I'm starting my annual discussion of Paradise Lost tomorrow, and it has me pretty excited. In my mind, Shakespeare rules supreme, but his heir-apparent is John Milton. Less well known than his dramatic almost-contemporary (Milton was eight when Shakespeare died, and I've yet to see any evidence that the future prophet-bard of England ever met the Soul of the Age), John Milton has still been immensely influential in English Letters. John Rodgers argues that Milton is in the dead center of the canon, while Harold Bloom puts Milton firmly (and unequivocally) in second place, preeminent save Shakespeare.
I agree with both, and my preference for one over the other is a matter of what I'm reading/teaching at the moment. This year, I'm reading Twelfth Night at the same time as teaching Paradise Lost, so there's some dissonance in my mind. Of course, there's no reason why I have to pick a favorite. I'ma be like this little girl and refuse to choose:
If pressed, I would err on the side of Shakespeare for a few reasons: One, his shadow is larger. Much like Freud* in the field of psychoanalysis, Shakespeare is the writer in English. Everyone since his time has been responding to--or against--him. There's no getting around the Bard. I have a hashtag that I use on Twitter (#shakespeareiseverywhere) that I use whenever an article, quote, or allusion to Shakespeare crops up. It has hundreds of tweets, most of them from me, some from my friends who're aware of it. And I'm not particularly good at identifying Shakespearean shout outs, either. Could you imagine how much could be done by someone who had a clue what she was doing?
My second point for Shax is his breadth. This is linked to his ubiquity, as there are 836,000 words that he's written, and almost all of them are incredible (though Titus Andronicus and Pericles are both a bit of a mess). Milton may have written more words (I couldn't find an answer in my twenty second Google search), but they aren't all particularly good. Some of them are old polemics on topics we no longer care about. His prose writing is expansive--much like his mind--but they lack the consistent power of Shakespeare's.
The third reason why Shakespeare is superior (to me in my little corner of the world) is based upon masterworks. Harold Bloom claims the big five tragedies to be Hamlet, Macbeth, Othello, King Lear, and Antony and Cleopatra (the last one exclusively because of Cleopatra), along with As You Like it, Twelfth Night, and another one that slips my mind as pristine comedies. Bloom argues that a good dozen or so of Shakespeare's plays would constitute masterpieces, and I'm inclined to agree. While Antony and Cleopatra doesn't quiver my quill, Coriolanus and Richard II are mind-shakingly good, and I've yet to see a version of Comedy of Errors that doesn't make me laugh myself into stitches (a Shakespearean quote). There are masterpieces within masterpieces, and some masterpieces within otherwise dross (A Midsummer Night's Dream comes to mind with Bottom and the mechanicals being the diamonds in the rough, but that could be simple overexposure rather than the quality of the play....but I don't think so).
Milton, on the other hand? Paradise Lost is sublime, and some of Milton's sonnets are the most powerful in the language. But there's not as much there. The endless variety and invention of Shakespeare isn't found in Milton. His poetry thunders with passion, power, control, and precision--in a way that Shakespeare's never does--but Milton is not universal** the way Shakespeare is. Everyone will see an aspect of themselves if they study enough Shakespeare--a phrase, a thought, a character. In that sense, Shakespeare is genuinely ubiquitous and imperial and many other things at once. Milton, however, is Milton, filled with a pious fire that sings to certain souls but not others. He is less concerned with exploring the possibilities of man and more the specifics of God, which, with a theme so different, is bound to strike fewer targets.
In the final analysis, I am enamored of both and am excited to be able to study Milton again. I indulge myself at this time of year, giving myself permission to read and write and think on Milton much more deeply than the students would likely wish. But that's all one: If they don't like my passion, they can seek another class.
Actually, they can't, because transferring classes at this time of the year is discouraged. lol.
---
* I pick Freud in this example deliberately, because he, too, is inescapable. If you wish to engage in some metacognition, you will be relying on something Freudian. Some people become so influential in their field that, for better or worse, they can't be ignored.
** Some people argue that Shax isn't universal, that there are people in the bush who don't resonate with his stories. To dissect that is the work of another day, but suffice to say I don't think that's true. Some people don't know themselves well enough to see their reflection in his writing; others look in the common places, not knowing that it's in his lesser-viewed works that they'll see themselves.
I agree with both, and my preference for one over the other is a matter of what I'm reading/teaching at the moment. This year, I'm reading Twelfth Night at the same time as teaching Paradise Lost, so there's some dissonance in my mind. Of course, there's no reason why I have to pick a favorite. I'ma be like this little girl and refuse to choose:
If pressed, I would err on the side of Shakespeare for a few reasons: One, his shadow is larger. Much like Freud* in the field of psychoanalysis, Shakespeare is the writer in English. Everyone since his time has been responding to--or against--him. There's no getting around the Bard. I have a hashtag that I use on Twitter (#shakespeareiseverywhere) that I use whenever an article, quote, or allusion to Shakespeare crops up. It has hundreds of tweets, most of them from me, some from my friends who're aware of it. And I'm not particularly good at identifying Shakespearean shout outs, either. Could you imagine how much could be done by someone who had a clue what she was doing?
My second point for Shax is his breadth. This is linked to his ubiquity, as there are 836,000 words that he's written, and almost all of them are incredible (though Titus Andronicus and Pericles are both a bit of a mess). Milton may have written more words (I couldn't find an answer in my twenty second Google search), but they aren't all particularly good. Some of them are old polemics on topics we no longer care about. His prose writing is expansive--much like his mind--but they lack the consistent power of Shakespeare's.
The third reason why Shakespeare is superior (to me in my little corner of the world) is based upon masterworks. Harold Bloom claims the big five tragedies to be Hamlet, Macbeth, Othello, King Lear, and Antony and Cleopatra (the last one exclusively because of Cleopatra), along with As You Like it, Twelfth Night, and another one that slips my mind as pristine comedies. Bloom argues that a good dozen or so of Shakespeare's plays would constitute masterpieces, and I'm inclined to agree. While Antony and Cleopatra doesn't quiver my quill, Coriolanus and Richard II are mind-shakingly good, and I've yet to see a version of Comedy of Errors that doesn't make me laugh myself into stitches (a Shakespearean quote). There are masterpieces within masterpieces, and some masterpieces within otherwise dross (A Midsummer Night's Dream comes to mind with Bottom and the mechanicals being the diamonds in the rough, but that could be simple overexposure rather than the quality of the play....but I don't think so).
Milton, on the other hand? Paradise Lost is sublime, and some of Milton's sonnets are the most powerful in the language. But there's not as much there. The endless variety and invention of Shakespeare isn't found in Milton. His poetry thunders with passion, power, control, and precision--in a way that Shakespeare's never does--but Milton is not universal** the way Shakespeare is. Everyone will see an aspect of themselves if they study enough Shakespeare--a phrase, a thought, a character. In that sense, Shakespeare is genuinely ubiquitous and imperial and many other things at once. Milton, however, is Milton, filled with a pious fire that sings to certain souls but not others. He is less concerned with exploring the possibilities of man and more the specifics of God, which, with a theme so different, is bound to strike fewer targets.
In the final analysis, I am enamored of both and am excited to be able to study Milton again. I indulge myself at this time of year, giving myself permission to read and write and think on Milton much more deeply than the students would likely wish. But that's all one: If they don't like my passion, they can seek another class.
Actually, they can't, because transferring classes at this time of the year is discouraged. lol.
---
* I pick Freud in this example deliberately, because he, too, is inescapable. If you wish to engage in some metacognition, you will be relying on something Freudian. Some people become so influential in their field that, for better or worse, they can't be ignored.
** Some people argue that Shax isn't universal, that there are people in the bush who don't resonate with his stories. To dissect that is the work of another day, but suffice to say I don't think that's true. Some people don't know themselves well enough to see their reflection in his writing; others look in the common places, not knowing that it's in his lesser-viewed works that they'll see themselves.
Comments