Milton's Attitude Towards Women in the History of Britain

PMLA ◽  
1947 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 977-983
Author(s):  
Edward S. Le Comte

When all the evidence has been marshalled, Milton's views on the position of women are both consistent and plain, whatever the astonishing obfuscations of many of his critics, assailants and apologists alike. Each side in the old controversy might at least have known better what they were attacking or defending if they had not ignored a major source-book for Milton's attitude, the History of Britain. There is reason to believe that Milton was here giving vent to a passing mood, but it was sharp and arrogant while it lasted. Herein we have a contrast with the evidence usually cited. Just preceding the composition of the early books of the History had come the divorce tracts, where the author made an heroic effort at impersonality, and perhaps only his images betray him; it would take a very sensitive critic to analyze them. Years later came Paradise Lost and Samson Agonistes, where, as Professor Allan H. Gilbert has warned,1 the interpreter must tread lightly, for the poet in the angry outbursts of Adam and of Samson was not ostensibly speaking in his own person but rather writing as a dramatist. But in the History of Britain the voice that speaks out on the inferiority and proper subjection of women is at times unmistakably Milton's own. To heap up discredit upon what John Knox called “the monstrous regiment of women” he will go out of his way, whether by parenthetical remark, or by free alteration of his sources, or, in one case, by sheer misinterpretation of the original Latin.

Author(s):  
Simeon Dekker

AbstractThe ‘diatribe’ is a dialogical mode of exposition, originating in Hellenistic Greek, where the author dramatically performs different voices in a polemical-didactic discourse. The voice of a fictitious opponent is often disambiguated by means of parenthetical verba dicendi, especially φησί(ν). Although diatribal texts were widely translated into Slavic in the Middle Ages, the textual history of the Zlatostruj collection of Chrysostomic homilies especially suits an investigation not only of how Greek ‘diatribal’ verbs were translated, but also how the Slavic verbs were transmitted or developed in different textual traditions. Over time, Slavic redactional activity led to a homogenization of verb forms. The initial variety of the original translation was partly eliminated, and the verb forms "Equation missing" and "Equation missing" became more firmly established as prototypical diatribal formulae. Especially the (increased) use of the 2sg form "Equation missing" has theoretical consequences for the text’s dialogical structure. Thus, an important dialogical component of the diatribe was reinforced in the Zlatostruj’s textual history on Slavic soil.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (46) ◽  
pp. 151-182
Author(s):  
Marios Chatziprokopiou ◽  

We are the Persians! was a contemporary adaptation of Aeschy-lus’s The Persians presented in June 2015 at the Athens and Epidaurus Festival. Performed by displaced people from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and directed by Yolanda Markopoulou, the piece grew out of the Station Athens group’s five-year theatre workshops. Extracts from the original play were intertwined with performative material brought to the project by the participants: from real-life testimonies to vocal improvisations, poems, and songs in different languages. High-lighting the historical thematic of the play, this adaptation was presented as a documentary theatre piece, and the participants as ‘modern-day heralds’ who provided on stage ‘shocking accounts’ concerning ‘contem-porary wars’ (programme notes, 2015). After briefly revisiting the main body of literature on the voice of lament in ancient drama and in Aeschylus’s The Persians in particular, but also after discussing the recent stage history of the play in Greece, I conduct a close reading of this adaptation. Based on semi-directed interviews and audiovisual archives from both the rehearsals and the final show,I argue that the participants’ performance cannot be limited to their auto-biographical testimonies, which identify their status as refugees and/or asylum seekers. By intertwining Aeschylus with their own voices and languages, they reappropriate and reinvent the voice(s) of lament in ancient drama. In this sense, I suggest that We are the Persians! can be read as a hybrid performance of heteroglossia, which disrupts and potentially transforms dominant ways of receiving ancient drama on the modern Greek stage.


1981 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-39
Author(s):  
B. R. Rees

These are the opening words of Aristotle's Poetics, generally recognized as the most influential work in the history of Western European drama and poetic theory since the Renaissance. The initial statement of the scope of the inquiry is a formidable one; but a reader coming to it for the first time might well be forgiven for concluding that it promises far more than it achieves. Is it possible, he might ask, that all this is contained in a slim volume occupying no more than 47 pages in the Oxford Classical Text and 45 in the Penguin translation? Reading further, he might become even more disillusioned: what he discovers is that, after a very brief and perfunctory introduction on poetry as a form of mimesis or artistic representation, Aristotle limits himself to a discussion of tragedy, a cursory treatment of epic, and a few passing references to comedy, and that, even in the case of tragedy, by far the major part of the argument is devoted to an examination of plot. Can this really be the work which excited scholars in the Renaissance, inspired Milton to write Samson Agonistes, an Aristotelian drama if there ever was one, provided the structural pattern and dramatic conventions for the plays of Racine and Corneille, gave Fielding the principles on which he based his Tom Jones, influenced Goethe and Lessing and, through Lessing, Coleridge, and has won the attention and admiration of critics writing in English from James Harris at the end of the eighteenth century to Richard MacKeon in the second half of the twentieth? And, if so, why?


2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 57
Author(s):  
Steven Herrman

In this essay the author gives a concise overview of the use of the word transpersonal in the life and writings of the Israeli Jungian analyst, Erich Neumann, who was born in Berlin Germany in 1905 and lived from 1934 until his untimely death, in 1960, in Tel Aviv. The paper provides readers with an overview of the correspondence that took place between Neumann and Jung from 1934-1959 and traces the way in which the word transpersonal was used in their mutual efforts to map out the terrain of the human psyche. What is made clear in the paper is that while Jung remained within the epistemological limits of empirical psychology in his theory of the collective unconscious, Neumann attempted to extend Jung’s epistemology into metaphysical territory, and in so doing he charted out a structural diagram of the psyche that extends beyond the archetypal field, to what he called the Self-field. The Self-field, Neumann argued, is a necessary postulate to include it in any complete inventory of depth-psychology that attempts to reach a new Weltanschauung. His attempts to extend Jung’s hypothesis of the Self into transpersonal territory began in his 1948 Eranos lecture in Ascona, Switzerland, “Mystical Man”. His calling from the Self led Neumann to venture forth a postulate of what he called a “New Ethic” for the field of depth-psychology as a whole. A distinction is made between the personal and archetypal shadow and evil, and the “Voice” Neumann refers to as part of the Transpersonal Self. The essay concludes saying it is tragic Neumann died at so young an age of 55, before he could formulate further how his Ethic related to his metaphysic. Neumann was the first Jungian analyst to present the world with a truly transpersonal theory of the Self that the author sees as essential reading for any transpersonal pedagogue who attempts to place Jungians in the history of the Integral movement. KEYWORDS Mystical man, numinous, Godhead, transpersonal, field-knowledge, Voice, Self-field, Wholeness, New Ethic, archetypal shadow, evil.


PMLA ◽  
1961 ◽  
Vol 76 (4-Part1) ◽  
pp. 345-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
John T. Shawcross

The conclusion of Ants Oras as to the chronology of Milton's major poems, based on his important study of the blank vejse, is, I believe, in serious error. Examining strong pauses, both terminal and medial, the distribution of medial pauses over the pentameter line, run-on lines, feminine and masculine pauses, the distribution of polysyllables over the verse line, feminine endings, rhythmical expressions creating shifted stresses, syllabized “-ed” endings, and pyrrhic verse endings, Oras concludes that the traditional chronology for Paradise Lost (from Book I through Book XII), Paradise Regained (from Book I through Book IV), and Samson Agonistes is correct. As a prosodical study, the statistical data presented lead us to a greater understanding of the aforementioned verse techniques as used by Milton than we have heretofore known. Professor Oras' inferences of dated practice are, however, another matter.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document