| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立高雄師範大學 === 英語學系 === 88 === Paradise Lost is the canonical epic par excellence. For centuries, the heated debates among critics over Milton’s representation of God and Satan, Adam and Eve have never waned, despite the fact that the author overtly asserts his purpose in this epic is to "justify the ways of God to men." However, traditional critics are still unable to reach a consensus whether it is God, Satan, man, or woman who is the real hero in this poem. In view of this, this thesis proposes to read Paradise Lost in light of (post)structuralism, arguing that the indeterminacy of the meaning in Paradise Lost is inherent in the text itself.
This thesis is composed of five chapters and an appendix. Chapter One begins with a survey of traditional Miltonic criticism. Humanist readers and Christian ones differ drastically in their stances on the interpretation of Paradise Lost. The controversy over Satan's sublimity is of particular interest. Eve also draws much critical attention. Readers are tempted to judge whether Milton is a misogynist. However, these tough issues remain unresolved.
Chapter Two introduces the notion of binarism, which is much emphasized by the structuralists. In Paradise Lost, binary oppositions such as God/Satan, Adam/Eve and Good/Evil abound, and these hierarchies form the kernel of this epic. Therefore, the aforementioned oppositions will be pinpointed to demonstrate the fact that Milton constructed this work on the basis of binary thinking.
Chapter Three, however, will focus the blindness of binarism from a poststructuralist perspective. Derrida’s harshest critique of logocentricism and hierarchies will be utilized to reexamine the binary pair of God and Satan. As long as God is decentered, we can perceive the blurring of the demarcation between this hierarchy. On many occasions, Satan outdoes the almighty God and assumes the position of origin. The concepts of Good and Evil will also be reconsidered from the poststructuralist viewpoint.
Chapter Four highlights the Temptation Scene so as to argue that Milton’s depiction of Adam and Eve transgresses conventional sexism. During the fall of Eden, it is Eve that dominates and rewrites human’s history. Thus, the author who constructs the binary opposition between Adam and Eve in effect tears down this hierarchy himself at the same time.
Chapter Five concludes that despite Milton’s declaration of justifying the ways of God to man, God in Paradise Lost is not properly justified. The very structures on which the poet constructs his argument prove to be unstable─so much so that a totally different reading of Paradise Lost based on poststructuralism is no less valid than a traditional one. Such a reading helps to clarify (or intensify?) the innate contradictions of the text and helps to appease (or enhance?) critical debates over these hierarchies. In that case, this study provides divergent access to assess the canon and the pleasure to read differently.
In the appendix, main arguments of poststructuralism are summarized. Derrida's reading strategies that serve as the key approaches in Chapters Three and Four are also expounded and emphasized here for further reference.
|
|---|
