Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
> >
> >He wants to avoid the idea that we can write >poetry and gain historical
> >insight into the dynamics of social >movements.
>
> A desperate fallacy. More is to be learned about the dynamics of the English
> Revolution from Milton's poetry than from many volumes of social theory.
> Sure the fellow who wants to put feeling and emotion into the conditiosn of
> communication cannot be so flatheaded?
I made this point in my mind as I read Ken, but then I wondered if he meant by "we can write poetry" that "we can _write_ poetry." _We_ can indeed learn a lot about the English Revolution by _reading_ what Milton wrote (though reading him with Hill sure helps in that), but I'm not sure that Milton necessarily learned about the English Revolution in the writing of PL?
Carrol