 MHotMailBCA5836900824004321C8DA6BC1283F80; Tue Apr 17 05:34:55 2001 Received: (from majordom@localhost) 	by argyle.richmond.edu (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f3HBtch29233; 	Tue, 17 Apr 2001 07:55:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Originating-IP: [152.163.213.66] From: "sarah cohen"  To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Paradise Lost and films? Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 19:03:32 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-ID:  Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu Far from a great film but interesting in its borrowings is "Devil's Advocate" with Al Pacino playing the Devil in the guise of lawyer named John Milton.  I would think students would get a kick out of the actors and its effects but the notions of free will and sin is an interesting one. Sarah Cohen   >From: Kimberly Latta   >Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu   >To: milton-l@richmond.edu   >Subject: Re: Paradise Lost and films?   >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:47:47 -0400   >   >How about that crazy film that came out recently--what was it called--about   >the two fallen angels who are trying to slip back into heaven through a   >loophole, and Alannis Morissette as God? I thought it borrowed from Milton   >heavily and shed some interesting light on why we tend to sympathize with   >Satan in the poem.   >Kimberly   >   > > From: "Burbery, Timothy"   > > Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu   > > Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:38:47 -0400   > > To: "'milton-l@richmond.edu'"   > > Subject: Paradise Lost and films?   > >   > >   > > Dear List:   > >   > > I'm wondering if anyone can recommend any films, new or old, that can help   > > illuminate Paradise Lost in the classroom. Next week, I'll show my students   > > a portion of Triumph of the Will (1935), with Hitler presiding over the   > > Nuremburg rallies, as a rough analogue of Satan summoning the fallen angels   > > in Book 1. I've also considered having them view the scenes from Alexander   > > Nevsky that Eisenstein supposely based on the War in Heaven, though this is   > > an old film and I don't have a good print of it.   > >   > > Are there other films you could recommend that contain thematic or visual   > > motifs that correspond, somewhat, to scenes from PL?   > >   > > Thanks,   > >   > > Tim Burbery   > > Marshall University   > >   > >   > >   > ---------- Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From:	jfleming@sfu.ca Sent:	Wednesday, April 18, 2001 9:54 AM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Re: gay angels On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:26:44 -0400 milton-l@richmond.edu wrote:  > At 07:56 AM 4/16/01 -0700, you wrote:  >  >  How do we know it is travestied? Because the angel, "inhabitant with  >  > God," _blushes_.  >  >JD Fleming  >  >	  I have never been able to understand how easily so many scholars  > convert  >		  "the Angel with a smile that glow'd  > Celestial rosie red, Loves proper hue" [VIII, 618-19]  >  > into a "blush," often with discussion that develops the idea that Raphael  > is embarrassed by Adam's forthrightness (see, for example, Roy's note in  > the Riverside).  But it is a	_smile_ (hardly the usual mark of shame or  > discomfort) and, what is more, the color is called  _celestial_  and  > identified as the right color for Love. So -- the celestial rosy red refers to the excellence of Raphael's lipstick? JDF From:	John Leonard [jleonard@uwo.ca] Sent:	Thursday, April 19, 2001 7:07 AM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu <3ADC8C76.4DDD08DC@stfx.ca> Subject: more on Hyacinth Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:09:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Derek Wood"  To:  Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 2:33 PM Subject: Re: gay angels Derek Wood, rebutting "Orpheus," reminds us that "pride" in 17th-century English could mean "sexual desire" (male or female).  I would add that some instances occur in a homosexual context, as in Marlowe's *Hero and Leander*, when Neptune is excited by the sight of naked Leander swimming the Hellespont:              With that he stripped him to the ivory skin              And crying. "Love I come!" leapt lively in.              Whereat the sapphire-visaged god grew proud.              And made his capering Triton sound aloud.  (637-40) "Proud" there surely hints at Neptune's erection, even though stormy seas might also be called "proud" (OED). That said, let me say at once that I do NOT think that "pride of Spartan land" in Fair Infant is nearly so lewd and lavish.  It does not invite us to visualize a tumescent Apollo or Hyacinthus.  What makes Milton's lines suggestive, I believe, is their conspicuous absence of any shame or embarrassment in celebrating male beauty, and in celebrating (nostalgically) a culture that was uninhibited in its public display and exaltation of such beauty. Yes, of course Milton thought of "sodomy" as a crime and a sin.  I have no quarrel with Larry about Milton's conscious intentions.  Where we part company is on the question of whether the mythical allusion takes on a life of its own--one that carries Milton away (though not all the way).  Larry's comment is most helpful in the way it focusses the issue.  Larry (answering me) writes: '"Hyacinthus is the pride of Spartan land in the sense of being Sparta's most beautiful youth.  Does anyone seriously doubt this?"  No, I do not doubt this.  What I doubt is that it points toward a secret homosexual reference and for the reasons I have given.  If, in the midst of a poem about an infant's tragic death we suddenly are to have inserted into our heads even a slight picture of homosexual activity, I say that that is poetically inconsistent and not at all a necessary extrapolation from the myth Milton is using to other purpose.' I  agree with Larry that Milton is not making "a secret homosexual reference."  Milton is not dropping a coded message for those in the know. He is not (Larry is right to insist) giving us "even a slight picture of homosexual activity."  But he *is* giving us a not-so-slight picture of homosexual *love.*  The question is whether this picture is (in Larry's terms) "poetically inconsistent."  Does it stand out from its context, attracting attention, or does it blend innocuously in?  I have always found the Hyacinth lines incongruous in this poem.  Larry disagrees.  He thinks Hyacinth perfectly appropriate in a poem "about an infant's tragic death"--even though Hyacinthus was not an infant. Larry certainly has a case.  An allusion to Hyacinthus need not be out of place in an elegy that begins "O fairest flower."  But Milton does not use the myth in quite the way we might expect.  He does not emphasize flowery pathos.  He never mentions the AI AI on the petals.  He gets distracted. Instead of petals, we hear of proud beauty, proud Sparta, and Apollo's "dearly loved mate."  When we do come back to the flower and the infant, the transition is almost comically pat, like an afterthought:          Yet art thou not inglorious in thy fate;          For so Apollo with unweeting hand          Whilom did slay his dearly-loved mate          Young Hyacinth born on Eurotas' strand          Young Hyacinth, the pride of Spartan land;              But then transformed him to a purple flower          Alack that so to change thee winter had no power. The simile takes on a life of its own.  It stands out.  Maybe this can be explained simply by Milton's fascination with, and love for, ancient Greece. But then Milton's love of Greece is itself not unrelated to erotic sensibilities, whether these involve angelic ephebes (th'unarmed youth of Heav'n, Severe in youthful beauty) or lovely women surpassing Delia's self in nymph-like step and goddess-like deport. The question arises:  is Milton's allusion to "Young Hyacinth" tamely consistent with 17th-century decorum, or is it unusual?  Are references to Hyacinthus common in the poetry of this period?  And if they are, do they work like Milton's?  I cannot pronounce confidently on this, but I have had a quick look at the Chadwyck Healey database for poems published between 600 and 1700.  There are 27 hits for "Hyacinthus", 51 for "Hyacinth."  Most of these are references to the flower without any mention of the youth.  Those that do mention the youth, usually mention Apollo, but do so flatly, in a catalogue of metamorphosed lovers.  William Browne (Britannia's Pastorals, II 425) is typical:   Saturne his  Rhea; Jupiter had store, As  Iï¿½, Leda, Eurï¿½pa, and more;   Mars entred  Vulcans bed; pertooke his ioy:   Phoebus had  Daphne, and the sweet-fac'd Boy;   Venus, Adonis; and the God of  Wit In chastest bonds was to the  Muses knit The "sweet-fac'd Boy" is identified as Hyacinth in a marginal note. There is one notable precedent for Milton's lines--one which almost certainly prompted Milton's anaphora.  It is Spenser, FQ III vi 45: And all about grew euery sort of flowre,      To which sad louers were transformed of yore;      Fresh Hyacinthus, Phoebus paramoure,      And dearest love,      Foolish Narcisse, that likes the watry shore,      Sad Amaranthus, made a flowre but late,      Sad Amaranthus, in whose purple gore      Me seemes I see Amintas wretched fate, To whom sweet Poets verse hath giuen endlesse date. I have quoted the stanza as it was printed in 1609.  That was when the truncated line was first printed.  In 1590 and 1596 the stanza consisted of only eight lines.  Does anyone know the textual history of this?  Was a line removed for fear of censorship?  Or did Spenser just nod?  In either case, why was only a half-line added?  What might rhyme with "yore," "shore" and "gore"? To my mind, the Spenser analogue is very important to Milton's Hyacinth.  It matters whether Hyacinth was a "paramoure" or a "dearest love."  The former term, printed freely in both earliest editions, carries a burden of Christian morality.  The latter phrase is much more generous.  Is it too much to suppose that Milton's "dearly loved mate" is a conscious choice of "dearest love" over "paramoure"? John Leonard  From:	Roy Flannagan [roy@gwm.sc.edu] Sent:	Wednesday, April 18, 2001 8:22 AM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Angel blush Dear Norm, That is a good and legitimate question, whether one is entitled to call  "Celestial rosy red" a blush, but I think I will stick with my note in the  Riverside.  Adam's question, about how angels do it (as it was indelicately  but accurately stated a while back), is something of a rude question, and a  blush is not necessarily a sign of guilt: it is an unconscious response  which can indicate everything from outright pleasure to complicity to  embarrassment.  At PL 8.511, Eve is led "blushing like the morn," and  surely she is not guilty as Adam leads her to the bower. I do believe this is Milton being delicately cute, an occasion for the  reader to laugh out loud to discover that an epic poet can have a sense of  humor and make fun of angelic behavior. Roy F  >>> nburns@binghamton.edu 04/17/01 04:26PM >>> At 07:56 AM 4/16/01 -0700, you wrote:   >  How do we know it is travestied? Because the angel, "inhabitant with   > God," _blushes_.   >JD Fleming            I have never been able to understand how easily so many scholars convert                    "the Angel with a smile that glow'd Celestial rosie red, Loves proper hue" [VIII, 618-19] into a "blush," often with discussion that develops the idea that Raphael is embarrassed by Adam's forthrightness (see, for example, Roy's note in the Riverside).  But it is a  _smile_ (hardly the usual mark of shame or discomfort) and, what is more, the color is called  _celestial_  and identified as the right color for Love.  Are we meant to understand that blushing is proper for Love?  Or should we think instead of the appearance of Love overseeing the nuptial bower, joyously erotic and unblushing? "Here Love his golden shafts imploies, here lights His constant Lamp, and waves his purple wings, Reigns here and revels...." [IV, 763-65] Can celestial love be less enthusiastic, more conflicted than its earthly counterpart?  Raphael testifies to the contrary: "Whatever pure thou in the body enjoy'st . . . we enjoy In eminence, and obstacle find none Of membrane, joynt, or limb, exclusive barrs...." [VIII, 622-25] Doesn't sound embarrassed to me. --Norm Burns  From:	Norman Burns [nburns@binghamton.edu] Sent:	Tuesday, April 17, 2001 5:23 PM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	re: Paradise Lost and films Merely for a record of completeness, I should mention _The Sentinel_(1977).  It has a half-dozen big-name players, but(as I recall) was disappointing.  Uses Milton as a gimmick--an ancient priest is (for approximately eternity) doing Gabriel's job of keeping "strict watch that to this happy place/No evil thing approach or enter in" [PL, IV, 562-63], in this case protecting the fallen world from his vantage point at the top of the house.  The PL lines are actually quoted (apparently to justify the premise of the film, as if they were written by Nostradamus), but there is nothing more Miltonic about the film, which remains a weak attempt to capitalize on the success of _The Exorcist_(1973). 	Further details on Internet Movie Database http://us.imdb.com/Title?0076683 --Norm Burns  From:	Larry Isitt [isitt@cofo.edu] Sent:	Tuesday, April 17, 2001 11:56 AM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	RE: gay angels? -- Hardly!! RE: John Leonard's extended defense of Milton's possible allusion to homosexuality in "Fair Infant" John's assertion that "meaning can be determined by context" is clearly the baseline departure for interpretation and one with which I am in complete agreement.  But I would like to widen his stated context in his dealing with the poem in view. Let me agree that Milton is sensitive to male beauty and that he knows the sexual background John presents us in his handling of the the Apollo-Hyacinthus section of the poem.  I assert that in order for this to be read as homosexuality, even glancingly, it would have to have a wider corresponding context than that John suggests: 	1) The beauty in question is not that of a full-grown male, but of an infant's.  The corresponding point of Apollo-Hyacinthus cannot therefore be stressed as to its emphasis on maleness or on relations between males, since to do so ruins the infant pictured and substitutes an unwarranted beauty Milton may well have not had in mind. 	2) The more likely correspondence in the Apollo section is to the flower itself, to its corresponding beauty with that of the infant.  This preserves the delicate beauty of all other sections in the poem and offers a much greater correspondence to the overall context of a sad early death. 	3) "Hyacinthus is the pride of Spartan land in the sense of being Sparta's most beautiful youth.  Does anyone seriously doubt this?"  No, I do not doubt this.  What I doubt is that it points toward a secret homosexual reference and for the reasons I have given.  If, in the midst of a poem about an infant's tragic death we suddenly are to have inserted into our heads even a slight picture of homosexual activity, I say that that is poetically inconsistent and not at all a necessary extrapolation from the myth Milton is using to other purpose. Larry Isitt English Dept. College of the Ozarks Point Lookout, MO 65726 417-334-6411, Ext. 4269 email: isitt @ cofo.edu -----Original Message----- From: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu [mailto:owner-milton-l@richmond.edu]On Behalf Of John Leonard Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 10:11 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: gay angels? -- Hardly!! .   > RE: John Leonard's suggestion concerning "Hyacinth" as indicator of possible   > homosexuality.   >   > Are we also prepared,given this heading, to make a homosexual of Adam whose   > "Hyacinthin Locks" were "manly hung" about his head? (PL 4.301-02) Again, I   > doubt it.   > Larry is obviously right about Adam.  Of course "Hyacinthin Locks" does not imply homosexuality.  It is an echo of Odyssey 6. 231, where Odysseus' hair flows like a hyacinth flower.  The reference is probably to colour. But the case is different in the lines I quoted from Fair Infant.  Here the reference is most certainly to Apollo's love for the beautiful youth Hyacinthus.  Lest anyone doubt this, let me cite the lines in context: 		Yet art thou not inglorious in thy fate; 		For so Apollo, with unweeting hand 		Whilom did slay his dearly-loved mate 		Young Hyacinth born on Eurotas strand 		Young Hyacinth the pride of Spartan land. "Mate" there might mean nothing more than "companion" (as when Satan calls to his "neerest Mate"), but the other sense "lover, paramour" did exist and is attested in 17th century English (see OED).  Hyacinth was Apollo's mate in both senses ("G'day mate").  Milton does not spell this out ("dearly-loved" is not conclusive), but the lines are suggestive. Now to "pride."  "Orpheus" ("Woods and Rocks had Eares to rap-to-ya") rightly takes me to task for my rash comment that "pride" might have something of its modern gay resonance.  He mockingly suggests that the real reference is to a pride of lions.  I think most of us would agree that "pride" here means "the prime; the flower"(OED 9a) and that Hyacinthus is the pride of Spartan land in the sense of being Sparta's most beautiful youth.  Does anyone seriously doubt this? My point in drawing (an admittedly inept) comparison with the modern gay use of "pride" was that Milton's "pride" also has a social dimension. The reference is not only to Hyacinthus's beauty, but to the Spartan festival of the Hyacinthia in which ephebes would sing praises to Apollo. I still think that this is plausible, even probable. Milton would have known about Spartan festivals, which are described by Plutarch and Xenophon, among others. None of this proves anything about Milton's sexual preferences.  Let me be clear:  I have no doubt whatever that Milton always liked women.  But there are many hints in the poems that he was also sensitive to male beauty.  Maybe I am wrong about this, but I am not wrong for the reason Larry gives.  My point about "Young Hyacinth" is not demolished just because Larry can quote another reference to Hyacinth which is clearly free from homoerotic associations.  The erotic and social nuances of "pride" are not cancelled just because "Orpheus" reminds us that we can speak of a pride of lions.  Yes, signs are iterable, but meaning can be determined by context.  In the lines from "Fair Infant", Young Hyacinth is the Hyacinthus loved by Apollo.  He is the "pride of Spartan land" because of his beauty, and because his fate is commemorated in public festivals. John Leonard  From:	Derek Wood [dwood@stfx.ca] Sent:	Tuesday, April 17, 2001 2:33 PM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Re: gay angels Orpheus wrote:  > On the other hand, it might just mean pride as  in a pride of lions.  >  > -----  >    "Pride" here might even have something like its  >  > modern gay resonance. Milton could hardly have been insensitive to its contemporary sexual resonance especially when writing of a "dearly loved mate." A recent copy of the Oxford alumni magazine, in all its Oxonian innocence, had an article entitled in  huge, bold type, "GOING DOWN," not a likely headline in a North American journal. Milton had read Shakespeare's                                    flesh stays no farther reason          But rising at thy name doth point out thee          As his triumphant prize. Proud of this pride,          He is contented thy poor drudge to be,          To stand in thy affairs, fall by thy side.          No want of conscience hold it that I call          Her 'love' for whose dear love I rise and fall. In Lucrece, 'The flesh being proud, Desire doth fight with Grace.' Its less fleshly but still carnal sense was common: in Othello's 'as hot as monkeys, As salt as wolves in pride...,' or Boyet's 'Proud with his form, in his eye pride expressed,' or the  Dark Lady's 'foul pride' which aimed to get 'one angel in another's hell.'  In his History, Milton writes of  'Danish Insolencies' of  'thir pride, thir ravishing of Matrons and Virgins' (CP 5: 340) and and in Of True Religion, he thunders against the nation's depravity, its 'Pride, Luxury, Drunkenness, Whoredom' (CP 8: 438) where the sexual overtones seem important. The Oxford journalist was innocent of the North American resonance of her phrase; Milton was surely aware of the resonance of his in an allusion to male love.          Best wishes,          Derek Wood.          St. Francis Xavier University. From:	Norman Burns [nburns@binghamton.edu] Sent:	Tuesday, April 17, 2001 4:27 PM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Re: gay angels At 07:56 AM 4/16/01 -0700, you wrote:  >  How do we know it is travestied? Because the angel, "inhabitant with  > God," _blushes_.  >JD Fleming           I have never been able to understand how easily so many scholars convert                   "the Angel with a smile that glow'd Celestial rosie red, Loves proper hue" [VIII, 618-19] into a "blush," often with discussion that develops the idea that Raphael is embarrassed by Adam's forthrightness (see, for example, Roy's note in the Riverside).  But it is a  _smile_ (hardly the usual mark of shame or discomfort) and, what is more, the color is called  _celestial_  and identified as the right color for Love.  Are we meant to understand that blushing is proper for Love?  Or should we think instead of the appearance of Love overseeing the nuptial bower, joyously erotic and unblushing? "Here Love his golden shafts imploies, here lights His constant Lamp, and waves his purple wings, Reigns here and revels...." [IV, 763-65] Can celestial love be less enthusiastic, more conflicted than its earthly counterpart?  Raphael testifies to the contrary: "Whatever pure thou in the body enjoy'st . . . we enjoy In eminence, and obstacle find none Of membrane, joynt, or limb, exclusive barrs...." [VIII, 622-25] Doesn't sound embarrassed to me. --Norm Burns  From:	Justin Pepperney [pepperney.3@osu.edu] Sent:	Tuesday, April 17, 2001 10:12 AM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	PL and films I missed the origin of this thread, but I wanted to mention that a fellow TA had some success teaching PL with the original Star Trek episode "Space Seed" as part of his early Brit. Lit. survey.  In this episode, Khan (Ricardo Mantalban), an escaped, genetically engineered totalitarian leader from "Earth's Third World War" wakes from suspendend animation and tries to take over the Enterprise.  Kirk's misquoting of Milton: "better to rule in hell than serve in heaven" tips off the viewer that Khan is modelled on Satan in Books I&II.  Although today's undergraduate students might not be as familiar with classic Star Trek as their predecessors, it is a good teaching opportunity and a great Miltonic moment in pop culture. You can read more about "Space Seed" at: http://www.startrek.com/library/episodes_tos_detail.asp?ID=68708 Justin  From:	owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Sent:	Wednesday, April 18, 2001 6:32 AM 2001 07:16:55 PDT Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 07:16:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Erin Murphy  Subject: Re: Paradise Lost and films? To: milton-l@richmond.edu In-Reply-To:  MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu The recent film The Loss of Sexual Innocence, directed by Mike Figgis, is interesting in its own right, if at times pretentious, and reimagines provocatively both Eve's birth scene and the final moments of the poem (Adam and Eve are driven out of their paradisal park by police and barking dogs, only to be surrounded by oglers and paparazzi as they struggle to pull on their clothes.)  I've taught these scenes once, and the students were able to do some wonderful work with them.  The only hitch is there is nudity, so the appropriateness would, as always, depend on the audience. Good luck, Erin Murphy Rutgers University __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/  From:	Larry Isitt [isitt@cofo.edu] Sent:	Tuesday, April 17, 2001 10:59 AM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	RE: Gay Angels? -- Hardly! Bill Hunter writes:  >For Larry Isett, et al.,  >Please before you continue the debate read the evidence I have presented in  >Milton Quarterly, 34 (October 2000), 98-99.  Then respond to it. Dear Bill, Of course you are right to object on the principle that I should argue from evidence; I would not willingly ignore or minimize any of your articles or books relevant to this subject in order to make a convenient debate point. It would be sloppy and irresponsible of me to do so. And if I could locate my missing copy of MQ 34.3 (Oct 2000) I would consult it now to rejoin your points(I have March, May, and Dec issues, but not Oct at hand). That point acknowledged, I must return to your online statement regarding angelic sex, for it is to that online assertion that I made my online rejoinder. You write: "Angels have sex.  They are all males; heaven is populated by actively gay angels."  It seems to me that on the face of these words of yours I have not been unfair in responding as I have. You use the modern word "gay," with its associated modern denotation, and do so knowing that it conjures a heaven of millions upon millions of copulating angels backsiding one another in rapturous orgiastic joy before the throne of Milton's holy God.  This is not, of course, how Milton puts angelic relations through Raphael, but it is how we may fairly take your assertion of angelic gayety.  If angels have sex, are all males, and are all gay, how else are we to take your assertion but in our modern sense? It is to your insertion of modern gayness into Milton's epic that I do alone object, however else you wish to take Raphael's response to Adam (PL 8.618-30) or other evidence.  I reassert my central point made in my previous post: The Bible is Milton's very warrant to breathe, since it is from God; and in it God utterly denounces homosexual and lesbian sex (Lev 20:13; Rom 1:26-27, to name but two passages). He would not willingly contradict it, nor could he possibly have made a mistake in speaking as he has of angelic sex. As you have called upon me and others to consider your evidence, so I would return the same charge to you regarding Milton's life and high regard for the Bible as the center of his existence and practices. If we ignore this Milton and instead take your lead and posit a gay heaven, we must perforce posit a winking, leering Milton laughing at his own sardonic joke on us. Is there some other word besides "gay" that you would now wish to substitute in your online  statement to clarify your remarks?  If not, and you wish to still stand by this word as a fair assertion of Milton's intentions regarding angelic sex, then I would ask you why it is that Milton would so utterly degrade his own grand argument to "justifie the wayes of God to men" by fielding legions of lecherous angels, knowing well, as he did, that he had no Biblical warrant to do so and that his own readers would condemn all of his efforts to defend a God who would put up with the practice?  His holy God could not in this event possibly judge Adam and Eve for fruit-picking when his own good angels are degrading themselves before his very throne of dazzling holy light. I conclude, then, by saying that to me your remarks online appear anachronistic since they make Milton an advocate of a practice foreign to his Bible, foreign to England's laws, and foreign to the stated logic of Paradise Lost itself to vindicate a holy God. I must admit, however, that I cannot tell from your brief online comment whether you mean "gay" in our sense absolutely or whether in twinkling merriment from an extrapolation you were making of some article where you may have spoken in more guarded terms. Larry Isitt English Dept. College of the Ozarks Point Lookout, MO 65726 417-334-6411, Ext. 4269 email: isitt @ cofo.edu -----Original Message----- From: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu [mailto:owner-milton-l@richmond.edu]On Behalf Of whunter Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 6:36 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Angelic Sex From:	JBMorgaine@aol.com Sent:	Tuesday, April 17, 2001 9:38 AM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Re: Paradise Lost and films? While I'll admit that  _South Park, The Movie: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut_  is NOT the usual sort of film shown in classrooms, Trey Parker and Matt Stone constructed a wonderfully Miltonesque song for their animated Satan in which he longs to be a part of the world "Up There." Other themes currently of interest to the list, namely daemonic sexuality, are also explored in this character with real irreverence and very little taste. Julie Bruneau From:	AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent:	Monday, April 16, 2001 12:21 PM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Re: gay angels? -- Hardly!! In a message dated 04/16/2001 7:53:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, gilliaca@jmu.edu writes:  > And where, one may ask, did "Somewhere Over the Rainbow"  > come to be a gay themesong,if not because JM's angels also  > sang it?!  >  > Cynthia, friend of Dorothy, as they used to say - and maybe  > You know the next step, right?  To start going through Milton's PL and start looking for Streisand and Dorothy references? Angels live outside of time, do they not? Jim From:	Hardin, Richard F [rhardin@ukans.edu] Sent:	Monday, April 16, 2001 12:59 PM To:	'milton-l@richmond.edu' Subject:	RE: Performance of masque at Folger This message uses a character set that is not supported by the Internet Service.  To view the original message content,  open the attached message. If the text doesn't display correctly, save the attachment to disk, and then open it using a viewer that can display the original character set. From:	jfleming@sfu.ca Sent:	Monday, April 16, 2001 10:57 AM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Re: gay angels I wonder if this discussion is not missing the humor of the relevant moment in _PL_ and the ineffability of the subject in question. Raphael, list members will recall, is induced to speak of angelic sexuality only after having scolded Adam, perhaps excessively, for the latter's susceptibility to passion. Adam offers a gentle correction to Raphael's correction, followed by the smooth and surprising counter-inquiry "how do you guys do it" (in so many words). As far as I can tell this is the only instance in Adam's two long tutorials (with Raphael and Michael) where the student really turns the tables on the teacher, putting him off balance and allowing the paradisal colloquy to be momentarily travestied. How do we know it is travestied? Because the angel, "inhabitant with God," _blushes_. He then begins his answer with "Suffice thou think us happy," a typical Miltonic erasure-in-advance: it is not really possible to "say," even in UNfallen earthly terms, whether/how "angels" have "sex." The classical homosocial vision R then offers is, in part, a sign of its own insufficiency.	 JD Fleming  From:	sarah cohen [thesheck@hotmail.com] Sent:	Monday, April 16, 2001 3:04 PM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Re: Paradise Lost and films? Far from a great film but interesting in its borrowings is "Devil's Advocate" with Al Pacino playing the Devil in the guise of lawyer named John Milton. I would think students would get a kick out of the actors and its effects but the notions of free will and sin is an interesting one. Sarah Cohen >From: Kimberly Latta >Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu >To: milton-l@richmond.edu >Subject: Re: Paradise Lost and films? >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:47:47 -0400 > >How about that crazy film that came out recently--what was it called--about >the two fallen angels who are trying to slip back into heaven through a >loophole, and Alannis Morissette as God? I thought it borrowed from Milton >heavily and shed some interesting light on why we tend to sympathize with >Satan in the poem. >Kimberly > > > From: "Burbery, Timothy" > > Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu > > Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:38:47 -0400 > > To: "'milton-l@richmond.edu'" > > Subject: Paradise Lost and films? > > > > > > Dear List: > > > > I'm wondering if anyone can recommend any films, new or old, that can help > > illuminate Paradise Lost in the classroom. Next week, I'll show my students > > a portion of Triumph of the Will (1935), with Hitler presiding over the > > Nuremburg rallies, as a rough analogue of Satan summoning the fallen angels > > in Book 1. I've also considered having them view the scenes from Alexander > > Nevsky that Eisenstein supposely based on the War in Heaven, though this is > > an old film and I don't have a good print of it. > > > > Are there other films you could recommend that contain thematic or visual > > motifs that correspond, somewhat, to scenes from PL? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Tim Burbery > > Marshall University > > > > > > > ---------- Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com  From:	Roy Flannagan [roy@gwm.sc.edu] Sent:	Monday, April 16, 2001 8:51 AM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Re: Performance of masque at Folger id f3GCrct00472 Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu Some questions to come out of various comments on the performance at the  Folger: Should Comus be a dirty old man, a suave seducer, or a flirtatious and  perhaps even tipsy Bacchus? Should the ugly-headed monsters be dirty dancers? Should the aristocrats in the audience join in the dance, somehow? Should the audience laugh, at any point? Should Comus even be allowed to take a bow at the end?  After all, isn't he  banished?  Isn't he evil?  Isn't he socially beneath the  Bridgewaters?  Shouldn't he just get the hell out of there? Is it wrong to call the Attendant Spirit the Demon, at least with a modern  audience who might have a hard time with "daimon" or "genius loci"?  How  about Thyrsis (Sara Vandenburg's silent correction) or just Attendant  Spirit?  Isn't he a kind of Platonic angel? Cheers, with mischief, Roy Flannagan  From:	Steven M Biberman [smbibe01@athena.louisville.edu] Sent:	Monday, April 16, 2001 10:03 AM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Re: gay angels Greetings: On the general subject of sexuality as handled in literary studies see Valerie Traub's "Recent Studies in Homoeroticism" in ELR in the Spring 2000 issue. On the subject of Chaucer's Pardoner in relation to this issue see Steven F. Kruger's "Claiming the Pardoner" (Exemplaria 6 [1994]). As an instance of scholarship on this subject moving beyond "the more academic debate between acts and identities [, one that] may have posed two unrealistically simple alternatives" see the essay collection _Constructing Medieval Sexuality_ (1997). For an argument that negotiates "modernist historiography's crude periodization" in positing the Middel Ages as "absolutely other" see Carolyn Dinshaw's Getting Medieval (1999). Cheers, Matthew Biberman  From:	John Leonard [jleonard@uwo.ca] Sent:	Tuesday, April 17, 2001 7:51 AM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu <3AD70E27.F59D7E5A@ilstu.edu> Subject: "in fact" (was Re: gay angels) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:21:25 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu NB.  Always be suspicious when someone prefaces a statement with "in fact". Beware the rhetoric! Carrol Cox writes  > .                                 -- in fact, no one was ever a  > heterosexual until homosexuals became a recognized social category.  > Carrol, how can you say this ("no one was ever") in the very same message in which you append my quotation from Plato's Symposium?  Did you read the passage?  Aristophanes clearly does distinguish four categories (men who like men, women who like women, women who etc).  These are not just "specific acts."  Aristophanes is talking about sexual preferences.  It is powerful dogma indeed that can blind critics to the evidence under their noses. But maybe your point is that sexual preferences were not "social" until modern times.  You continue:  > While the OED doesn't support this (or negate it) I would say that  > "sodomist" named a person who had committed a specific act, not someone  > whose role in the world was defined by that one restricted area of his  > activity. No one could speak of the "sodomist lifestyle."  > This antithesis is very rough and ready:  either "a specific act" (as in "anyone fancy a bit of sodomy today?") or "someone whose role in the world was defined by that one restricted area of his activity."  Can't there be something in between?  Would *any* gay person, even today, appreciate being told that his (if it is not her) whole "role in the world [is] defined by that one restricted area of his activity"?  ("Hey, Bart, how's it going, buddy?  How's the gaiety, mate?  Your 'role in the world still defined by that one restricted area of your activity?'").  When you define the terms as crudely as that, of course they will fail to fit (mercifully). The point is that people can have consistent sexual preferences even when these are unattached to a particular social culture or sub-culture.  This is especially true of previous centuries, when anti-sodomy laws inhibited the public expression of forbidden sexual preferences.  But one can make the case more strongly than this.  Despite the anti-sodomy laws (and maybe even because of them), same-sex love *was* associated with particular institutions in earlier centuries.  Witness the Knights Templar.  This once proud order was crushed in the early 14th-century (its Grand Master burned at the stake) because it was deemed to have practised and nurtured "the 'sodomist lifestyle.'"  Whether or not the charges were founded (and some historians think they were), the fact that they were *deemed* to be well-founded is significant for our argument.  And, yes, "sodomy" in this context did mean men loving men.  Even the word "bugger" (from French *bougre*) originally identified a social group--though one which once had a wider role in the world than that "one restricted area" to which they have bequeathed their name. John Leonard From:	Virginia Gillese and Robert Wiznura [gillese@planet.eon.net] Sent:	Monday, April 16, 2001 10:57 PM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	RE: gay angels? -- Hardly!! Dear Scott, At the risk of writing a response that will appear overly scholastic, I think one can safely assume that Aquinas would reject sexuality in the angelic chorus for the following reasons: 1. Matter is the principle of individuation for Aquinas. An angel, however, is uninvolved with matter according to Aquinas; it has a formal but not a material cause. Therefore, Aquinas holds that there can be no species of angels. Every angel is a species of one. 2. a. "Sensation is entirely a vital function. Consequently it can in no way be said that the angels perceive through the organs of their assumed bodies. Yet such bodies are not fashioned in vain; for they are not fashioned for the purpose of sensation through them, but to this end, that by such bodily organs the spiritual powers of the angels may be made manifest; just as by the eye the power of the angel's knowledge is pointed out, and other powers by the other members, as Dionysius teaches (Coel. Hier.)" b. "Properly speaking, the angels cannot be said to eat, because eating involves the taking of food convertible into the substance of the eater." c. "As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xv): "Many persons affirm that they have had the experience, or have heard from such as have experienced it, that the Satyrs and Fauns, whom the common folk call incubi, have often presented themselves before women, and have sought and procured intercourse with them. Hence it is folly to deny it. But God's holy angels could not fall in such fashion before the deluge. Hence by the sons of God are to be understood the sons of Seth, who were good; while by the daughters of men the Scripture designates those who sprang from the race of Cain. Nor is it to be wondered at that giants should be born of them; for they were not all giants, albeit there were many more before than after the deluge." Still if some are occasionally begotten from demons, it is not from the seed of such demons, nor from their assumed bodies, but from the seed of men taken for the purpose; as when the demon assumes first the form of a woman, and afterwards of a man; just as they take the seed of other things for other generating purposes, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii), so that the person born is not the child of a demon, but of a man." (ST Ia, 51, 3) 3. "I answer that, As the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 11), "concupiscence is a craving for that which is pleasant." Now pleasure is twofold, as we shall state later on (31, 3,4): one is in the intelligible good, which is the good of reason; the other is in good perceptible to the senses. The former pleasure seems to belong to soul alone: whereas the latter belongs to both soul and body: because the sense is a power seated in a bodily organ: wherefore sensible good is the good of the whole composite. Now concupiscence seems to be the craving for this latter pleasure, since it belongs to the united soul and body, as is implied by the Latin word "concupiscentia." Therefore, properly speaking, concupiscence is in the sensitive appetite, and in the concupiscible faculty, which takes its name from it."(ST Ia, IIae, 30, 1) Given #1, sexuality would involve sexuality of different species, unlikely to be endorsed given Aquinas's view on natural law. Given #2, regarding angelic "bodies," and #3, regarding human concupiscence, desire for sexual union seems difficult to comprehend. One needs a body to feel sexual desire, and, according to Aquinas, angels don't really have bodies. In short, Milton's understanding of the angels is a sharp departure from the tradition of Aquinas. Robert Wiznura -----Original Message----- From: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu [mailto:owner-milton-l@richmond.edu]On Behalf Of Cobelli@aol.com Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 6:26 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: gay angels? -- Hardly!! Dear List: It would be interesting to see if anyone can come up with responses to my query about Aquinas' views about angels experiencing natural love (of either orientation?!), and what this could mean as a context for Milton's views about angelic behavior. Now the fallen angels of course had sexual urges and acted upon them (Biblical references, Old Testament Pseudipigrapha (Books of Adam and Eve), the Midrash on Genesis, and then there is Byron's incomplete play Heaven and Earth (which, incidentally has some wonderful lyrical choric passages)), so would this imply that in their unfallen state they perhaps had natural love, but love free from concupiscence? Scott Grunow Editor-in-Chief Office of Publications Services University of Illinois at Chicago scottgr@uic.edu (312) 996-3324 From:	Cynthia A. Gilliatt [gilliaca@jmu.edu] Sent:	Monday, April 16, 2001 8:23 AM To:	Milton-l list Subject:	Re: RE: gay angels? -- Hardly!! You GO, Robert! Cynthia -- JMU SAFE ZONES PARTICIPANT Cynthia A. Gilliatt English Department MSC 1801 James Madison University Harrisonburg VA 22807 gilliaca@jmu.edu http://raven.jmu.edu/~gilliaca/ 540-568-3762 or 6202 From:	Carrol Cox [cbcox@ilstu.edu] Sent:	Friday, April 13, 2001 10:33 AM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Re: gay angels John Leonard wrote:  >  >  >  > The argument that what we now call "sexual orientation" (horrible term)  > did not exist in previous epochs is very fashionable these days, as is  > the argument that our ancestors did not think of themselves as "the  > subject." Try it this way. Many people today eat ice cream cones -- but there is no social category of "cone-eaters." Many people in the past had sexual relations both with the opposite sex and with their own sex but there was no social category of bisexuals. Many people in the past had sexual relations only with the opposite sex, but neither they nor others thought of them as heterosexuals -- in fact, no one was ever a heterosexual until homosexuals became a recognized social category. While the OED doesn't support this (or negate it) I would say that "sodomist" named a person who had committed a specific act, not someone whose role in the world was defined by that one restricted area of his activity. No one could speak of the "sodomist lifestyle." Incidentally, if angelic sex consists of complete interpenetration, how could one tell "gay sex" from "heterosex," since neither would involve distinct organs? And in any case, the most interesting feature of angelic sex is that it suggests that Milton's angels like Dickens's Londoners were abstract individuals who had private lives independently of the heavenly chorus. It is rather difficult to imagine Dante's angels even having a private conversation or going on a sightseeing tour, let alone having sex. Carrol Cox   This is obviously a huge and complex topic, and I have no  > wish to get into it.  I readily agree that the *terms* were different,  > and had different nuances.  But the idea that our ancestors did not have  > sexual preferences--that rings false to me.  Remember censorship!  It  > would be a brave homosexual/sodomite (what you will) who opened his  > heart and mouth in renaissance Europe.  But Greece is different. Those  > who think that the notion of sexual preference was unknown before the  > 20th century should re-read Aristophanes's speech in Plato's Symposium  > (191-192). Aristophanes very clearly divides the human race into four  > groups:  >  > 1) "Men who are . . . lovers of women"  > 2) "women who lust after men"  > 3) "women who have . . . female attachments"  > 4) "they who are a section of the male . . . and hang about men"  > (trans. Jowett 318)  >  > There are differences from today.  Aristophanes's groups 1 and 2 are  > specifically called "adulterers" (one wonders how, and whether, marriage  > fits into this scheme).  But Plato clearly was aware that some men like  > women, some men like men, some women like women, some women like men.  > This sounds rather like "modern categories of sexuality" to me.  >  > John Leonard  From:	Sara van den Berg [vandens@SLU.EDU] Sent:	Saturday, April 14, 2001 2:13 PM To:	Neil Forsyth Cc:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Re: Performance of masque at Folger I was fortunate enough to attend the performance of Comus and the  conference the next day. I had never seen a performance of the masque before, although I had seen  several performances of various Jonsonian masques. The costumes were all in the same fabric--a fortuny-like pleated iridescent  fabric in different colors.  The choice was not entirely flattering to several of the characters, especially the actor who played Thyrsis.  He was probably the least successful cast member.  Several people commented that he did not speak  verse very well.  However, I came away thinking that Milton's expository blank verse  at the beginning of the masque was clearer narrative than it seems when I read it silently. The Lady was a very appealing young woman who looked the part, and who  spoke the verse feelingly.  She was not, however, effective in the song to Echo. The actor who played Comus didn't seem "slimy" to me, and in fact there was  some controversy during the conference about how that part should be played.  Most people thought he should seem (and was, in this case) clever and seductive. The two brothers seemed quite good, at least to me.  They were strapping young men, obviously too old for the part, but were able to differentiate their positions during their dialogue. The best moment in Thyrsis's portrayal came when he acted "like a typical  teacher" and criticized the brothers for not capturing Comus and breaking his  wand.  He was appropriately annoyed. The singer who played Sabrina was the most overwhelming voice, and I know that several local audience members were there especially to hear her. The Washington Post article mocked the performance as a kind of Miltonic  sitcom. I don't think the review was fair.  There was laughter, but I think there  probably was in Milton's day as well.  There were one or two moments of humor that were intended by the cast, and that people remarked as novel (e.g., a comic  emphasis on the word "mud"--check it out in the text). There was quite a bit of discussion about the dancing.  At the beginning,  Comus's group had animal heads and were quite lascivious. The director spoke the next day about the dances that ended the masque. He decided not to end the masque with any dance involving the audience  (e.g., by "planting" dancers in the audience who could be brought up on stage).  Instead, one of the female dancers "flirted" with the Younger Brother and drew him  into the dance.  That move seemed quite effective to me.  More controversial was the decision to bring Comus on stage to join the dancers as the Lady's partner. The musicians seemed excellent to me, and I was glad to hear Lawes' music  played on historical instruments. The musicians sat in the gallery above the stage. Sara van den Berg Neil Forsyth wrote:  > id f36GGst08929  > Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu  > Precedence: bulk  > Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu  >  > Hello Stella  >  > A former student of mine sent me this account of the masque. (There was  > also a harsh review in the Washington Post, it seems, perhaps for march 24.)  >  > I forgot to tell you about the one thing I most wanted to  > tell you about. I saw Comus at the Folger Shakespeare Theatre last  Saturday! I  > bet you're fiercely jealous. I must say that it was by far the best  Comus I've  > ever seen. But at the same time, it was also by far the worst Comus I've  ever  > seen. It was quite amateurish (as it should be, you may think, since it  would  > originally have been performed by amateurs), most actors fighting a losing  > battle  > with Milton's beautiful language. Sabrina, by contrast, was rather too much  > of a  > professional, a heroine with an operatic voice straight out of a Wagner  opera  > (Brï¿½nhilde!). It was quite comic. Predictably, the theme of chastity raised  > more  > laughs than Milton intended which didn't make the actors' job any easier.  > Disappointingly, there was rather less music and dancing than I had  > expected. All  > in all, having gotten free tickets, I quite enjoyed the spectacle  despite its  > flaws, but those who bought tickets for $35 or $40 understandably felt  > somewhat  > cheated.  >  > Best wishes  >  > Neil  >  > Neil Forsyth  > Facultï¿½ des Lettres  > University of Lausanne  > CH-1015 Lausanne  > Switzerland  > +41 21 692 29 88  > FAX: +41 21 692 29 35  > e-mail: Neil.Forsyth@ANGL.unil.ch From:	Roy Flannagan [roy@gwm.sc.edu] Sent:	Friday, April 13, 2001 9:53 AM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Re: Paradise Lost and films? For those of us interested in movies AND Paradise Lost, there are slim  pickings for purposes of comparison--and probably more of the pickings from  very early, silent movies than from later work.  Eisenstein's great silent  movies, especially Alexander Nevsky (get a good print with the Prokofiev  music well-synched) and Battleship Potemkin, are works of art directly  related to PL (there was an article by Sidney Gottlieb in MQ many years ago  that quoted from Eisenstein's essays on montage in epic poetry and epic  film).  D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation, Intolerance, and Judith of  Bethulia also try to do in epic film what Milton did in poetry. Images of innocent Adam and Eve types swimming in clear streams naked don't  usually work as well as the pre-Fall images in PL.  The Lord of the Flies  movie might be better, to show naivete evolving into devil-worship.  Try  Nicholas Roeg's Walkabout as well, for images of childhood innocence,  primitive joy with nature, and adult corruption. Satan images in cartoons and movies do generally work, from Disney's  immense bat-winged Lucifer in Fantasia to Ursula the Sea Witch (very like  Milton's Sin but also Satanic as she dilates) in The Little Mermaid.  (I  wrote an article about Ursula as a postmodern recreation of Sin as in the  1699 illustrations for PL, but it was scheduled for the ill-fated volume in  memory of Georgia Christopher.)  There are also Satanic seducers, from  Louise Brooks's great seductress in Pandora's Box to Al Pacino's "Milton"  the lawyer in The Devil's Advocate.   There is Seven, a pretty nasty horror  mystery built on the seven deadly sins and on Milton (I think he is at  least quoted in the movie).  And both Robert de Niro and Mickey Rourke have  played Satan figures.  For sheer evil, check Robert Mitchum's wonderful  preacher/murderer in Charles Laughton's only movie, Night of the Hunter or,  for that matter, his sadistic killer seducer who won't die in Cape Fear. Come to think of it, the films that at least run parallel to Paradise Lost  in plot, characterization, and theme are a fairly rich group. Roy Flannagan  >>> burbery@MARSHALL.EDU 04/12/01 05:38PM >>> Dear List: I'm wondering if anyone can recommend any films, new or old, that can help illuminate Paradise Lost in the classroom.  Next week, I'll show my students a portion of Triumph of the Will (1935), with Hitler presiding over the Nuremburg rallies, as a rough analogue of Satan summoning the fallen angels in Book 1.  I've also considered having them view the scenes from Alexander Nevsky that Eisenstein supposely based on the War in Heaven, though this is an old film and I don't have a good print of it. Are there other films you could recommend that contain thematic or visual motifs that correspond, somewhat, to scenes from PL? Thanks, Tim Burbery Marshall University 		 From:	Seb Perry [sebperry@hotmail.com] Sent:	Friday, April 13, 2001 11:01 AM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Re: gay angels  > Jeffrey Shoulson wrote:  >  >  >  >The OED's first instance of the term homosexuality  >  > comes from the very end of the 19th century: Indeed. Hence in Stoppard's *The Invention of Love*, Housman is outraged at this monstrous coinage that's half Greek and half Latin. John Leonard wrote:  > The argument that what we now call "sexual orientation" (horrible term)  > did not exist in previous epochs is very fashionable these days, as is  > the argument that our ancestors did not think of themselves as "the  > subject."  This is obviously a huge and complex topic, and I have no  > wish to get into it.  I readily agree that the *terms* were different,  > and had different nuances.  But the idea that our ancestors did not have  > sexual preferences--that rings false to me.  Remember censorship!  It  > would be a brave homosexual/sodomite (what you will) who opened his  > heart and mouth in renaissance Europe. People might be interested in the following link: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1395rykener.html It's a legal document concerning John Rykener, a 14th century male transvestite prostitute. While at Oxford, he slept with three scholars who later adamantly maintained that they were unaware of his real gender. "This case stands not only as a rare source for the history of tranvestite and homosexually active people in late  Medieval England, but as evidence of the suppression of that history by scholarly historians in the 19th and 20th centuries." If terms like 'gay' and 'straight' are merely modern concepts, I'd be grateful if someone could explain what the following is doing in my *Riverside Chaucer*: "Recent critics have tended to see him [The Pardoner] as a homosexual (McAlpine, PMLA 95, 1980, 8-22), who, unlike the eunuch, was a frequent figure of medieval satire (Mann, Ch and Estates, 145-48). In two mutually supporting articles in Mediaevalia 1985 (for 1982), C.D. Benson and R.F. Green present a strong case for the idea that the Pardoner is an effeminate heterosexual like Absolon in the Miller's Tale." (p. 824). Seb Perry. From:	Jean E Graham [graham@tcnj.edu] Sent:	Sunday, April 15, 2001 4:10 PM graham@TCNJ.EDU using -f To: milton-l@richmond.edu References: <309ED8565671D4119C5A00A0C9D5DD7C03BC57DF@munt02.MARSHALL.EDU> In-Reply-To: <309ED8565671D4119C5A00A0C9D5DD7C03BC57DF@munt02.MARSHALL.EDU> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: IMP/PHP3 Imap webMail Program 2.0.10 X-Originating-IP: 159.91.14.108 Subject: Re: Paradise Lost and films? Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu I've used Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (final battle between Kirk and Khan, but also note the pan of Khan's ship's bookshelf, containing a Bible, Moby Dick, and I think two copies of Paradise Lost) and the episode that inspired it, Space Seed (the end again, where Khan determines to create a heaven of the hell Kirk is consigning him to). Quoting "Burbery, Timothy" :  >  > Dear List:  >  > I'm wondering if anyone can recommend any films, new or old, that can help  > illuminate Paradise Lost in the classroom.  Next week, I'll show my  > students  > a portion of Triumph of the Will (1935), with Hitler presiding over the  > Nuremburg rallies, as a rough analogue of Satan summoning the fallen angels  > in Book 1.  I've also considered having them view the scenes from Alexander  > Nevsky that Eisenstein supposely based on the War in Heaven, though this is  > an old film and I don't have a good print of it.  >  > Are there other films you could recommend that contain thematic or visual  > motifs that correspond, somewhat, to scenes from PL?  >  > Thanks,  >  > Tim Burbery  > Marshall University  >  > 		  >  > Jean E. Graham Coordinator, MA Program in English The College of New Jersey  From:	Lew Kaye-Skinner [L.Kaye-Skinner@navix.net] Sent:	Friday, April 13, 2001 12:02 PM To:	Milton List Subject:	Re: Performance of masque at Folger A search of the Archives at the Washington Post Web site (www.washingtonpost.com) turned up the following: PHILIP KENNICOTT WASHINGTON POST STAFF WRITER Saturday, March 24, 2001 ; Page C03 Section: Style Word Count: 677 John Milton's masque "Comus" may have gotten a few laughs when it was first performed in 1634, but certainly not every time the word "chastity" was mentioned. The staged reading of "Comus" presented by the Folger Consort and Chatham Baroque at the Folger Shakespeare Library last night got giggles in the wrong places. "Chastity," in particular, worked on the audience like a rubber chicken -- a sign that, despite a valiant effort, the cultural and moral distance between our time and Milton's was not to be br The summary or tease or whatever this is stops in mid-word as above. The full text of the article is available for $2.95 (US). My sense from the bit here is that the review is probably more critical of "the cultural and moral distance between our time and Milton's," than of the production itself. Lew Kaye-Skinner University of Nebraska-Lincoln  From:	Su Fang Ng [ngsf@umich.edu] Sent:	Friday, April 13, 2001 10:28 AM To:	'milton-l@richmond.edu' Subject:	Re: Paradise Lost and films? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu I've been thinking of showing Kevin Smith's _Dogma_ (1999) in a Milton class. There is a scene where one of the two banished angels justifies his decision to go through a desperate scheme to get back to heaven (even though it would result in the paradox of God being wrong and so would wipe out all existence).  He rails against God for creating humans with free will even though humans don't deserve it since they keep sinning, while angels are created only to praise even though they're superior.  I can't remember it exactly, but he sounds like Milton's Satan.  The other angel points out to him that he's starting to sound like Lucifer when he fell. It's a fun movie, mocking Catholicism in a way only a former Catholic can, and I think a good example of a modern popular treatment of the same subject. Su Fang Ng On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Burbery, Timothy wrote:  >  > Dear List:  >  > I'm wondering if anyone can recommend any films, new or old, that can help  > illuminate Paradise Lost in the classroom.  Next week, I'll show my students  > a portion of Triumph of the Will (1935), with Hitler presiding over the  > Nuremburg rallies, as a rough analogue of Satan summoning the fallen angels  > in Book 1.  I've also considered having them view the scenes from Alexander  > Nevsky that Eisenstein supposely based on the War in Heaven, though this is  > an old film and I don't have a good print of it.  >  > Are there other films you could recommend that contain thematic or visual  > motifs that correspond, somewhat, to scenes from PL?  >  > Thanks,  >  > Tim Burbery  > Marshall University  >  > 		  >  From:	Cynthia A. Gilliatt [gilliaca@jmu.edu] Sent:	Friday, April 13, 2001 3:00 PM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Cc:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Re: RE: gay angels? -- Hardly!! And where, one may ask, did "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" come to be a gay themesong,if not because JM's angels also sang it?! Cynthia, friend of Dorothy, as they used to say - and maybe still do! On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 09:59:40 EDT AntiUtopia@aol.com wrote:  > It's not the just the hyacinth references, however -- Milton's angels also  > like listening to Barbara Streisand and showtunes.  >  > Jim  > -- JMU SAFE ZONES PARTICIPANT Cynthia A. Gilliatt English Department MSC 1801 James Madison University Harrisonburg VA 22807 gilliaca@jmu.edu http://raven.jmu.edu/~gilliaca/ 540-568-3762 or 6202 From:	Robert Appelbaum [r_appel@yahoo.com] Sent:	Saturday, April 14, 2001 2:55 PM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	RE: gay angels? -- Hardly!!    Larry Isitt  wrote: If we remember Milton's veneration for his Bible as our starting point in a discussion of gay angels, we shall arrive at a more cautious answer: it is highly unlikely that gay angels exist for Milton if only because the Bible so adamantly opposes homosexuality and specifically declares that it is an abomination to God (Lev 18.22). Would Milton have defied his God in this matter? I doubt it very strongly. Yes, I think Biblical fundamentalism is absolutely the governing philosophy  to be ascribed to Milton, as is evident also in the case of his tracts  against divorce.  And no doubt Milton would have embraced as well the  identification of a few loose remarks in the Old Testament with "the will  of God."  In fact, it explains his wholesale rejection of the New  Testament, so fraught with contradictions and ambiguities--all those weird  parables--as opposed to the plainly visible will of God as expressed in the  never-ambiguous Old Testament.  I believe it was Milton's understanding of  the Kingdom of the Jews under David and Solomon that led him to embrace the  subordination of the church to the state, the legitimacy of absolutist  government, and the practice of polygamy.  Milton was always a strong  defender of fundamentals. Robert Appelbaum English Department University of San Diego San Diego, CA 92110-2492 Visit my home page: www.geocities.com/r_appel/Robert.html And please forgive the commercial intrusion below: --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Personal Address - Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. From:	Kimberly Latta [lattak@SLU.EDU] Sent:	Friday, April 13, 2001 9:48 AM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Re: Paradise Lost and films? How about that crazy film that came out recently--what was it called--about the two fallen angels who are trying to slip back into heaven through a loophole, and Alannis Morissette as God?  I thought it borrowed from Milton heavily and shed some interesting light on why we tend to sympathize with Satan in the poem. Kimberly  > From: "Burbery, Timothy"   > Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu  > Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:38:47 -0400  > To: "'milton-l@richmond.edu'"   > Subject: Paradise Lost and films?  >  >  > Dear List:  >  > I'm wondering if anyone can recommend any films, new or old, that can help  > illuminate Paradise Lost in the classroom.  Next week, I'll show my students  > a portion of Triumph of the Will (1935), with Hitler presiding over the  > Nuremburg rallies, as a rough analogue of Satan summoning the fallen angels  > in Book 1.  I've also considered having them view the scenes from Alexander  > Nevsky that Eisenstein supposely based on the War in Heaven, though this is  > an old film and I don't have a good print of it.  >  > Are there other films you could recommend that contain thematic or visual  > motifs that correspond, somewhat, to scenes from PL?  >  > Thanks,  >  > Tim Burbery  > Marshall University  >  >  >  From:	whunter [whunter@mymailstation.com] Sent:	Saturday, April 14, 2001 7:36 AM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Angelic Sex For Larry Isett, et al., Please before you continue the debate read the evidence I have presented in  Milton Quarterly, 34 (October 2000), 98-99.  Then respond to it.  One  answer is that Milton didn't realize what he was doing.  A  better is that  fallen Adam, inveighing against women before he had learned about man's  restoration in Christ, was speaking in ignorance.  Anyhow, please argue  from the evidence I have presented from the poem that I have presented.. Bill Hunter  From:	Margaret Thickstun [mthickst@hamilton.edu] Sent:	Friday, April 13, 2001 10:14 AM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Re: Paradise Lost and films? Tim--it seems to me you are trying for visual analogues, but I have found that the Star Wars trilogy, which students frequently already know well, is very useful for discussing Paradise Lost, both as epic and as stylistic extravaganza. Although it is not a poem, it is long, narrative, addresses "a great and serious subject, related in an elevated style, and centered on a heroic or quasi-divine figure on whose actions depend" the fate of the whole galaxy (quotations courtesy of M H Abrams).  Like epic, it begins "in medias res," with both Obi Wan Kenobi and Yoda filling in the background.  Luke visiting Yoda to learn about the past and his place in history parallels Adam's conversation with Raphael nicely.  The setting is cosmic, the conflict superhuman, the intervention of the gods embodied in the Force. Certainly Spielberg pulled out all the stops in using state of the art cinematography--and his redoing everything now that technology has improved demonstrates his commitment to having the trilogy be as fancy as possible. As I've said before on the list, students do a good job when asked to decide how to film Books 6 and 7 (I do this in class on two separate days, with each group of students being giving particular moments in the action--they go for claymation, animation, digital imaging, time-lapse --they are far more visually sophisticated and imaginative than I am). Good luck--Margie Margaret Thickstun Department of English Hamilton College 198 College Hill Rd Clinton, NY 13323 (315)859-4466 From:	Cobelli@aol.com Sent:	Friday, April 13, 2001 8:26 AM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Re: gay angels? -- Hardly!! Dear List: It would be interesting to see if anyone can come up with responses to my query about Aquinas' views about angels experiencing natural love (of either orientation?!), and what this could mean as a context for Milton's views about angelic behavior. Now the fallen angels of course had sexual urges and acted upon them (Biblical references, Old Testament Pseudipigrapha (Books of Adam and Eve), the Midrash on Genesis, and then there is Byron's incomplete play Heaven and Earth (which, incidentally has some wonderful lyrical choric passages)), so would this imply that in their unfallen state they perhaps had natural love, but love free from concupiscence? Scott Grunow Editor-in-Chief Office of Publications Services University of Illinois at Chicago scottgr@uic.edu (312) 996-3324  From:	John Leonard [jleonard@uwo.ca] Sent:	Thursday, April 12, 2001 11:11 AM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Re: gay angels? -- Hardly!! .  > RE: John Leonard's suggestion concerning "Hyacinth" as indicator of possible  > homosexuality.  >  > Are we also prepared,given this heading, to make a homosexual of Adam whose  > "Hyacinthin Locks" were "manly hung" about his head? (PL 4.301-02)  Again, I  > doubt it.  > Larry is obviously right about Adam.  Of course "Hyacinthin Locks" does not imply homosexuality.  It is an echo of Odyssey 6. 231, where Odysseus' hair flows like a hyacinth flower.  The reference is probably to colour. But the case is different in the lines I quoted from Fair Infant.  Here the reference is most certainly to Apollo's love for the beautiful youth Hyacinthus.  Lest anyone doubt this, let me cite the lines in context: 		Yet art thou not inglorious in thy fate; 		For so Apollo, with unweeting hand 		Whilom did slay his dearly-loved mate 		Young Hyacinth born on Eurotas strand 		Young Hyacinth the pride of Spartan land. "Mate" there might mean nothing more than "companion" (as when Satan calls to his "neerest Mate"), but the other sense "lover, paramour" did exist and is attested in 17th century English (see OED).  Hyacinth was Apollo's mate in both senses ("G'day mate").  Milton does not spell this out ("dearly-loved" is not conclusive), but the lines are suggestive. Now to "pride."  "Orpheus" ("Woods and Rocks had Eares to rap-to-ya") rightly takes me to task for my rash comment that "pride" might have something of its modern gay resonance.  He mockingly suggests that the real reference is to a pride of lions.  I think most of us would agree that "pride" here means "the prime; the flower"(OED 9a) and that Hyacinthus is the pride of Spartan land in the sense of being Sparta's most beautiful youth.  Does anyone seriously doubt this? My point in drawing (an admittedly inept) comparison with the modern gay use of "pride" was that Milton's "pride" also has a social dimension. The reference is not only to Hyacinthus's beauty, but to the Spartan festival of the Hyacinthia in which ephebes would sing praises to Apollo. I still think that this is plausible, even probable. Milton would have known about Spartan festivals, which are described by Plutarch and Xenophon, among others. None of this proves anything about Milton's sexual preferences.  Let me be clear:  I have no doubt whatever that Milton always liked women.  But there are many hints in the poems that he was also sensitive to male beauty.  Maybe I am wrong about this, but I am not wrong for the reason Larry gives.  My point about "Young Hyacinth" is not demolished just because Larry can quote another reference to Hyacinth which is clearly free from homoerotic associations.  The erotic and social nuances of "pride" are not cancelled just because "Orpheus" reminds us that we can speak of a pride of lions.  Yes, signs are iterable, but meaning can be determined by context.  In the lines from "Fair Infant", Young Hyacinth is the Hyacinthus loved by Apollo.  He is the "pride of Spartan land" because of his beauty, and because his fate is commemorated in public festivals. John Leonard  From:	tom bishop [tgb2@po.cwru.edu] Sent:	Thursday, April 12, 2001 10:27 AM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Re: Performance of masque at Folger Not having seen "A Masque"" before this performance, and hence having eyes not so jaded as Roy reports his, I offer the following thoughts. One thing that the Folger production brought out for me was the very great difficulty of finding modern performers who can manage all that the masque requires -- more, I note, than other court masques of the period. Jones' court masques hardly ever required performers to do more than two of three things -- speak, sing, dance. But the Lady, in particular, must be adept at all three: her verse is complex and periodic, she has a tough song to sing, involving difficult intervals, and she has to dance.  Whether Alice Egerton were any good at all these we don't know, but then her audience was probably an indulgent one.  On a modern stage, the order is a tall one, as it is also for the Demon. The Folger production chose to emphasize the text -- indisputably the right choice in the circumstances, I think. Richard Clifford's Comus, an aristocratic sybarite of mellifluous tonal register and exquisite vocal control (and deliciously curly Oriental slippers) was the glue that held the piece together. His Lady looked good and spoke well. Her singing was less reliable. The hard work in limited time he and his cast had done on the text mostly paid off, though it exposed the very different kinds of vocal training the English and American theater traditions afford.  Costuming was vivid, in bright colors, and with some charming animal heads on the rout. Setting was minimal, with only some patterned drops, and a roll-out float for Sabrina and her attendants (the thought "Miss Shropshire" passed through my mind).  The dancing was accurate and well-choreographed, though there was only one country-dance where I would have preferred several, and a few more bodies would have been livelier. The music was excellent, its presence emphasized by an opening "Overture". Given limited resources of time and expertise, I thought it a very creditable production.  Improvement would probably have cost more than any company has at its disposal for a piece of very limited appeal to a modern audience.  From:	Burbery, Timothy [burbery@MARSHALL.EDU] Sent:	Thursday, April 12, 2001 5:39 PM To:	'milton-l@richmond.edu' Subject:	Paradise Lost and films? Dear List: I'm wondering if anyone can recommend any films, new or old, that can help illuminate Paradise Lost in the classroom.  Next week, I'll show my students a portion of Triumph of the Will (1935), with Hitler presiding over the Nuremburg rallies, as a rough analogue of Satan summoning the fallen angels in Book 1.  I've also considered having them view the scenes from Alexander Nevsky that Eisenstein supposely based on the War in Heaven, though this is an old film and I don't have a good print of it. Are there other films you could recommend that contain thematic or visual motifs that correspond, somewhat, to scenes from PL? Thanks, Tim Burbery Marshall University 		 From:	John Leonard [jleonard@uwo.ca] Sent:	Thursday, April 12, 2001 9:17 AM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Re: gay angels Jeffrey Shoulson wrote:  >  > The comments by William Hunter and John Leonard open an  > important avenue for further discussion.  It's important to bear  > in mind that our modern categories of sexuality are just  > that--modern.  While certain kinds of sexual behavior were  > clearly regarded as permissible or impermissible in the early  > modern period, most of the current research with which I'm  > familiar makes it equally clear that an individual's  > subjectivity--be it that of a mortal or an angel--was only  > beginning to be constructed in terms of a fixed sexual  > identity.  The OED's first instance of the term homosexuality  > comes from the very end of the 19th century: The argument that what we now call "sexual orientation" (horrible term) did not exist in previous epochs is very fashionable these days, as is the argument that our ancestors did not think of themselves as "the subject."  This is obviously a huge and complex topic, and I have no wish to get into it.  I readily agree that the *terms* were different, and had different nuances.  But the idea that our ancestors did not have sexual preferences--that rings false to me.  Remember censorship!  It would be a brave homosexual/sodomite (what you will) who opened his heart and mouth in renaissance Europe.  But Greece is different. Those who think that the notion of sexual preference was unknown before the 20th century should re-read Aristophanes's speech in Plato's Symposium (191-192). Aristophanes very clearly divides the human race into four groups: 1) "Men who are . . . lovers of women" 2) "women who lust after men" 3) "women who have . . . female attachments" 4) "they who are a section of the male . . . and hang about men" (trans. Jowett 318) There are differences from today.  Aristophanes's groups 1 and 2 are specifically called "adulterers" (one wonders how, and whether, marriage fits into this scheme).  But Plato clearly was aware that some men like women, some men like men, some women like women, some women like men. This sounds rather like "modern categories of sexuality" to me. John Leonard  From:	Neil Forsyth [Neil.Forsyth@angl.unil.ch] Sent:	Friday, April 06, 2001 11:53 AM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Re: Performance of masque at Folger id f36GGst08929 Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu Hello Stella A former student of mine sent me this account of the masque. (There was also a harsh review in the Washington Post, it seems, perhaps for march 24.) I forgot to tell you about the one thing I most wanted to tell you about. I saw Comus at the Folger Shakespeare Theatre last Saturday! I bet you're fiercely jealous. I must say that it was by far the best Comus I've ever seen. But at the same time, it was also by far the worst Comus I've ever seen. It was quite amateurish (as it should be, you may think, since it would originally have been performed by amateurs), most actors fighting a losing battle with Milton's beautiful language. Sabrina, by contrast, was rather too much of a professional, a heroine with an operatic voice straight out of a Wagner opera (Brï¿½nhilde!). It was quite comic. Predictably, the theme of chastity raised more laughs than Milton intended which didn't make the actors' job any easier. Disappointingly, there was rather less music and dancing than I had expected. All in all, having gotten free tickets, I quite enjoyed the spectacle despite its flaws, but those who bought tickets for $35 or $40 understandably felt somewhat cheated. Best wishes Neil Neil Forsyth Facultï¿½ des Lettres University of Lausanne CH-1015 Lausanne Switzerland +41 21 692 29 88 FAX: +41 21 692 29 35 e-mail: Neil.Forsyth@ANGL.unil.ch From:	AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent:	Thursday, April 12, 2001 10:00 AM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	RE: gay angels? -- Hardly!! It's not the just the hyacinth references, however -- Milton's angels also  like listening to Barbara Streisand and showtunes. Jim  From:	Larry Isitt [isitt@cofo.edu] Sent:	Friday, April 06, 2001 1:52 PM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	RE: gay angels? -- Hardly!! RE: William Hunter's thesis: "heaven is populated by actively gay angels" If we remember Milton's veneration for his Bible as our starting point in a discussion of gay angels, we shall arrive at a more cautious answer: it is highly unlikely that gay angels exist for Milton if only because the Bible so adamantly opposes homosexuality and specifically declares that it is an abomination to God (Lev 18.22).  Would Milton have defied his God in this matter?  I doubt it very strongly.  But perhaps Bill is just being amusing. RE: John Leonard's suggestion concerning "Hyacinth" as indicator of possible homosexuality. Are we also prepared,given this heading, to make a homosexual of Adam whose "Hyacinthin Locks" were "manly hung" about his head? (PL 4.301-02)  Again, I doubt it. Larry Isitt English Dept. College of the Ozarks Point Lookout, MO 65726 417-334-6411, Ext. 4269 email: isitt @ cofo.edu -----Original Message----- From: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu [mailto:owner-milton-l@richmond.edu]On Behalf Of John Leonard Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 11:29 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: gay angels whunter wrote:   >   > I suggest that you begin by reading the standard work, Bob West's book on   > Milton and angels.  Then think further on how  Milton applies it: To   > support the concept of the Great Chain of Being or the Scale of   > Nature.  Check out too my analysis in Visitation Unimplor'd (and note CCD's   > ignorance of vthe issue--which might have helped that author's concept of   > everything being ex deo.  And then there is the sexuality of Milton's   > angels, a somewhat similar issue.  Angels have sex.  They are all males;   > heaven is populated by actively gay angels.  Again see VU.   >   > W. B. Hunter This is certainly one possible construction of the evidence, and perhaps the most plausible one.  But might not Milton also allow room for heterosexual (and lesbian) angels when he writes: "Spirits when they please / Can either sex assume or both" (I 423-44)?  Or does "Spirits" here refer exclusively to devils? The question of homosexuality (or bisexuality) in Milton is fascinating.  One possible piece of evidence often overlooked is this, from "Fair infant": Young Hyacinth, born on Eurotas' strand Young Hyacinth, the pride of Spartan land. The allusion might not be *only* to the myth (suggestive in itself), but also to the Spartan Hyacinthia, a festival in Apollo's honour, in which here handsome boys played a conspicuous part.  Homosexuality was a way of life in Sparta.  "Pride" here might even have something like its modern gay resonance. John Leonard  From:	Cobelli@aol.com Sent:	Saturday, April 07, 2001 10:30 PM To:	Milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Re: the sexuality of angels Dear Listers: I checked out www.raphael.net which contains Aquinas' teaching on angels (I decided to hit upon a primary source in this discussion, though the book Milton and the Angels a fellow lister cited is definitely looming on my reading list). From what I gather from my limited exposure to the text at this point, he seems to conclude they are incorporeal substances (spiritual bodies?) who also experience a natural love. How can one therefore conclude they experience sexuality? He does conclude that they can experience natural affection between each other, but does this mean and/or include sexual interactions in the physical, corporeal sense? This is obviously a complex issue which I probably have misunderstood from the beginning, so pardon my ignorance. Scott Grunow Editor-in-Chief Office of Publications Services University of Illinois at Chicago scottgr@uic.edu  From:	Jameela Lares [jlares@ocean.otr.usm.edu] Sent:	Monday, April 09, 2001 9:01 AM To:	Milton-List Subject:	Faulkner and Comus Our Faulkner specialist here has asked me to pass along a query.  He is editing an odd short story by Faulkner which makes passing reference to "Comus' second speech," but finds of course that the _Masque_ has more than two lengthy passages spoken by Comus.  He is thinking that in Faulkner's time (1920s through 50s, I imagine), the term "Comus' second speech" had a very clear referent, now lost.  Can anyone help? Jameela Lares Associate Professor of English University of Southern Mississippi Hattiesburg, MS 39406-5037 +(601) 266-6214 ofc +(601) 266-5757 fax  From:	Chris Hair [crhair0@pop.uky.edu] Sent:	Friday, April 06, 2001 12:46 PM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Re: New Critical Mythologies Satan pictured as James and Charles may refer to the 1688 edition of Paradise Lost.  The edition, edited by Tonson, has been viewed by some as a political statement against Charles.  First, the timing is suggestive, on the eve of the Glorious Revolution.  Secondly, Satan in the first illustration apparently resembles a statue of James II that was near Whitehall (placed 1686). See Estella Schoenburg, "The Face of Satan, 1688" in _Ringing the Bell Backward_ (1982) and Shawcross, "The First Illustrations for Paradise Lost" in Milton Quarterly 9 (1975).  For further discussion, see Suzanne Boorsch and Mary D. Ravenhall's articles on the political connections. Chris Hair ----- Original Message ----- From: John Leonard  To:  Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 9:25 AM Subject: Re: New Critical Mythologies  > Jim "Anti-Utopia" (quoting someone else, the words are not his) writes:  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  > Why do you think the meaning of a text can be discussed apart from its  >  >  > physical form? Take the early editions of paradise lost where Satan is  >  >  > pictured as James or Charles.  >  >  > I'm puzzled by this.  What early editions are being referred to?  What  > is meant by "pictured"?  Are you referring to the 1688 illustrations?  > If so, where is the evidence for a clear reference to James or Charles?  > Just what "physical form" are you referring to?  >  > Intrigued,  >  > John Leonard  >  From:	Orpheus [cwduff@alcor.concordia.ca] Sent:	Friday, April 06, 2001 12:43 PM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Re: gay angels On the other hand, it might just mean pride as  in a pride of lions. -----    "Pride" here might even have something like its  > modern gay resonance.  From:	Roy Flannagan [roy@gwm.sc.edu] Sent:	Friday, April 06, 2001 8:46 AM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Re: Performance of masque at Folger Any one review of the performance of the masque at the Folger would  probably disagree with all others, about actors, dancers, musicians,  costumes, lighting, choreography.  Most of the members of the audience, I  am sure, were just glad to have an opportunity to see a performance of a  work so rarely performed.  Stella Revard has probably seen more  performances than anyone else, with about six, and I have seen at least  five--one at Rochester (Sixties), one at Syracuse (Seventies), one at  Cambridge (early Eighties), and the one at the Folger.  Stella, I know,  likes a public performance she saw at Ludlow, in the castle, but that's one  I haven't seen, and there was the off-central-London performance that  Margaret Arnold just mentioned, and I didn't see that either. A director has several important choices: should Comus be played as a young  Bacchus, dripping odors, dripping wine, with curly locks, or should he be a  dirty old man, unctuous or slimy?  Traditionally, anyone kin to Bacchus  should be a belly-god, and Stephen Orgel showed the one prior English  (Inigo Jones) Comus as a fat naked Bacchus-type. The Folger director, Richard Clifford, casting himself in the role of  Comus, had to present a slender, suave, middle-aged Comus, inclining toward  the slimy rather than the overweight. Another important choice is whether to present the principal actors as  static, operatic characters at lecterns, or whether to make them memorize  their lines and move about the stage.  Because of thrift, the Folger actors  read their lines from the lecterns: they weren't off-book yet.  This choice  means the difference between a Broadway musical masque and an oratorio in  which the actors say or sing their lines from one fixed position. The reviewer from the Washington Post called the performance a Milton  soap-opera, which was unkind, but he did commend the clear reading of the  lines (this was amazing: from the rear of the Folger theater, the famous  reconstruction of the Globe, I could hear every word); the music of Henry  Lawes and others played by the highly professional Folger Consort led by  Robert Eisenstein; and the period dancing choreographed by Julie  Andrijeski.  The singing was one-third professional (Sabrina, as sung by  Rosa Lamoreaux), and two-thirds proficient (everyone else hit the notes on  schedule). I was a jaded viewer, having seen the work performed so often in the last  thirty years, so my opinion of what Comus should look like, or what  movement is necessary, or what color or texture the costumes should be, was  also jaded. It might be more interesting to have some first-time viewers give their  impressions of what they saw. Roy Flannagan  From:	Jeffrey Shoulson [jshoulson@miami.edu] Sent:	Friday, April 06, 2001 9:26 AM To:	milton-l@richmond.edu Subject:	Re: gay angels The comments by William Hunter and John Leonard open an important avenue for further discussion.  It's important to bear in mind that our modern categories of sexuality are just that--modern.  While certain kinds of sexual behavior were clearly regarded as permissible or impermissible in the early modern period, most of the current research with which I'm familiar makes it equally clear that an individual's subjectivity--be it that of a mortal or an angel--was only beginning to be constructed in terms of a fixed sexual identity.  The OED's first instance of the term homosexuality comes from the very end of the 19th century: "1892 C. G. CHADDOCK tr. Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis III. 185 (heading) Great diminution or complete absence of sexual feeling for the opposite sex, with substitution of sexual feeling and instinct for the same sex. (Homo-sexuality, or contrary sexual instinct.)" Alan Bray's very interesting study, _Homosexuality in Renaissance England_, cites several other words that were often used to describe individuals whose sexual behavior would now be termed "homosexual":  ganymede, pathic, cinaedus, catamite, bugger, ingle, sodomite. What is especially intriguing about William Hunter's observation--and like John Leonard, I have always understood Milton to be suggesting that all angels, fallen or otherwise, could assume either sex in the act of coupling, anticipating, perhaps, Freud's characterization of infantile sexuality as "polymorphously perverse"--is that an early modern term for what we now call "gay" sex was, of course, "sodomy."  To understand Milton to be suggesting that the angels in heaven were enjoying a kind of sexuality that the fallen world was so clearly vilifying with such a term is to open up many of the interesting observations concerning fallen and unfallen sexuality raised by Turner in his _One Flesh_ to a very different, queering, kind of analysis. I'd be interested to know the thoughts of others on this. All the best, Jeffrey Shoulson