and unattractive is okay
Fowler- “ludicrous” that God, an immaterial and infinite being, would possess Earthly charm and charisma
Moreover the apparent absolute monarchy of Heaven is justifiable, in fact desirable
C.S. Lewis- the “great moral” is that “Obedience to the will of God makes men happy”
Conclusion
Agree with Fish that it is intentionally leading the readers away
However cannot believe that a contemporary reader who had been steeped in the concept of the seductive power of Satan for their entire life would be oblivious that they are taking part in a literary exercise to demonstrate just that
Furthermore I think in the context of the turmoil of fiercely opposed political ideologies vying for power Milton is advising the narrator to careful decisions about whose party to belong to, considering matter over rhetoric
