One segment of Paradise Lost that Milton uses a complex set up in to is Sin's harsh insult of Satan in 688-704 in combination with the preceding description of Satan. On lines 632 and 635, Satan is described as taking "solitary flight" but also "vaulting high" and soaring across the expanse, which is twofold in its imagery, saying that Satan, though powerful and convincing, is often completely alone. This is hammered home when Satan encounters Sin, portrayed here as Scylla, a mythical Greek monster, who had apparently been in hell along. Milton introduces Sin as "a goblin full of wrath" giving us a clear picture of her physical presence as well as what we can expect her to say in the following monologue. Unsuprisingly, Sin absolutely tears into Satan and calls him; "The traitor angel who first broke peace in heaven," and also blames him for the downfall of his followers, his third of the angels of heaven. Then on line 701, Sin tells Satan basically to get out of my hell, "Lest I chase you with a whip of scorpions." Forceful words against the being recognized by most as ruler of hell.

Sin, however, makes the statement the she was in Hell first, also claiming to be the sole ruler, implying that Satan is not the ruler of hell, merely an exiled dignitary from another realm. First off, this is logical because Satan began his existence in heaven whereas the force of Sin was obviously in no part an accepted member of heaven. Also, although Satan was the angel who first caused a fall of any sort, what force acted upon him to rebel against God? Sin. Just like Adam and Eve rebelled, but were being acted upon by Satan (and Sin) the chain of responsibility does not necessarily begin and end with the being who commited it. Satan in all his splendor and glory can not match evil with Sin, perhaps adding the final insult to injury, as Satan realizes that even in Hell, he can not rule unopposed.

After reading a classmate's post, I was struck with the epiphany that Milton's genius is not necessarily through use of his own decriptions, but the use of characters that have already been described. Moloch, Chemos, Thammuz, Osiris, Isis, and Orus just to name a few, were all gods of the polytheistic nations written about in the Old Testament of the Bible. By visualizing statues or paintings of these pagan gods or even associating their voices and demeanors with what has been written about them in literature, we are able to make a complete picture of who hell's minion's were: Large, powerful figures who one would be suprised to see lying in defeat.

Although the descriptions of these characters could be construed as flattering, that imagery does not lend itself to sympathizing with the fallen gods (although with the quality of the speeches given in hell, it's easy to see how they could have been coersed into rebelling against their own desires) but rather, I felt that such powerful beings should have known better than to fight an unwinnable battle. It seems as if God punishes these lesser deities on a case-by-case basis, in Paradise Lost they have been deposed to hell, but in the Bible they are treated with lesser punishments (the plagues and subsequent drowning of the Egyptian Army [Exodus:14] or the embarrasment and then slaughter of the prophets of Baal [1 Kings:18]) that seem to be brought upon the individual gods for their disobedience to god on Earth.

It seems as if Milton is trying to make a direct statement. Just like us, he seems to imply, these gods had free will, and when they messed up they were punished just as the Bible claims man has been and will continue to be. If this is taken as a direct religious text, would it comfort us to know that we are higher in God's favor than former angels or would it scare us to know that not only has God sent one of his three lietenants and a squadron of former trusted angels to hell, but now they're out to seduce us into suffering their fate?

Just don't expect me to vomit sunshine about the Libertine

Allow me to be frank at the commencement. You will not like me. The gentlemen will be envious and the ladies will be repelled. You will not like [this blog post] now and you will like [it] a good deal less as we go on.

So much meaning was twisted into this monologue and Wilmot built so much anticipation that I was disappointed to have to struggle so much to expose any kind of literary significance in the Libertine. However, one of the few themes I did manage to absorb fairly well was Charles's realization of the importance of having a writer as great as Wilmot on your side.

"Elizabeth had her Shakespeare. You could be mine." This quote specifically makes it seem as if Charles wanted to be immortalized in lore (later, he even assigns Wilmot the task of composing a tribute to his reign) and to an extent he did, but it seems as if even more, he wanted Wilmot to use his stunning talent to ameliorate his 'public rating,' to use a more modern political term, and also improve the public perception of England's impoverished, filthy state. While it seems ridiculous on the surface to think that a nation's ruler would believe a writer could help him that much, we must believe that, as king, Charles was very well educated and could very easily have been moved to think a certain way by the great writers of the day that he had spent his life reading. Why couldn't he employ a writer or writers from within his grand domain to make his subjects feel the way he wanted them to? Why couldn't he find a writer of extraordinary talent and use him as a super-powered propaganda machine?

Well... he found the writer. But like a two-edged sword, Wilmot's genius came with a near perfect understanding of what his king intended to use him as and that understanding combined with his childish 'need' to speak his mind caused drama to say the least. Any child who has asked a parent why an unreasonable request must be completed only to be told: "You'll do it because I'm your Mom/Dad, and I said so" understands the level of frustration Wilmot had achieved. And as most of us smart, frustrated kids do, Wilmot found sometimes underhanded, sometimes passive aggressive, never blatant, but always effective ways to show his annoyance. Whether it was reading a sexually explicit poem about Charles' wife, or belittling his reign in front of the French ambassador with his play, Wilmot consistently found a way to embarrass the king and vent through the vulgar writing he enjoyed so greatly. He continually found ways to show King Charles that he was no tool and could not be controlled.

The irony is that in the end, when Wilmot does decide to use his powers in the English language to help Charles, the king assumes that he is merely fulfilling his civic duty as subject to lord and has finally succumbed to authority. When he voices this, Wilmot turns around, stares him down and (basically) makes the point with obvious disdain in his voice that Charles is an idiot. For the first time Charles doesn't seem put off by the insult though. He got what he wanted; his tool yielded a harvest. He's like a child who is being scolded for stealing candy but is too satisfied by the taste of the candy to care.

And then I had to re-evaluate who was the child in this relationship.

In my readings of L'Allegro and Il Penseroso, I had a very strong sense that two competing factions were trying to win, for themselves, the title of true happiness. Milton's structure seems very similar to the structure of a political campaign between two candidates, belittling one another (Lines 2 of each identifies the central theme of the opponent's and the rest of the beginning 10 lines goes to discount it) while simultaneously striving to improve their own image in the eye of the voters (readers). You could also make the argument that we have an old man and a teenager arguing about what is beautiful, or perhaps even the sister who's on the cheerleading squad and cries when she sees cute puppies arguing with the unattractive A+ drama club member who reads books on ignoring boys.

The cavalier poets would agree that L'Allegro, arguing for the carefree lifestyle (Straight mine eye hath caught new pleasures/whilst the landscape round it measures) is the best way to pursue joy even if such joysare not immediately evident. Milton throws in an argument of pathos, (The sport that wrinkled care derides - Ln 31) labeling those who would not agree with this assessment as stodgy old naysayers. Furthering the identification with physical beauty, he personifies Mirth through the goddess Venus (line 14). Venus is considered the most beautiful of all the gods and many times inspires males, both mortal and immortal to fall deeply in love with her (Line 122 reinforces this characterization of L'Allegro, outside of the Venus comparison). She, however, is additionally considered the representation of impure love, and one of her names, Venus Obsequens, was actually the deity of women caught in adulterous relationships. It was also Venus's beauty that the poet Homer ultimately blamed the Trojan war on (Paris and the Golden Apple). However, L'Allegro seems to say that you should look beyond these cons and make (Quips and Cranks and waton smiles - Ln 27) forgetting the cons. He also spends a huge portion of the poem speaking of the joy of naturally beautiful landscapes. L'allegro claims that if you can find beauty in simplicity and nature, and appreciate it, you will always be joyous; the American Beauty conceptualization of happiness.

Il Penseroso, argues the opposing platform, that happiness should stem from a far deeper emotional process. He argues that accomplishments (That in trim gardens takes his pleasure - Ln 50) and emotional appeals (Ln 108) should be the source of happiness. As is the case in L'Allegro, Il Penseroso uses a Roman goddess (Vesta) as a personification of its form of happiness. She is a chaste goddess who turned down a marriage offer from Apollo to preserve here virginity and is recognized as the protector of the family (quite opposed to the Venus Obsequens persona). However, Vesta is rarely (if ever) written about in plays, never seems to be portrayed as beautiful in any sense and is not considered an important god in Roman mythology. Venus on the other hand, dominates plays, fables and poems. Her moral character seems to be the source of beauty and thus happiness according to Milton here. In line 151 and 161 he speaks to the seemingly magical appeal of music on the senses and how it stirs the soul. Basically, in Il Penseroso, milton argues that you need more than a simple fantasy-world-bunnies-jumping-through-fields view of happiness. You need to pursue concepts linked to morality and accomplishment to obtain the sense of self-respect prerequisite to true happiness. When has a comedy won Best Picture of the Year? It's always a drama, something that stirs our emotions beyond simple grins and chuckles.

If an old man an a young boy were somehow able to have a deep conversation about the nature of happiness, these would be the lines they'd follow. And as a recent teenager myself, I think I'd have to vote for Venus over Vesta. Get back to me in 60 years.