by Breanna Poole
In the past, we've been cautioned to read this book less as a retelling of a Biblical story, and more as a political allegory, which at certain points can seem like an impossible allegory to find, while at others it feels like Milton is slapping us with the book and saying 'see what I did there?!'. Since Milton was so heavily involved with the politics of the time, it would be foolish to say Milton didn't see himself involved in someway, and we could spend days trying to figure out which character in the story he intended himself to be read as. I would argue that the character Milton is supposed to represent is one that doesn't appear at all in person, but only as a flash-forward from Michael.
Milton is meant to be read as Noah. {Or, at least, a Noah-like figure.}
It seems odd at first that Milton would be seen as Noah, considering that the Biblical Noah was all-around considered to be righteous, given that he was selected as the one from which the new world would be born form, while the historical Milton we know of, while certainly not necessarily a bad person (at least by human standards) he probably wasn't the most righteous or holy man running around England at the time. So why then would I say Milton is applicable to being Noah?
While, Noah is described as being not listened to when he called for others to repent and return to God (which, of course, actually happened), but Milton is often said to have felt this way too -- he was always just one step ahead of everyone else (or so he believed) when it came to politics and seeing the corruption of the Church of England, he wrote many poems about this very idea many times over. Milton sees himself as being someone who can see more clearly and is shouting and yelling, and this book became his metaphorical ark, his way to continue a legacy of what came before him. Milton does give him much more emphasis than some of the other religious figures -- the only one preceding him is Enoch and then the book ends with the Noah story before Book 12 continues on with the Abraham and the Exodus and Moses, and so on. To put such a definitive end to Noah right there seems like something very deliberate to me, and while it might not be for what I am suggesting (so that we can apply Milton to know), and I feel like that must be for a reason, regardless of what it is.
All this may seem like certifiable hogwash to all y'all, but tell me what y'all think! Do you think there is some kind of Noah emphasis going on in the text? And if so, what could it mean?
{I commented on Anna and Abbie's posts.}
In the past, we've been cautioned to read this book less as a retelling of a Biblical story, and more as a political allegory, which at certain points can seem like an impossible allegory to find, while at others it feels like Milton is slapping us with the book and saying 'see what I did there?!'. Since Milton was so heavily involved with the politics of the time, it would be foolish to say Milton didn't see himself involved in someway, and we could spend days trying to figure out which character in the story he intended himself to be read as. I would argue that the character Milton is supposed to represent is one that doesn't appear at all in person, but only as a flash-forward from Michael.
Milton is meant to be read as Noah. {Or, at least, a Noah-like figure.}
It seems odd at first that Milton would be seen as Noah, considering that the Biblical Noah was all-around considered to be righteous, given that he was selected as the one from which the new world would be born form, while the historical Milton we know of, while certainly not necessarily a bad person (at least by human standards) he probably wasn't the most righteous or holy man running around England at the time. So why then would I say Milton is applicable to being Noah?
While, Noah is described as being not listened to when he called for others to repent and return to God (which, of course, actually happened), but Milton is often said to have felt this way too -- he was always just one step ahead of everyone else (or so he believed) when it came to politics and seeing the corruption of the Church of England, he wrote many poems about this very idea many times over. Milton sees himself as being someone who can see more clearly and is shouting and yelling, and this book became his metaphorical ark, his way to continue a legacy of what came before him. Milton does give him much more emphasis than some of the other religious figures -- the only one preceding him is Enoch and then the book ends with the Noah story before Book 12 continues on with the Abraham and the Exodus and Moses, and so on. To put such a definitive end to Noah right there seems like something very deliberate to me, and while it might not be for what I am suggesting (so that we can apply Milton to know), and I feel like that must be for a reason, regardless of what it is.
All this may seem like certifiable hogwash to all y'all, but tell me what y'all think! Do you think there is some kind of Noah emphasis going on in the text? And if so, what could it mean?
{I commented on Anna and Abbie's posts.}
Comments