The Reception of Milton’s Satan in C. S. Lewis’s Perelandra

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 0 LITERATURE
T. Anderson
{"title":"The Reception of Milton’s Satan in C. S. Lewis’s Perelandra","authors":"T. Anderson","doi":"10.1353/rel.2020.0039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:John Milton’s reputation and reception reached a critical juncture in the 20th century, as a range of English scholars and poets debated the nature and importance of Paradise Lost. Central to this debate was Milton’s representation of Satan, which, due to the vivacity and agency with which Milton invests the chief antagonist, led Romantic critics to reject the epic on the grounds that Milton’s corrupt morality—his Pride, chiefly—is the source of Satan’s sympathetic depiction. Modern critics, such as F. R. Leavis, T. S. Eliot, A. J. Waldock, and E. M. Tillyard, extended this critique to Milton’s language, arguing that Milton failed in his stated purpose (to justify the ways of God to man in judging Adam and Eve at the Fall) because Adam and Eve are too attractive to condemn, the devil is more appealing than God, and God himself is plunged into strange contradictions and untenable sophistries. C. S. Lewis was one of many voices who sought to defend Milton, both in critical essay, and, especially, through his own depiction of the Fall in Perelandra, a science fiction novel. Lewis’s portrayal of Satan recuperates a reading of Paradise Lost that emphasizes the essential being and deceptive nature of the devil. For Lewis, such truths were self-evident to Milton’s Renaissance readers. In Perelandra, Lewis dwells on the representation of epic absurdity, diabolical personality, and the significance of Eve’s temptation, amplifying for his modern audience the central stakes of Paradise Lost while simultaneously debunking modern misconceptions of the purpose and effect of Milton’s epic.","PeriodicalId":43443,"journal":{"name":"RELIGION & LITERATURE","volume":"2003 1","pages":"112 - 95"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RELIGION & LITERATURE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/rel.2020.0039","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract:John Milton’s reputation and reception reached a critical juncture in the 20th century, as a range of English scholars and poets debated the nature and importance of Paradise Lost. Central to this debate was Milton’s representation of Satan, which, due to the vivacity and agency with which Milton invests the chief antagonist, led Romantic critics to reject the epic on the grounds that Milton’s corrupt morality—his Pride, chiefly—is the source of Satan’s sympathetic depiction. Modern critics, such as F. R. Leavis, T. S. Eliot, A. J. Waldock, and E. M. Tillyard, extended this critique to Milton’s language, arguing that Milton failed in his stated purpose (to justify the ways of God to man in judging Adam and Eve at the Fall) because Adam and Eve are too attractive to condemn, the devil is more appealing than God, and God himself is plunged into strange contradictions and untenable sophistries. C. S. Lewis was one of many voices who sought to defend Milton, both in critical essay, and, especially, through his own depiction of the Fall in Perelandra, a science fiction novel. Lewis’s portrayal of Satan recuperates a reading of Paradise Lost that emphasizes the essential being and deceptive nature of the devil. For Lewis, such truths were self-evident to Milton’s Renaissance readers. In Perelandra, Lewis dwells on the representation of epic absurdity, diabolical personality, and the significance of Eve’s temptation, amplifying for his modern audience the central stakes of Paradise Lost while simultaneously debunking modern misconceptions of the purpose and effect of Milton’s epic.
c·s·刘易斯的《佩雷兰德拉》对弥尔顿的撒旦的接受
摘要:20世纪,随着英国学者和诗人对《失乐园》的性质和重要性的争论,弥尔顿的声誉和接受达到了一个关键的时刻。这场争论的核心是弥尔顿对撒旦的描述,由于弥尔顿对主要对手的生动和代理,导致浪漫主义评论家拒绝了这部史诗,理由是弥尔顿堕落的道德——主要是他的骄傲——是对撒旦同情描述的来源。现代评论家,如f·r·里维斯、t·s·艾略特、a·j·瓦尔多克和e·m·蒂利亚德,将这种批评扩展到弥尔顿的语言上,认为弥尔顿没有达到他所陈述的目的(证明上帝在堕落时审判亚当和夏娃的方式是正确的),因为亚当和夏娃太有吸引力了,无法谴责,魔鬼比上帝更有吸引力,上帝自己陷入了奇怪的矛盾和站不住脚的诡辩中。c·s·刘易斯是众多为弥尔顿辩护的声音之一,无论是在评论文章中,还是在他自己的科幻小说《佩雷兰德拉》中对堕落的描述中。刘易斯对撒旦的描绘使《失乐园》的解读得以恢复,后者强调了魔鬼的本质和欺骗性。对刘易斯来说,这些真理对弥尔顿文艺复兴时期的读者来说是不言而喻的。在《佩雷兰德拉》中,刘易斯详述了史诗荒诞的表现,恶魔般的个性,夏娃的诱惑的重要性,为他的现代读者放大了《失乐园》的核心利害关系,同时揭穿了现代对弥尔顿史诗的目的和效果的误解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
43
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信