It was where I read my Milton. These days all it takes is a quick search and you have what you want at your fingertips. In this case Lycidas, and the Areopagitica. So far I have not been tempted back to Paradise Lost although that would be a solid project to take on.
I understand there is some controversy about whether this meeting between Milton and Galileo actually took place. (See Milton’s Meeting with Galileo: A Reconsideration by George F. Butler Milton Quarterly Vol. 39, No. 3 October 2005) but Milton said it did and he certainly went to Italy in 1638.
And here we have the meeting – imagined and metaphorical, or real and historical – depicted in this painting by Hart. It shows the youthful (he was 30) English poet, scholar, and political agitator entering the room in the villa where the now blind and aged mathematician and experimental philosopher Galileo was under house arrest for his heretical and uncooperative attitude to Church orthodoxy on heliocentrism, i.e. whether the earth was the center of the universe around which the sun revolved or vice versa.
Without a doubt though – on the wall of his room and in the center of the canvas – is a version of Titian’s painting of the death of Saint Peter Martyr, a militant C13th Dominican preacher and chief inquisitor. He was assassinated by members of a Christian sect – the Cathari – who were accused of heresy for their unorthodox views on the nature of good and evil. As with plays within plays, paintings within paintings are always part of the story.
Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) built the first refracting telescope in 1609 and here it is shown right below the painting. Religious zealotry and scientific discovery are in juxtaposition. Does it suggest the fact that Galileo’s scientific ideas placed him in danger? That new ideas and alleged heresy threaten orthodox enforcers? Or is it, less ambiguously, just a sign of the perceived conflict between science and religion? Not to mention the question of whether Hart invented the idea of such an image hanging in Galileo’s villa in the first place. I don’t know.
If they did meet, it was in 1638 when Milton – the devout and political protestant – traveled first to France and then into Italy, the dark heart of the Catholic world. At that time Galileo was old, blind, and under house arrest. Nevertheless, he persisted. In 1638 he published Discourses on Two New Sciences. Even though it overturned the received wisdom of Aristotle’s physics, the Church declined to punish him further.
1638 was also the year that Milton published Lycidas, his elegy “dedicated to the memory of Edward King, his Cambridge friend who drowned when his ship sank off the coast of Wales in August 1637. In typical Miltonian style he uses the event to write an over-the-top poem thick with allegorical allusions and drama that lays out the stages of his grief.
Look homeward angel now, and melt with ruth.
And, O ye dolphins, waft the hapless youth.
And at closing consolation or emotional closure as our modern cliche of mourning has it.
Weep no more, woeful shepherds, weep no more,
For Lycidas your sorrow is not dead,
Sunk though he be beneath the wat’ry floor.Now, Lycidas, the shepherds weep no more:
Henceforth thou art the Genius of the shore,
In thy large recompense, and shalt be good
To all that wander in that perilous flood.
…
And now the sun had stretch’d out all the hills,
And now was dropp’d into the western bay;
At last he rose, and twitch’d his mantle blue:
To-morrow to fresh woods, and pastures new.
Two years after Galileo’s death, in 1644, Milton published Areopagitica, his defense of free speech. The title refers to the Areopagus, a council of elders in ancient Athens responsible for safeguarding democratic values, and Milton invokes this ancient authority to argue for the need to preserve the freedom of thought and expression.
Midway through, Milton describes his meeting with Galileo house at his house in Arcetri near Florence
There it was that I found and visited the famous Galileo grown old a prisoner to the Inquisition, for thinking in Astronomy otherwise than the Franciscan and Dominican licensers thought. And though I knew that England then was groaning loudest under the Prelaticall yoak, neverthelesse I took it as a pledge of future happines, that other Nations were so perswaded of her liberty
Milton had always been interested in astronomy and he followed the latest development in mathematics and science. He never really bought the new heliocentric view of the world though and clung to the old ideas, unlike the old man he apparently met in Florence. He admired Galileo and his work but did not fully accept it. In “Areopagitica,” Milton mentions Galileo in the context of discussing the suppression of scientific knowledge by the authorities of his time. He writes:
“And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter? Her confuting is the best and surest suppressing. . . . And yet, on the other hand, unless wariness be used, as good almost kill a Man as kill a good Book: who kills a Man kills a reasonable creature, God’s Image; but he who destroys a good Book, kills Reason itself, kills the Image of God, as it were in the eye. Many a man lives a burden to the Earth; but a good Book is the precious life-blood of a master-spirit, embalmed and treasured up on purpose to a life beyond life. ‘Tis true, no age can restore a life, whereof perhaps there is no great loss; and revolutions of ages do not oft recover the loss of a rejected truth, for the want of which whole nations fare the worse. We should be wary therefore what persecution we raise against the living labours of public men, how we spill that seasoned life of man preserved and stored up in Books; since we see a kind of homicide may be thus committed, sometimes a martyrdom; and if the Martyr himself be mistaken, yet maintain’d innocent, it puts to death innocent posterity who live upon the tradition of that memory, and, in the ingrafted love thereof, vertueally lives again.”
as good almost kill a Man as kill a good Book:
who kills a Man kills a reasonable creature, God’s Image;
but he who destroys a good Book, kills Reason itself, kills the Image of God,
a good Book is the precious life-blood of a master-spirit,
We should be wary therefore what persecution we raise against the living labours of public men,
Milton argues that truth should be allowed to contend openly and freely with falsehood and should not be suppressed by authority. He uses the example of Galileo as an illustration of the dangers of suppressing scientific knowledge. Milton believed in free speech, a free press, good faith argument, and debate.
His defense is grounded in his belief in the importance of individual liberty and the need to protect free speech which he argues is essential for the pursuit of truth and the flourishing of society. Censorship and suppression are both ineffective and harmful to those goals.
Recent events in the UK, the US, and other English-speaking countries around the world suggest we could do with a dose of Milton in the public arena.
We also need to give some consideration to exactly what is going on with young people. They seem to be in real trouble. Even the brightest and most privileged. And some of them are turning to disturbing and regressive solutions that involve cult-like belief systems, shutting down debate, and threatening those with whom they disagree.
The young have always existed to annoy and disturb the elders, it’s a necessary part of growing up. But this seems to be the first youth movement in history that seeks to stunt and warp its own sexual and physical growth and development.
Here are some of those elders tut-tutting on TV about recent goings on at Cambridge and Oxford. Seems to me they make sense. In the first, one of the founders of Stonewall – Simon Fanshawe – describes what happened when he was invited to speak at Cambridge.
The second concerns the outrage from some Oxford students at the invitation given by the Oxford Union to the philosopher Kathleen Stock. Interesting to note also that both Fanshawe and Stock are gay.
And to end, another painting of the meeting that either did or did not take place.
When I was in the emergency room last year having busted my elbow, a nurse…
Most of us have done it at some point or another - accidentally locked ourselves…
Thanks to the #1970 Club, I've spent the spare moments of the past week immersed…
The #1970 Club is starting tomorrow (October 14th) and I'm prepared with some reading and…
How Do They Live with Themselves? This was the question Roger Rosenblatt asked in The…
View Comments
You may remember I wrote a bit about aspects of Milton's paper a year ago – I'm sure you 'liked' my post: https://wp.me/p2oNj1-6mx. However I profoundly distrust Julia Hartley-Brewer and her support of culture wars, for even though at times I find I'm in agreement with the odd statement she makes I do note that the 'free speech' she advocates is nearly always at the expense of a significant proportion of the population. Besides that, I find her far right neoliberal views anathema to social justice and fairness.
It's a matter of daily amazement to me that I find myself turning to outlets like The Times, The ToryGraph and Spectator if i want to get ANY common sense on this gender crapology. Me! A lifetime leftie Labour supporter reading right wing rags. Why?
Ditto Piers Morgan. generally can't stand the guy. but he speaks truth on this topic. (stopped clock syndrome?) If left outlets won't debate or cover the issues then what choices do people have to express their opinions?
If Julia whatever her names are is willing to support free debate on this issue then I will listen to her.
Helen Joyce wrote a serious book on this topic. Look at how RTE and the Irish Times (and the BBC) have STILL never featured her or reviewed her book. Why is that?
It's because ALL the other outlets have shut down debate on this issue and shame on them. Look at why those women left the Guardian because of the Owen jones misogyny. .
Agreed. We need to break out of our little bubbles and look for good thinking journalism wherever it can be found. The Daily Telegraph, The Times, and the Spectator sometimes have more liberal viewpoints that the Guardian and the New Statesman.
We can't sit back and let others do our thinking. ) Example: Comedian and wannabe political commentator Jon Stewart in the US is so very wrong on the new sex ideology it's not close to funny).
These days it's hard to be as purist about where one gets information. Some voices are routinely shut out from all the media I used to trust. (I write as someone who considered themselves as a "Guardian reader" for decades and in fact read it - well bits of it - when it was still being published in Manchester. ) I'm not a JH-B fan either but we live in a topsy-turvy world when it comes to ideology, women's rights, LGB rights. and free speech. I was pleased to be able to hear Simon Fanshawe and Stephanie Davies-Arai speak. They made sense to me and provided some useful perspective on a troubling situation.
I am now equipped to quote and possibly reread Milton. We did Paradise Lost at school, which is not a happy memory. I note that all he says is centred around the male, the master, the man. Although it is an amazing thought that he met Galileo it is a sad one that women had no existence in his vocabulary. As for what he would make of transphobic comments or accusations thereof...the mention of the look of entitlement on students faces as they walked out was rather chilling. It made me feel that this was indeed the goal and not the debate there might have been.
Ouch! I think "Paradise Lost" would be torture for most students before college. Maybe Book 9 but doing the lot would be grim - particularly with an exam at the end. And as for his three wives and three daughters, well, life could not be easy living with a righteous genius. I think one of them died in childbirth. You are of course absolutely right about the absence of women. And then of course there was Eve. And that was a bit complicated if i remember correctly.(Vague memories of an academic debate on that.) Not of course that we can be too proud of the state of women's rights today. We seem to be sliding back to a darker time and have forgotten how recent all the gains and progress were. Fifty and a 100 years is short in the arc of history. As for the inability to listen to opinions other than one's own - well intolerance must have been common in his day too. After all - he did have to write Areopagitica to make the case against it. He would not have had the madness of identity ideology to contend with. That is the modern curse we have to deal with. But there was religion, revolution, and monarchism to keep people at each other's throats. Not to mention - for Milton - the plague, the Great Fire of London, a spell of imprisonment, threat of execution, and blindness.
Strangest for me is the belief that ideas can cause emotional damage and should therefore be stifled. I had lots of beliefs challenged in college. It never once occurred to me to yell at, throw stuff at or ban any speaker. I am sorry that so many young adults seem oblivious to the good having one's beliefs challenged can do. Without challenges years ago, I would still find sexual difference aberrant. Thank heavens for the Act Up movement here which shook me into a new understanding.
It's so interesting what you say here Elizabeth.
I came at this whole issue from a totally different angle. (I went on my first gay march in 1972 - https://www.josieholford.com/put-out-more-flags/ ) so I've been in this for a long time.
Back then, it didn't seem so hard to try and accommodate transexuals. It was about openness, acceptance, and tolerance. We could all work it out somehow. Or so we thought. How wrong we were. How naive.
Because along came "gender ideology" - seeping out of the academic ivory tower like a virus - and taking over everything. And before we blinked, it started to erase the gains of the #LGB struggle with its demands. It threatened women's rights and child safeguarding with its queer theory insistence that all boundaries must be torn down and dismantled. It threatened gay, lesbian, and non-conforming children with the idea that you can be born in the wrong body, and telling kids they can change sex. (They can't. No one ever has).
To me, the ideology is driven by homophobia and hatred of women. And a desire to break down boundaries between the sexes and between adults and children. (Seems to me those boundaries are there for good reason.) And so here we are.
I'll stop. If you ever want any more of my thoughts on how we got here you only have to ask!
Meanwhile - thanks for the comment. And all best. cheers!
I agree, Josie, it is not going to end well!
On a lighter note, after studying Hart's painting, Galileo was well ahead of his time as no one else had a mobile phone in the 1600s! Cool!
OMG! You are so right. Amazing! And just look - he has an iPad too.
I'm glad Milton met Galileo before he went blind
So that Milton could see what Galileo had in mind
(not to mention, Galileo would've been harder to find).
I think you mean you're glad he went
Before the time his light was spent.
But did he meet him? Yes, or no?
Inquiring minds just want to know.
Any way, it's certainly true
The Tuscan saw things quite anew.
In spite of inquisition grief,
The old man led in his belief.
Milton - a man of brainy girth
Still thought the center was the Earth.
Look no further than the striving by those seeking, money, power to control thought...a sort of "ultimate advertising". Education becomes more restricted to those who can afford it. Private money now keeps universities a float. Teachers are silenced. But despite this apparent control of belief though arning, akin to burning books, people ultimately think for themselves, find out. Very sadly repression causes a lot of grief along the way but ultimately truth will out.. people travelling in boats or planes find they do not fall off the edge of the world. Perhaps this is what is causing so much distress, anguish, self harm when, especially to the young or those with less experience, that they are told "this is true" but know inside or eventually, they, find it is not. In the end, if you are sold a shoddy product, you find out. Reminds me Catherine Tate sketches where "the computer says no" when people seek answers. A table with two legs will be found unsustainable.
Thank you, Josie. You bring together the present and the past in a wonderfully erudite and relevant way. And you’re not afraid of long quotations!
Thanks John. And smiling re the long quotations. I figure that if anyone has got that far then they won't be deterred by the extended illustration.
They obtain the proper degrees and know how to formulate their words; they know how to appear respectable and make themselves popular, so they can cunningly impose their bigoted politics but refuse to admit they are hypocrites.
It seems to be a philosophy that brooks no further exploration or inquiry. A dead-end that denies reality and says:
"We have arrived at our truth. You must not think beyond it but accept it unconditionally. Be kind. Or else."
The motivation of anyone who has the slightest objection - or points out the inherent infringement on the interests or rights of others (e.g. women, children, LGB, transexuals) - is suspect (cue Nazi, fascist for those inclined to hyperbole). Any ideas outside the closed identity ideology or questions threaten their existence (cue literal violence and genocide). They refuse to consider the possibility that critics (aka vicious transphobes) might have something to add to the discussion. And the very existence of such thoughts makes them unsafe and in need of cosseting (special treatment, safe spaces, coloring books, teddy bears, trauma support, and therapy pets.)
It's hard to believe that this could be happening in a country which, as was pointed out, was so tolerant of eccentricity. Where did this attitude come from? It surely goes back to changed attitudes to raising children. Of course I don't subscribe to children being brutalized but when parents became afraid to punish their children for bad behaviour, where else was it going to end? There is no discipline. Lies, criminal behaviour have no consequence (unless you are a minority it seems). But what they are talking about here is just ridiculous. I can't believe that the universities go along with such rubbish. Oh dear, oh dear.
The illiberal clamping down on free speech is very chilling. The impact on the free exchange of ideas and on science and medicine is deadly. It is the antithesis of progress and advancement.
But I also think many young people are under unprecedented stress and in distress. Even the ones that come across as overprivileged, underdisadvantaged, tyrannical toddlers. This is not to excuse their behavior - which is often beyond the pale - but it is perhaps a way to start looking at what the fuck is going on.
What on earth is behind this deadly ideology and how has it taken such a dangerous hold on our institutions? And so rapidly. We all know this is not going to end well. But just think of the wreckage in the wake of it.