Doesn't the simile also suggest that Satan is very, very prone--except for
his head/

Boyd Berry

On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, David Lee Miller wrote:

> OK, maybe we agree.  The leviathan simile is masterfully ominous, and if
> Satan is measured according to his threat to humans, then he's
> gigantic.  Milton destabilizes that perception because his poem
> intermittently but powerfully evokes the divine perspective, with its
> distancing and diminution, its autumn leaves on Vallombrosa and its falling
> star on a summer's eve.  He invokes it through strong contrast:  from the
> divine point of view none of this is large, and none of it is
> dangerous.  Milton keeps the human perspective doubtful, like his moonlit
> peasant watching the faeries dance, in part because he keeps us so off
> balance in our perceptions of Satan:  that can be a kind of warning, too.
>
> I am fascinated by the way Milton insinuates into the texture of his
> narrative implied answers to the question of divine witness--the epic and
> tragic question whether the gods are watching, and whether they care.
>
> DM
>
>
>
> At 07:08 PM 12/14/2000 -0500, you wrote:
> >Fish's discussion is a fine one, and I wouldn't want to be put in the
> >position of trying to measure Satan exactly.  But I think it important to
> >register that, at this point in the poem and in other parts of it, Milton
> >is interested in giving us the distinct impression that Satan, plastic
> >though he proves to be, can certainly be on the VERY BIG side -- and that
> >we ought in fact to be wary of the giant character of this spiritual
> >power.  The only thing worse than overestimating Satan's stature would be,
> >surely, underestimating it.  I worry that uncareful "human readers" (are
> >there other kinds?) secure in their knowing skepticism, will downgrade the
> >effort the poem goes to to give us the image of a gigantic Satan. That one
> >can, like poor old Cowper according to Blake, scare oneself silly with
> >one's own gargantuan imaginings is always a possibility. Nor should one
> >want the scale drawn to that of a map, but "So stretcht out huge in length
> >the Arch Fiend lay" goes to some poetic length to invite us to think of a
> >lot of length, and that thought, like the proverbial spotted elephant,
> >won't not appear.
> >
> >
> >>I second Webster's second of Fish, who writes wonderfully in Surprised by
> >>Sin of the way Milton's verse destabilizes a reader's relationship to
> >>Satan and the fallen angels--morally, of course, but also proportionally,
> >>so that they seem to shrink or swell in response to each successive
> >>simile. This would suggest that it's getting the stick by the wrong end
> >>to try and measure Satan quite so literally.  Spenser, bless his heart,
> >>pokes fun at this avant la lettre in the townspeople's inspection of the
> >>slain dragon at the end of Book I.  Milton pokes fun at it when he
> >>carries his perspectival play with the devils over from figurative
> >>language into the literal action of the plot; which is to say, when the
> >>devils literally shrink down to enter Pandemonium, but then are
> >>re-enlarged in our reading minds as we move to the inner sanctum
> >>to  listen in on the leadership.
> >>
> >>Even that Norwegian mast, as I recall, "were but a wand."
> >>
> >>DM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>At 02:59 PM 12/14/2000 -0800, you wrote:
> >>>But isn't the point of that simile precisely that only human readers would
> >>>have thought they could answer questions like this in the first
> >>>place?  (or so S Fish argued).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, tom bishop wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > >About giants.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >Satan in PL is 36 feet high or so ("many a rood").
> >>> >
> >>> > If a Norwegian pine the size of a ship's mast is "but a wand" to
> >>> > Satan's spear, then he's a hell of a lot higher than 36 feet.
> >>> > --
> >>> > ________________________________________________________
> >>> >
> >>> > Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of
> >>> > the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the
> >>> > loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge
> >>> > as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.
> >>> >
> >>> > -- Justice John Paul Stevens
> >>> >
> >>
> >>David Lee Miller
> >>
> >>Department of English
> >>University of Kentucky
> >>Lexington, KY 40506-0027
> >>
> >>859-257-6965 (office)
> >>859-252-3680 (home)
> >>859-323-1072 (fax)
> >
> >--
> >________________________________________________________
> >
> >Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the
> >winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is
> >perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an
> >impartial guardian of the rule of law.
> >
> >-- Justice John Paul Stevens
>
> David Lee Miller
>
> Department of English
> University of Kentucky
> Lexington, KY 40506-0027
>
> 859-257-6965 (office)
> 859-252-3680 (home)
> 859-323-1072 (fax)
>