Paradise Lost and Pre-Lapsarian Sexuality," Milton Quarterly 34 (2000): 67-83
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Chapman University Chapman University Digital Commons English Faculty Articles and Research English 2000 'Nor turnd I weene': Paradise Lost and Pre- Lapsarian Sexuality Kent Lehnhof Chapman University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/english_articles Part of the Christianity Commons, History of Christianity Commons, History of Religions of Western Origin Commons, Literature in English, British Isles Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Lehnhof, Kent. "'Nor turnd I weene': Paradise Lost and Pre-Lapsarian Sexuality," Milton Quarterly 34 (2000): 67-83. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the English at Chapman University Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in English Faculty Articles and Research by an authorized administrator of Chapman University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 'Nor turnd I weene': Paradise Lost and Pre-Lapsarian Sexuality Comments This is a pre-copy-editing, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in Milton Quarterly, volume 34, 2000 following peer review. The definitive publisher-authenticated version is available online in Milton Quarterly. Copyright Wiley This article is available at Chapman University Digital Commons: http://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/english_articles/1 “Nor tumd I weene”: Paradise Lost and Pre-Lapsarian Sexuality Kent R. Lehnhof Generations of Milton scholars have agreed that Para- the preface to One Flesh, Turner claims that the biblical &re Lort asserts a genital conjugahty between Adam and source text of Milton’s epic is characterized by a funda- Eve prior to the Fall. Critical consensus has been so ex- mental “indeterminacy” resulting in a fragmented text tensive that Adam and Eve’s sexual intimacy is a veritable “that must be, and yet cannot be, read as one” (vii). non-question in Milton criticism. For this reason, few Turner acknowledges that the Bible is particularly cloudy Miltonists have analyzed the physical specifics of Adam on the question of Adam and Eve’s intimacy in the and Eve’s relationshp. Of the examinations that have Garden of Eden. Turner also avows that his idea or been made, Peter Lindenbaum’s “Lovemaking in Milton’s “version of Milton . shares the current tendency to Paradtse” and James Grantham Turner’s OneFlesh’ are the stress his inconsistencyand doubleness” (ix).But neither most thorough. Tellingly,neither Lindenbaum nor Turner Milton’s inconsistency and doubleness nor the Bible’s acknowledges that pre-lapsarian sex in Paradre Lort is indeterminacy has the slightest effect on Turner’s convic- anything other than a indubitable fact. Turner claims from tions regarding pre-lapsarian sexuality in Paradise Lost. the outset that “Milton . insists on a full sexual life for Although he enumerates a number of causes for caution, the unfallen Adam and Eve-bringing it to life as fully as Turner shrugs off all uncertainty regardtng sex in Eden, hspoetic resources allow” (12), and Lindenbaum declares unwaveringly proclaiming that in Milton’s epic, “the frrsf in the tirst line of his essay: “In Paradisc Lort, Milton took couple live for weeks in Paradise enjoying full sexual the unusual stand of asserting that Adam and Eve intercourse” (30). engaged in sexual relations while stdl in Eden before the While Turner never doubts that Milton explicitly af- Fall” (277). Because the “unusual stand” of pre-lapsarian fords Adam and Eve an Edenic sexuality, there are times sex has been such a commonplace in Milton criticism, when his text unwittingly raises suspicion to the contrary. neither Lindenbaum nor Turner provide evidence in favor These moments occur when Turner is forced to insist of this apparent fact-there is no reason to defend a upon Milton’s radical originality in attributing to Adam position that nobody disputes. Lindenbaum, for example, and Eve the specific type of conjugal relations that Turn- assumes that Milton’s take on Edenic sexuality is obvious er perceives in Paradise Lost. One Ffesb plumbs the writ- to all and quickly moves to the essay’s real focus: the ings and traditions of a remarkable array of thinkers from implications of Adam and Eve’s sexual life for Paradre widely divergent historical, religious, and cultural Lost as a whole (278). In a similar fashion, Turner declares viewpoints. Turner’s readtng of the sexuality in Paradise an intention to illuminate through historical contextualiz- Lort, however, often requires that he set Milton at odds ation Milton’s position on pre-lapsarian sexuality, but with every other ideologue included in his study. For never acknowledges that Milton’s position might be a example, at one point Turner asserts that of all the theo- matter of debate (vi). Based on the unexamined assertion logians considered in One Flesh “only Milton attempts to of Edenic sexuality, both texts perfectly encapsulate the create a new significance for the Eden-myth without re- analyticalprocess that Milton scholars have adopted when versing or abandoning the standard ideology of the text” addressing pre-Fall eroticism. Rather than arguefor Adam (140). At another point Turner tells us that “belief in the and Eve’s pre-lapsarian sexuality (establishing that the Paradisal trace was never strong enough to dislodge the couple did copulate in Eden); we have merely arguedfim orthodox position, that Adam and Eve were virgins at it (explaininghow the couple’s alleged intimacy illuminates the expulsion; Pardre Lost is unique and isolated in this other aspects of Milton’s oeuvre). respect” (79). Although OneFferbaims to situate Mdton’s Yet Turner’s own work suggests the dangers of taking stance on sexuality within social, literary, and theological such an easy approach to conjugality in Paraah Lost. In contexts,Turner’s take on Miltonic sexuality often neces- 68 MILTON QUARTERLY sitates that he perform the opposite action, severing would necessarily have been perfect, and perfect sex Milton from these very contexts. I hesitate to embrace would invariably have ended in conception. Yet Eve Turner’s faith in pre-lapsarian sexuality when such a could not have conceived in Eden because any chdd position requires me to concur, as Turner acknowledges conceived prior to the Fall would not have been tainted that it does, that Milton “violates the universal consensus by original sin-as Cain undeniably was (638)’ Because of the commentators, not to mention the laws of bio- Lindenbaum is secure in the assumption that Milton logical probability, when he gives Adam and Eve a full but afforded Adam and Eve a pre-Fall sexual life, he does infertile sexual life in Paradise” (37). not feel compelled to respond to the difficulties Defoe The vague discomfort that I find between the lines of delineates. His abbreviated attempt to handle Defoe’s One Fhsh is certainly not sufficient to discredit a reading as questions is relegated to an endnote. It would be wise, dominant as the one that locates a pre-lapsarian conjug- however, to reconsider the merit of Defoe’s theological ality in Purudse bst.Uncertainty within the text of Purudsc concerns, for Milton is not the type of thinker to &miss Lortitself, however, supplies ampler cause for question. I or discount the real doctrinal difficulty of Defoe’s speak specifically of Book 4. Turner, Lindenbaum, and position. others point to lines 738-743 of this book as a In spite ofits apparent logic, Defoe’s analysis need not stmghtfomard-indeed, indubitable-account of Edenic preclude sex from Milton’s Paradise, for Milton does not lovemaking. The passage relates that after their nightly share several of the premises upon whch Defoe’s prayer, Adam and Eve: speculations are predicated. First, Defoe asserts that if Eve were to have sex in Eden “she must have Con- into thir inmost bowre ceived, for Barrenness seem’d not to consist with the Handed they went; and eas’d the putting off State of Perfection” (638). Equating a delay in con- These troublesom disguises which wee wear, ception with an inability to conceive, Defoe adnuts no Strait side by side were laid, nor turn’d I weene gap between act and issue. Milton’s Eden, however, Adam from his fak Spouse, nor Eye the Rites allows for innocent delay. Milton’s God, for example, Mysterious of connubial Love refus’d. knows from the outset that it is not good for man to be (738-743)2 alone. Nevertheless, God-a perfect agent engaging in perfect acts of creationdoes not provide man with his Turner’s explication of these lines is detailed and nuanced, needed companion until after man recognizes his lack, mining a great deal of meaning out of single words and petitions his Creator to supply that lack, and then phrases. He discourses at length upon the significance of successfully debates the wisdom of his petition. words such as “Strait” and “Rites”(23G37). Turner’s Additionally, when God eventually creates Eve to painstaking word-by-word analysis, however, fails to at- remedy Adam’s deficiency, delay is once more intro- tend to the two words upon which the passage depends. duced. Rather than join her mate and alleviate his As Roy Flannagan points out in The Riverdak Milton, the ‘‘I solitude, Eve prolongs Adam’s loneliness, first lmgering weene” that precedes the description of the “Rites / Mys- by the pool and then fleeing from his side when led to terious” introduces an uncertainty that Turner and others him. Only when forcibly detained does Eve finally fdfd have ignored. Flannagan’s footnote to line 741 observes her companionate role. In spite of these repeated delays, that “stLictly speaking, Milton does not assert that Adam neither God’s postponement of Eve’s creation nor Eve’s and Eve made love, since ‘I weene’ means ‘I assume’ or ‘I tardiness in joining Adam diminishes the perfection of guess.”’ In short, the straightforward sexuality of these Eden; both God and Eve are blameless in their belated- lines is not so much a product of the text but rather of our ness.