Abstract
The recognition that Milton in his maturer phase belongs within a baroque context is, as was noted earlier, of only academic interest unless it can offer some deeper insights into the literary quality of his epic. Indeed, for those readers who remain suspicious of attempts to relate literature to contemporary changes in the visual arts, there is often a feeling that the very establishing of such cultural affinities detracts in some way from the achievement of the individual writer. It is as though he has been relegated from the status of an independent and original creator to that of a mere purveyor of current fashion.1 As so often, perhaps here too Shakespeare can prove illuminating. In a well-known passage defining the function of drama—a definition which should be extended to include all creative art—Hamlet informs the players that its purpose is not only universal (‘… to hold as ‘twere the mirror up to nature’) but also of immediate contemporary relevance (to show ‘… the very age and body of the time his form and pressure’). It is the task of the writer or artist, in addition to speaking to all generations, to present to his contemporaries, by means of his greater insight and sensitivity, the true image of his own era, often before they are aware of it.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes to Chapter 2
A. J. A. Waldock, Paradise Lost and its Critics (Cambridge, 1961 ), p. 143.
Bernard Bergonzi, ‘Criticism and the Milton Controversy’, in The Living Milton ed. Frank Kermode (London, 1967), p. 168, argues the case very effectively, and also offers a helpful summary of the main lines of critical argument in recent years.
C. S. Lewis, A Preface to Paradise Lost (London, 1960), p. 100.
Stanley E. Fish, Surprised by Sin: the Reader in Paradise Lost (Berkeley, 1971),especially the opening chapter. See also J. Summers, The Muse’s Method (Harvard, 1962) and Ann Ferry, Milton’s Epic Voice: the. Narrator in Paradise Lost (Harvard, 1963).
Arthur Sewell, A Study in Milton’s Christian Doctrine (London, 1939), p. 78.
John M. Steadman, Milton and the Renaissance Hero (Oxford, 1967). His more recent The Lamb and the Elephant (San Marino, 1974), offers some helpful insights into the artistic background of the era.
A. H. Gilbert, On the Composition of Paradise Lost (Chapel Hill, 1947 ), p. 159.
Copyright information
© 1980 Murray Roston
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Roston, M. (1980). The Arch Antagonist. In: Milton and the Baroque. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-04982-0_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-04982-0_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-04984-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-04982-0
eBook Packages: Palgrave Literature & Performing Arts CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)