Michael Pollak wrote:
> Barkley Rosser wrote:
>
> > But, another interpretation is that Satan is the radical egalitarian
> > > >attempting to overthrow the hierarchy of God above all else (including
> > > >gender neutral Man).
>
> Um, who makes this interpretation, Barkley? I'm curious how they can make
> out Milton's Hell to be anything but hierarchical with Satan at the top.
While I disagree with this radical egalitarian interpretation of Satan, and have written some 60,000 words (12,000 of them published) maintaining that disagreement, still Michael's objection won't hold, for a couple of reasons. First, in response to his "who?" the answer is any number of readers of the poem, including some fairly bright people (e.g., Blake and Shelley). But the larger reason is generic: epic as a genre simply won't tolerate "correct readings." So if you want Satan as a radical egalitarian, there is nothing whatsoever to prevent you from so having him. That is not my Satan: my Satan (as William Empson suggests) is one of English Barons who imposed the Magna Charta because the king was interfering with their right to sock it to the peasantry. Satan's rebellion then becomes a replay of Shakespeare's *Richard II* in which the Duke loses because Milton's Son has a bit more power (and willingness to use it) than Shakespeare's Richard.
Carrol