No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
The banquet scene in Paradise Regained has given trouble to the critics. Long considered an inartistic repetition of the first temptation, it was interpreted by Gilbert and by Hanford as the first step in the second temptation, the most obvious and materialistic aspect of the kingdoms of the world offered by Satan; it was the appeal of luxury, embodied in the æsthetic as well as physical appeal of a sumptuous feast.
1 A. H. Gilbert, The Temptation in “Paradise Regained,” JEGP, xv (1916), 603–605. His arguments may be summarized as follows: 1. Milton has already given the first temptation in Biblical language and elucidated it. 2. The two scenes are separated by an interval of time, as are the second and third temptations. 3. The transitional lines 2. 404–405 indicate “direct continuance of action in hand rather than … change to another.” 4. Unlike the first temptation, which instigates Christ to action, the banquet is a gift of Satan like the other gifts that follow in the second temptation, and its splendor is in keeping with the later offerings.
2 J. H. Hanford, The Temptation Motive in Milton, SP, xv (1918), 182–183. He approves Gilbert's arguments and comments.
3 I accept Gilbert's arguments for the break between this scene and the first temptation, and for the continuity of action here. But if Satan's campaign continues, his objective and plan of attack here change. This point will be developed later.
4 There are two further incidental allusions to Christ's hunger: one by Christ (4. 120–121), and one by Milton (4. 403).
5 2. 152 ff.
6 A somewhat similar argument is put into the mouth of Comus (706–736), when he says that the profuse offerings of nature should not be refused.
7 Two passages in Bk. IV strengthen the argument of this article.
(1) 109–121. This passage demonstrates that the vision of the Roman empire (including a feast) symbolizes “grandeur” “luxury” or “magnificence.”
(2) 368–372. The words “Wealth, nor honour, arms nor arts” clearly summarize what Satan regards as the second temptation and do not include the banquet scene preceding the offer of wealth.