Milton vs. Shakespeare

[cipherdecoy]

To be honest, I haven't read any of the former's work and I know almost zilch about him, and I've only read one of the latter's works.

Just a day or two ago I chanced upon a Time magazine review on a book titled "is Milton better than Shakespeare?" by Nigel Smith. I've heard of such a comparison before, but that was before I joined this forum and that book review reminded me of it.

It's quite an interesting comparison because it's not often that we hear of others being able to challenge Shakespeare's proverbial reputation as "the greatest writer in the English language".

Here's an excerpt from the article:
Machiavelli, whom Milton admired, reasoned that a prince who was feared would survive longer than one who was loved. Literature does not work that way. For better or worse, millions love Shakespeare. Lovers are, of course, blind, and will forgive any number of faults. Milton is hard to love. Smith claims: "No student of Milton has left Paradise Lost without feeling... an ardor of admiration." Even if that were true, which it's clearly not, notice that Smith talks about students and admiration. Not readers. Not love. And that's why most of our culture has taken Milton's own advice, and filed for divorce. Milton is a great poet, but living with him is hell.

I would like your opinion on this one, thanks.

[mayneverhave]

As much as I enjoyed Paradise Lost and Lycidas, I would find it difficult to place Milton above, or even equal, to Shakespeare.

However, as far as critical consensus goes, Milton is one of the few that actually challenges Shakespeare's enormous reputation, along with Homer, and Dante.

[stlukesguild]

Is Milton better than Shakespeare? In a word...no. However he may just be the single writer (in English anyway) who has come closest to rivaling Shakespeare's centrality. Paradise Lost is undoubtedly the greatest epic or long poem in the English language... and its only real rivals in the whole of Western literature may be The Iliad/Odyssey, The Aeneid, and the Divine Comedy. The author suggests that Milton is hard to love. I imagine that Milton has several strikes against him. He is certainly resented by many feminist critics who cite the manner in which all blame for mankind's fall is placed upon Eve... and the manner in which Eve is presented as all animal nature versus Adam/man's intellect. Of course this means nothing to me. I do not measure a writer's merit based upon whether he or she reinforces my own beliefs or prejudices. In all actuality... it is quite possible to suggest that Milton's Eve, in her rebellion, actually leads Adam into becoming fully human... although that would be a far too Romantic interpretation.

Beyond Milton's imagined "sexism", another strike against him may be his difficulty. With a mastery of Latin that allowed him to compose original poems of real merit in the ancient language, Milton was profoundly impacted by a Latinate, rhetorical form. His language is among the most ornate... Baroque... dense... difficult in English. In many ways it can be far more daunting than all but the most dense passages of Shakespeare.

Perhaps the final strike against Milton may be his Protestantism. This may have been a characteristic to his advantage when we imagined the Puritans as this poor religious sect so cruelly set upon and driven out of their native homes in Britain. This may not be so advantageous when one has a greater understanding of what Puritanism was all about in Britain... and in the "New World." An intriguing little fantasy by Peter Ackroyd entitled, Milton in America imagines Milton having escaped from Britain and setting himself up as a petty, puritanical dictator in America. Luckily for us, Milton was forced to act out his fantasies in his writings.

As I stated before, Paradise Lost is probably the greatest long poem in English... and among the epic poems of the West, perhaps second only to the Divine Comedy. It merges a prophetic voice of the Hebrew Bible with the grandeur of language and the sense of the nightmare of Virgil's epic, with Shakespeare's dramatic tragedy and tragic-hero/heroic-villain. Milton's Satan is undoubtedly one of the greatest literary inventions ever (as Oscar Wilde noted, "The Devil owes everything to Milton.") and clearly a major source for the rebel-heroes of Shelley, Blake, and endless others. His language, simply put, is just damn gorgeous. His descriptions of the visual splendors of Paradise and the physical attributes of Eve are beyond sensuous... EROTIC! They almost bring you to tears when you realize that they are the product of a man who was once at the peak of his career... a figure of real importance in the cause of republican/popular government against censorship and aristocracy... now fallen into disgrace, discredited, twice widowed, blind and forced to rely upon dictation for all his writings.

Paradise Lost is certainly capable of producing analysis and discussion that goes on for volumes... but don't let it's centrality lead you into imagining that Milton was a one-hit-wonder. His dense, hard-as-diamonds sonnets can be quite stunning. His Lycidas ranks as one of the greatest (the greatest) elegies in the English language... certainly a model for Shelley's Adonaïs.

In spite of Milton's brilliance, however, Shakespeare is the greater writer. Not because Milton is more difficult or "difficult to love". Dante is certainly far less popular than Dickens, Keats, or Whitman (choosing only among other classics), and probably far more difficult to love than a great many others... but he is perhaps the only writer to truly rival Shakespeare. No... Shakespeare is better because he has a greater breadth or range. He is almost all-inclusive. Whitman declared, "I contain multitudes." Shakespeare gave form to these multitudes. You can never pin him down. He always seems capable of offering more... of surprising you once again. His character inventions are do rich that upon reading him we imagine we know the greatest of these characters as we might know some of our closest acquaintances... and yet upon reading him once again we find there is still more to learn... still more to know.

[Equality72521]

I have read little Milton, it was a poem I had for a project, so discard my opinion if need be, but, even though I have heard he was a brilliant writer and I did enjoy his poem, I doubt, highly, that there should even be a comparison of him to Shakespeare. Though what I read of his was well versed and written, I think Shakespeare's range, depth, and ability to create what he has created can not truly have an equal. Apparently, Milton has been compared before and is and considered to be Shakespeare's rival, so I will definately read more indepth into Milton and his works to find a better understanding of where the comparison comes from, but I still find his betterment unlikely.

[JBI]

Milton read and was influenced by Shakespeare. The article seems some sort of pseudo sophistry. There cannot be an argument, since Milton's style and poetics was derivative of the earlier renaissance poets, and therefore, subject to their influence.

They are both superb writers of English, top 4 at least, but seriously Shakespeare had the disadvantage of having to create that which didn't exist, Milton merely borrowed it, or stole it from the classics, which he, unlike Shakespeare had the benefit of studying at almost unknown levels (he was quite the ferocious student). Shakespeare on the other hand learned all his writing on the job.

In terms of style, Milton is the perfection of language, whereas Shakespeare is the perfection of emotion. Both have their merits, but Milton's lateness also must be factored in, as the vernacular and classic resources available to him for examples far outweighed Shakespeare to an almost unthinkable level. Still, Shakespeare style seems triumphant, in the sense that rather than the epic mode, he wrote in the theatrical mode, and therefore had a much larger range. As Polonius put it,

comedy, history, pastoral, pastoral-comical,
historical-pastoral, tragical-historical, tragical-
comical-historical-pastoral, scene individable, or
poem unlimited


Once we differentiate between the notion of poet and playwright, as later developers of the language did, then it will be far easier to compare them. The only mode they seemed to really both explore at great length was the sonnet (even in narrative poetry Shakespeare seems to have not really dabbled to much). In terms of sonnets, I would argue Shakespeare wins hands down, simply because he is far wittier, far smoother, and his language far more tolerable. That is personal opinion, in terms of developing the sonnet, both were probably equally as important, because, one also needs to factor that Milton was responsible for the sonnet's acceptance of a wider range of subjects (well, him and Donne anyway).

When it comes down to it, if people are really going to compare them, They will probably square the seven major tragedies, and 5-6 other plays against Paradise lost. I personally am with Shakespeare on this, simply because of his range, but the academic intelligence of Milton is quite frightening, and his prosody and syntax are often scary.

[stlukesguild]

the academic intelligence of Milton is quite frightening...


Indeed! A command of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, French, Spanish, Dutch, and Old English... an in-depth knowledge of theology, philosophy, history, politics, literature and science that made him a vigorous intellectual opponent to church and aristocracy in support of the republican causes... It makes Shakespeare's achievements... as a self-taught, working writer seem all the more amazing... almost improbable (which is certainly the reason for conspiracy theories involving Marlowe, Sir Francis Bacon, and others).

[mayneverhave]

JBI and stlukes, the rest of us on these forums have a lot to learn from you two.

I'm impressed

[aabbcc]

I greatly prefer Milton amongst the two - I cannot stress enough how much. Having undergone classical education myself, that is probably understandable, as Milton's language and verse are not "innatural" to me nor something I have never encountered before. To me, Milton sounds better and reaches more quickly my emotions than does Shakespeare (yes I know I am weird :D).

Comparisons with other authors of non-English background... I wouldn't go into that, unless we speak of originals and not translations. In originals, I consider both Dante and Ovid to be "above" Milton and Shakespeare by the beauty and depth of their verses.
And whilst Dante is already legendary (though anyone who met him in translation... didn't really meet him), Ovid tends to be underrated and put into the shadow by Virgil. Virgil, I never liked him a lot, apart from the few excerpts of the pure beauty; but as a whole, he doesn't have "that something" an author needs to have, the verse is not natural to him, he writes by metrical scheme and forces the verse too much... As opposed to Ovid, a pure genius of the verse... As he said himself, quidquid temptabam scribere versus erat, nothing forced - unlike Virgil - and that is felt in their works when you read them. I will never understand fascination by Virgil and Aeneid, despite having been forced to study it over and over and over again, maybe translation makes it sound better, and most of the classicists I know also consider Virgil overrated - he is maybe the most important in the Roman literature for some other reasons, but the fact itself does not mean that he is "the best" it has to offer. As somebody once told me, "Virgil is really trying and working hard, but it is Ovid the one who has a soul." ;)

Something similar with Milton and Shakespeare, in my view... I consider Shakespeare to be the overrated one, and Milton the one who is in the shadow for some reason.
Milton is something I have never experienced before, despite having read many epic works, and despite being all too accustomed to hexameters. Milton's way of conveying ideas, combined his particular language, is unique in my literary experience.
Shakespeare, in the other hand... I seriously do not see how is Shakespeare the comedist "better" than Goldoni or Moliere, why would his tragedies be "better" than Alfieri's, and how is he in total more admirable than, say, Držić (whose name probably means nothing to you, but trust me on making this parallel). Don't get my wrong, I love Shakespeare, but I think half of his 'grandeur' is due to the myth of him rather than something essentially different in his works than everything else. Shakespeare had simply become a myth that is not to be questioned.

Only my two cents, though. I grew up in some other literary traditions where the myth of Shakespeare is not nearly as strong as in the anglophone countries, so I tend to view it all from the different angle. :D

[chasestalling]

In terms of sheer poetry Shakespeare doesn't have an equal but Lord Byron has a point about his derivative plots which are virtually plagiarisms.

Then there's D.H. Lawrence with his unqualified paeans. No need to gild a lily.

[stlukesguild]

In terms of sheer poetry Shakespeare doesn't have an equal but Lord Byron has a point about his derivative plots which are virtually plagiarisms.

Perhaps... to an extent. But this is based upon the more modern concept of plot-driven literature. The narratives that form the basis of Shakespeare's plays... as well as the works of Homer, Euripides, Virgil, Dante, a good portion of Chaucer, etc... were already known. The same could be said of the narrative material of Paradise Lost. Of course this is also true of many musical achievements (ie. Operas and Symphonies built upon pre-existing literary models) and works of visual art. The invention or originality comes into play with what the artist/author does with the material. Shakespeare's originality and genius lies not only in the beauty of his poetic language (which is certainly formidable) but also in his invention of character and character development as conveyed not only in actions but more often in words... in dialog and interior dialog or monologue. The basic plot may already exist simply outlining what happened, but Shakespeare brings to it an incredible depth of character and motivation... which heightens the drama as it unfolds to an ever greater extent, as the persons involved become persons with whom we have some deep empathy... some deep understanding, and not some mere abstractions.

Anastasija... I do agree that Ovid may be far too under-rated. His Metamorphoses may just have been THE most influential books, after the Bible, upon the visual arts from the Renaissance through the 18th century. The work, however, strikes me as a marvelous collection of story telling... perhaps told poetically and fluidly... but lacking any real depth of character invention. This, is not necessarily a flaw. The intentions are different. Nevertheless... I cannot help but sense a far greater richness in Chaucer... also a brilliant story-teller (with roots in Ovid, Boccaccio, and other sources) due to the development of his characters as fleshed out human beings. The same can be said of Virgil... and to an even greater extent, Homer. Oddly enough, all the classicists I know make a similar claim about Virgil's being under-rated... in comparison to Homer. In a way the comparison is similar to that between Milton and Shakespeare. Virgil's Aeneid is proclaimed as the highest achievement of poetry... constructed of an impossibly perfect language... while Homer is the great inventor... perhaps lacking Virgil's perfection... but all the more emotional... broad.

I am unaware of the Shakespeare "myth". There is so little known of him outside of what he has written that every writer about Shakespeare seemingly has his or her own notions of who/what he was. Shakespeare's status in the English-speaking world, however, is unassailable. He ranks as Dante to the Italians and Goethe to the Germans in that he... and the King James Bible... are essentially the source of "modern" English. No writer or work (again outside the King James Bible) can be imagined as having had a greater impact upon Anglo culture or literature. Chaucer was certainly the great precursor, but unfortunately he had no immediate heir... and one would actually need to credit Shakespeare as being the greatest of his followers in the invention of human characters. As brilliant, unexpected, and innovative as Milton is, Shakespeare is so much more so. Milton has several memorable characters and the single unforgettable one in the form of Satan... Shakespeare has legions. Milton's audacity is to have actually succeeded in merging the prophetic language of the Old Testament Bible with Virgil's epic nobility and Shakespeare's own dramatic tragedy and tragic-hero/heroic-villain. Aiming so high as just one of these predecessors would have guaranteed to ruin of any lesser poet... but Milton pulls it off. Shakespeare, on the other hand, succeeds in taking an essentially "low" form of art... mere entertainment undergoing its early revival... and raising it beyond all expectations so that it can include just about the whole of human experience. The only possible analogy I might think of it to imagine a television screen-writer during the early days of network TV having somehow surpassed Joyce, Proust, Tolstoy, and Dickens. Within this form Shakespeare was capable of heights of poetry equal or superior to anyone... character inventions and development beyond that achieved by any writer... depths or tragedy... comedy... sensual and spiritual longing, etc...

The centrality of Shakespeare's position is illustrated by the mere fact that critics feel the need to bring out legions of writers to match his achievements. Moliere and Goldini (doubtful) to match him as a master of comedy. Alfieri (more than doubtful), Racine, Calderon, Schiller, etc... to match (?!) his tragedies. Rabelais and Cervantes to match his boisterousness. Dante and Milton to match the music of his language. In almost every instance the claims as to Shakespeare's inferiority are doubtful at best. Yes... language barriers and translations make it impossible to fairly compare every writer with Shakespeare... but then again his position is acknowledged not merely in the Anglo world... but also in German (Goethe, Schiller, etc..), France (Hugo, Baudelaire), Latin-America (Borges). Even Tolstoy's criticism and denial of Shakespeare must be taken as proof of just how central his work is.

By the way... I looked up Marin Držić... and he certainly sounds like I'd like to read something... but alas! No English translations!:( You'll have to get busy.:lol:

[Virgil]

While I think Milton is great, Shakespeare is by far the greatest. It's not even close. I'm sorry Anatasia, but he is head and shoulders above his contemporaries. The playwrites you mention all came after Shakespeare and learned from him. And frankly they are still no where up to Shakespeare. Shakespeare myth? Hardly. As highly as he's thought of, I think he's still under rated. ;)

[Alex Sheremet]

Milton read and was influenced by Shakespeare. The article seems some sort of pseudo sophistry. There cannot be an argument, since Milton's style and poetics was derivative of the earlier renaissance poets, and therefore, subject to their influence.

I don't see your argument here -- what does influence mean to you, in terms of the influenced?

[/quote]In terms of style, Milton is the perfection of language, whereas Shakespeare is the perfection of emotion.[/quote]

In what way is Milton the "perfection of language"? What do you mean?


Both have their merits, but Milton's lateness also must be factored in, as the vernacular and classic resources available to him for examples far outweighed Shakespeare to an almost unthinkable level.

Agreed, I suspect judging things like "natural genius" requires a consideration of former literary models (that is, their quality and existence -- which, to Shakespeare, were limited, as you say), but that says little about the quality of the writing. The world's first genuine poet was probably trash by today's standards, even though he might have possessed great "natural" genius and was an innovator of his time.

Thus, on questions of QUALITY, "natural genius" is irrelevant.. sure, it's likely that the poet with greater resources will produce better work, but, poem-for-poem, I don't see why circumstances really matter in an evaluation of quality. Things happen, and natural geniuses are often not allowed to reach their full potential.


Still, Shakespeare style seems triumphant, in the sense that rather than the epic mode, he wrote in the theatrical mode, and therefore had a much larger range.

Agreed, Shakespeare is by far the greater poet, although Milton had nothing as embarrassingly bad as Shakespeare's worst stuff. Milton seemed more disciplined, but far less prone to produce greatness.

[stlukesguild]

Shakespeare is by far the greater poet, although Milton had nothing as embarrassingly bad as Shakespeare's worst stuff. Milton seemed more disciplined, but far less prone to produce greatness.

Borges had an interesting essay upon a theme related to this in which he explored the notion of literary "perfection". He suggested that any number of minor poets have succeeded at producing that single "perfect" sonnet. Cervantes, on the other hand, is far from perfect... indeed, Don Quixote is laden with flaws... the worst being the inclusion of Cervantes' own execrable attempts at poetry. Virgil is more perfect than Homer. Racine more perfect than Shakespeare. Keats more perfect than Wordsworth. Perfection, obviously, is not always a sign of aesthetic superiority.

[JBI]

To elaborate on that, for the above poster (since I hate quoting cut up posts).
Milton is reliant on the ground Shakespeare paved. The characters in Milton themselves seem to be Shakespearean (certainly the devil reminds one of Shakespeare's anti-heroes, Iago, Edmund, Richard III, and Macbeth), but more than that, there is a sense of master apprentice connection, in which I really feel Milton realized he was relying on Shakespeare to write beyond him. Shakespeare may have paid homage to the writers before, but what he created was far beyond anything (in my opinion) ever seen by the West in English. It was something beyond new, to the point that no one has ever really been able to shake it off. Whether we like it or not, it seems if we write character, we write Shakespeare, meanwhile if we write verse, we do not write Milton.

As for perfection of language, just look at the prosody, the syntax, the word choice, the unity of his poetry, to create a most perfect sound and rhetoric. Shakespeare may have been an artist with words, but like Chaucer, who had greatly influenced him, his verse style was still too new (though magnificent) and was just sodbusting for Milton, who seems to be the standard held up to everyone today (though it is rather impossible to imitate him).

[blazeofglory]

I have read both of them and I found them polar different and as a matter of fact both are great artists in their domains.

Comparing Shakespeare with Milton is a sheer folly. It is likened to making a comparison between parents.

Milton has scaled a poetic height Shakespeare could never scale and where Shakespeare succeeded Milton could not excel. Both are totally different along different lines.

I find both, Milton' s Paradise Lost and Shakespeare's dramas are not comparable.

[chasestalling]

Milton achieved the perfection of a genre, the epic poem with Paradise Lost whereas Shakespeare's best plays -- Othello, Hamlet and King Lear -- are flawed . Still Milton's best lines lack the visceral quality of Shakespeare's best.

[aabbcc]

I'm sorry Anatasia, but he is head and shoulders above his contemporaries.
And you are, of course, fully qualified to make your personal opinions absolute truth... :rolleyes:

The playwrites you mention all came after Shakespeare and learned from him.
Ma dai? ...
Marin Držić (1508-1567)
William Shakespeare (baptised 26 April 1564 – 23 April 1616)

And frankly they are still no where up to Shakespeare.
Ma dai, you have read them all I mention? Even Držić who is - oops! - not translated?

Shakespeare myth? Hardly. As highly as he's thought of, I think he's still under rated. ;)
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Without your pretensions to "know better" and patronise ["Sorry Nastja, but... it is like this not that"] just because we think differently, per favore.

[Virgil]

And you are, of course, fully qualified to make your personal opinions absolute truth... :rolleyes:

:lol: Well, it's not just me. Even you said something to the effect that you were "weird" in not fully embracing Shakespeare. I think that implies you see how many people/critics revere Shakespeare. It's not just my opinion that Shakespoeare is a giant.


Ma dai? ...
Marin Držić (1508-1567)
William Shakespeare (baptised 26 April 1564 – 23 April 1616)
I've never read Držić, so I can't comment. But I would be surprised if he's on the level of Shakespeare.


Ma dai, you have read them all I mention? Even Držić who is - oops! - not translated?

We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Without your pretensions to "know better" and patronise ["Sorry Nastja, but... it is like this not that"] just because we think differently, per favore.
:lol: I don't mean to patronise. I've said you're one of the smartest young ladies I've come across. And your retort here was excellent, so not only are you smart, you're a good debater and you don't wilt when challenged. :thumbs_up I'm a bit surprised you don't like Shakespeare. We'll just have to disagree then.

[Kafka's Crow]

Apples and oranges... (oops, I had promised myself not to get involved in this futile argument!)

[ballb]

I`m not sure that we are comparing like with like here. Shakespeare was esentially a playwrite. Because of his theatrical background he knew what would work on stage and what wouldn`t. Marlowe, for instance, was less sure footed. Milton was a poet rather than a playwrite. Comus was a one-off written for a special occasion. So I suggest that it comes down to personal preference. Milton could write sublimely in three languages. Shakespeare certainly couldn`t. Milton was able to be a polemicist. Shakespeare had to couch is critcism of the Elizabethan court in more cryptic terms such setting his scene in another country. Shakespeare wrote in a time of strict censorship. Milton wrote during the most revolutionary democratic period in our history - or English history if you`re across the water. Milton, for me is harder work than Shakespeare but well worth the effort for the rewards of his unparalled prose and poetry. But you pays your money & you takes your choice.

[stlukesguild]

I don't think I'd ever make the suggestion that one cannot compare dislike genre of literature. That would be not unlike the suggestion that one cannot make judgment as to the relative merits of a sculptor and a painter... or a composer such as Wagner, whose efforts were almost exclusively in the field of opera, and one such as Debussy or Chopin, who were known for their achievements in smaller musical forms. On the other hand... its nowhere near as easy as comparing two basketball teams where the scores pretty much tell all. More like the challenge of comparing Tiger Woods with Michael Jordan.:lol:

[Oenomaus]

Is Milton better than Shakespeare? In a word...no. However he may just be the single writer (in English anyway) who has come closest to rivaling Shakespeare's centrality. Paradise Lost is undoubtedly the greatest epic or long poem in the English language... and its only real rivals in the whole of Western literature may be The Iliad/Odyssey, The Aeneid, and the Divine Comedy.

I certainly wouldn't call Homer and Virgil "Western poets." There is about as much continuity between Greco-Roman Classical civilization and the West as there is between first millennium Arabian culture and the West, with about the same degree of obvious cultural break. How far do we extend the term "Western," anyway, when discussing cultures? Ancient Egypt? The Sumerians and the Babylonians? I've seen that done before and it always strikes me as flabbergasting.

One's preferring of Milton or Shakespeare largely depends on what one values in an artist. To me Milton is a completely vacuous writer. He skills are purely formalistic and decorative. The equivalent of being wowed by silly special effects movie. Shakespeare is one of the most incisive and profound of all the poets because he was able to penetrate deeper into layers of reality most poets (and certainly most of those who came before him) were unable see. His understanding of psychological human interaction was revolutionary. Milton, on the other hand, simply lived in a fantasy world. I dismiss Dante for the same reason. In the case of Milton we are presented with an intellectual who is not a profound thinker. His learning is of the type one can find equivalents for in neoconservative think-tanks or the Bolshevik commissars or liberal intellectuals of Presidential cabinets. Milton's embraced his solipsistic belief-system to the detriment of his poetry. Is there anyone who has read "Paradise Lost" without thinking that its grandeur is sabotaged after the first two books; Milton apparently having found it necessary to restrain his greatest achievement for purely ideological purposes. The best I can think of to say in his defense is that at least he is not Edmund Spenser, who reads like a 16th century equivalent of the "Daily Worker" in verse.

I basically measure a writer's merits upon whether not s/he presents a truer understanding of the world than we had before. Here Milton fails miserably. Aside from his masterpiece, "Lycidas," there is little in Milton that I find readable. The ostentatious, grating attempts at poetry in "Comus" is unbearably bad, IMO.

P.S. I think Milton's reputation as an advocate of freedom of speech and as a critic of censorship is vastly overstated. Areopagitica is certainly not not a civil libertarian document.

[Virgil]

I basically measure a writer's merits upon whether not s/he presents a truer understanding of the world than we had before. Here Milton fails miserably. Aside from his masterpiece, "Lycidas," there is little in Milton that I find readable. The ostentatious, grating attempts at poetry in "Comus" is unbearably bad, IMO.

Well, what makes "Lycidas" any more a truer understanding of the world than Paradise Lost? It sounds to me that you're being inconsistant in your application of your measurement. Actually I suspect you just don't like Paradise Lost and you like Lycidas, and so you come up with this vague definition of what makes a great work.

Let's look at this definition more carefully: "measure a writer's merits upon whether not s/he presents a truer understanding of the world than we had before". So does that rule out McBeth because it relies on witchcraft or Hamlet because there is a ghost or Orwell's 1984 because it's a hypothetical state or Wuthering heights because there are supernatural elements or Frankenstein because it's science fiction, or any contemporary science fiction? Or what about Homer with his gods and goddesses or Dante with his journey from Hell to Heaven? Come on, the measure is not based on an understanding of the world but on the language and skill of the writer.

[AuntShecky]

People, people, quiet down for a second, will ya? What is the point of comparing these two poets? It's comparable to-- as the cliché goes -- comparing "apples to oranges."
BOTH Shakespeare and Milton are masters of BOTH language and "emotion," (whatever THAT is!)
I suggest that instead of going back and forth on each poet's respective value we sit down and read the works of both artists.

[stlukesguild]

Homer and Virgil are considered Western writers because the cultures or societies in which they worked essentially formed a large part of the basis (along with that of Judeo-Christianity) of Western culture: especially its art, music, and literature. Certainly there were breaks in the chain, but one might just as well reject Spain as a Western nation because of the era of Islamic rule as well as the centuries of near isolationism with regard to events and ideas post-Enlightenment (if not post-Reformation).

I basically measure a writer's merits upon whether not s/he presents a truer understanding of the world than we had before.

And what exactly does a "truer understanding of the world" have to do with art? That is the sole or highest standard by which art is measured. Funny, I missed that part. But then again... the ability to broadly dismiss such towering literary figures as Milton, Dante, and Spencer with a wave of the hand pretty much dismisses the "dismisser" from being taken seriously for their critical acumen... IMO... and that of a hell of a lot of others.

[Jozanny]

I cannot really get into this debate with any depth, because I cannot judge Milton from Norton's excerpts of Satan from PL, and never really had a Milton advocate in university--but Shakespeare simply transcends his age, to his rival Jonson's frustration. You all know this. Hamlet can be adapted as a modern era police state; it's still Hamlet. Macbeth can illuminate American hubris in the Vietnam era.

Milton is an epic poet retelling the same old story with its same old tropes in all Christian epic literature. Shakespeare rather uses the supernatural to its own ends for very human sagas and frailities--that is his genius.

[J.D.]

I loved Paradise Lost, but I can't imagine anything that really compares to Shakespeare in our literature. I like how JBI puts it: "a perfection of emotion." That's how I feel about Shakespeare, too. If I read a handful of Shakespeare's plays back to back, I always feel exhausted by the range of emotions and characters I encounter. In Paradise Lost, the only character I thought was fully realized was Satan. He overshadows every other character. In Shakespeare even characters who are far from central still feel so full and real.

I found certain passages of Paradise Lost to be beautiful and Milton’s phrasing to be interesting. But I have always felt like Shakespeare’s willingness to constantly play with the language showed a certain confidence, where Milton’s compulsion to pack in as much learning as possible struck me as forced. Even his goals—to “justify the ways of God to man” and to surpass the old epics seem so contrived. Shakespeare feels more organic to me. These are just my personal impressions. I haven’t read much Milton beyond Paradise Lost.

Also, Virgil, I’m surprised you don’t believe that some writers have a certain wisdom or depth of perception that goes beyond their skill and language--what I think is meant by "a truer understanding of the world." Great plots and great style are necessary, but a work has to have soul, too, and I’m not sure I’d say that’s a matter of skill. Sometimes you meet people in the world and they affect you because of their essence, their understanding of the world. It has nothing to do with their skill in presenting themselves. It is a genuine thing about them that is not put on. It is the same thing with some writers.

[MorpheusSandman]

There's so much in this thread I'd like to comment on yet I fear my woeful ignorance of both writers would shine through (I've read a few plays of Shakespeare, some sonnets, and a bit from Milton). It strikes me that, at his best, Milton was as good, if not better than Shakespeare. But he wasn't at his best nearly as often as Shakespeare was and, as another said, Shakespeare's range and ability to produce relevance that resonated from generation to generation is unparalleled in all literature and only barely equaled in the other other arts.


To me Milton is a completely vacuous writer. He skills are purely formalistic and decorative. The equivalent of being wowed by silly special effects movie. Definitely not. Form married with content is when artistic magic happens. Form is not inherently superficial, like a special effect. Milton's form is to his art as 2001: A Space Odyssey's unique form is to it, which means that form is inseparable from the content. One might be touched more by Shakespeare's content, but I think to proclaim Milton's form is just "decorative" is just wrong.

[WICKES]

As
However, as far as critical consensus goes, Milton is one of the few that actually challenges Shakespeare's enormous reputation, along with Homer, and Dante.

Among English writers I'd add Chaucer, Spenser and Dickens to Milton. Outside of England, well, maybe Joyce, Cervantes and Tolstoy.

[stlukesguild]

Virgil, I’m surprised you don’t believe that some writers have a certain wisdom or depth of perception that goes beyond their skill and language--what I think is meant by "a truer understanding of the world." Great plots and great style are necessary, but a work has to have soul, too, and I’m not sure I’d say that’s a matter of skill.

Why does everybody keep confusing me with Virgil?!:flare: He's older than me... and I'm better looking (or so my wife tells me on certain occasions):lol:. I do not dispute that one aspect of art is the ability to convey a certain wisdom... or depth of understanding of the world. Certainly Shakespeare can offer such... as can Montaigne, Samuel Johnson, Emerson, Whitman, Plato. On the other hand... such is not the sole measure of art... or writing. In the arts, form and content are inextricably intertwined. There is no "meaning" outside of the form... or rather the meaning... interpretation... definition are not the whole or anywhere near the whole of the content as experienced in a work of art. The poet, playwrite, or novelist need not be a philosopher nor shake up our accepted notions of "reality". They might simply offer "what oft was thought but ne'er so well expressed." Milton, Dante, Spencer, and endless others certainly succeeded in this.

[stlukesguild]

Form married with content is when artistic magic happens. Form is not inherently superficial...

Exactly:thumbs_up Or rather... form and content are so inexplicably intertwined as to be virtually one and the same. No definition or analysis of Mozart's Clarinet Quintet is in any way near to the actual experience of the music. No college analysis steeped in Marxist, Feminist, Deconstructionist, Historicist, Freudian analytical theory can reduce the experience of Milton or Shakespeare (or endless others) to a simple blurb.

[Jozanny]

No college analysis steeped in Marxist, Feminist, Deconstructionist, Historicist, Freudian analytical theory can reduce the experience of Milton or Shakespeare (or endless others) to a simple blurb.

Sure it can:) , but that caveat aside, why are we having this argument? The only English dramatist of Shakespeare's time who comes close to spitting on the bard's boot is Marlowe. Milton's corpus blossomed nearly a century after Shakespeare burst a blood vessel to the brain over a glass of wine with I forget who.

I mean, I know we are having this debate, but why? It seems to me, limited knowledge though I have, that Milton wanted to be the Anglican Dante, and just makes it to the water's edge, but doesn't cross the bank. In other words, Milton had another dialectic going on, and it was not with the recently deceased dramatist, but with Virgil, Dante, possibly Homer.

[stlukesguild]

Milton's dialectic... "agon"? with Dante, Virgil, and Homer? Jozie... once again you are proving yourself the true Bloomsian.:lol: Must one compose in the same genre to be considered worthy of comparison? None of Shakespeare's contemporaries in drama... as much as I may admire Jonson, Marlowe, or Moliere... come as near to him as Milton, Tolstoy, Dante, Homer, and a few others. Milton's Satan is surely a rather Shakespearean character... although he stands a a single strong character to Shakespeare's legions. Dante, Tolstoy, Homer, Virgil, Dickens... even Marlowe come closer to Shakespeare in the invention of character. Where the two are certainly comparable is in the beauty of language... and here... at times... I would give Milton the edge... but not for long. Someone earlier described Shakespeare's mastery of language as "organic"... unforced... natural. I certainly concur.

[Jozanny]

Milton's dialectic... "agon"? with Dante, Virgil, and Homer? Jozie... once again you are proving yourself the true Bloomsian.:lol: .

Not entirely. Bloom seems to have some deep-seated fascination with Yahweh, at least if his latest book is any indication; no matter how adept, all the big boys seem to want to have the biggest one when they compare each other in the men's room.:blush:

I will have to see if I can get through Paradise Lost one day...it isn't high on my list.

[Virgil]

I loved Paradise Lost, but I can't imagine anything that really compares to Shakespeare in our literature. I like how JBI puts it: "a perfection of emotion." That's how I feel about Shakespeare, too. If I read a handful of Shakespeare's plays back to back, I always feel exhausted by the range of emotions and characters I encounter. In Paradise Lost, the only character I thought was fully realized was Satan. He overshadows every other character. In Shakespeare even characters who are far from central still feel so full and real.

I found certain passages of Paradise Lost to be beautiful and Milton’s phrasing to be interesting. But I have always felt like Shakespeare’s willingness to constantly play with the language showed a certain confidence, where Milton’s compulsion to pack in as much learning as possible struck me as forced. Even his goals—to “justify the ways of God to man” and to surpass the old epics seem so contrived. Shakespeare feels more organic to me. These are just my personal impressions. I haven’t read much Milton beyond Paradise Lost.

I pretty much agree with your assessment of both Milton and Shakespeare. Milton is a great poet but Shakespeare transcends. But I will disagree that Milton does not experiment with language as much as Shakespeare. In some respects he pushed th language even further, but in a direction that may have been less "natural" than Shakespeares.


Also, Virgil, I’m surprised you don’t believe that some writers have a certain wisdom or depth of perception that goes beyond their skill and language--what I think is meant by "a truer understanding of the world." Great plots and great style are necessary, but a work has to have soul, too, and I’m not sure I’d say that’s a matter of skill. Sometimes you meet people in the world and they affect you because of their essence, their understanding of the world. It has nothing to do with their skill in presenting themselves. It is a genuine thing about them that is not put on. It is the same thing with some writers.
I'm sorry. I completely disagree that writers have any special insight into human nature than any other person. It is their ability to express it that transcends. What you are suggesting is the Romantic notion of the artist as having some special devine nature. Fundementally it's his ability to represent that knowledge that makes him any different.


Why does everybody keep confusing me with Virgil?!:flare: He's older than me... and I'm better looking (or so my wife tells me on certain occasions):lol:.
:lol: :lol: Perhaps. I do have several pictures of myself on lit net, so everyone knows how ugly I am. I'm not sure I know what you look like. ;)

[Kafka's Crow]

Milton's dialectic... "agon"? with Dante, Virgil, and Homer? Jozie... once again you are proving yourself the true Bloomsian.:lol: Must one compose in the same genre to be considered worthy of comparison? None of Shakespeare's contemporaries in drama... as much as I may admire Jonson, Marlowe, or Moliere... come as near to him as Milton, Tolstoy, Dante, Homer, and a few others. Milton's Satan is surely a rather Shakespearean character... although he stands a a single strong character to Shakespeare's legions. Dante, Tolstoy, Homer, Virgil, Dickens... even Marlowe come closer to Shakespeare in the invention of character. Where the two are certainly comparable is in the beauty of language... and here... at times... I would give Milton the edge... but not for long. Someone earlier described Shakespeare's mastery of language as "organic"... unforced... natural. I certainly concur.

We must not forget that Shakespeare was writing for the masses. Theatre was a purely commercial art at that time. Shakespeare was a commercial writer. He produced his beautiful language in this very restrictive situation (remember how dialogue/ language almost disappeared when Arnold Schwarzenegger revolutionised Holywood?) 'Popular' arts don't have much room for fine language and poetry. Shakespeare wrote beautiful language while staying universally accessible. Milton's highly elaborate language is for the intelligent people, scholars and poets. He could use any technique from antiquity or from his own time and he did use most of them. Shakespeare had to stay focussed on the play while writing, on stage and on his audience. He could not afford to lose the sight of any of them. Still he created miracles. Milton did not have these constraints.

[Kafka's Crow]

Not entirely. Bloom seems to have some deep-seated fascination with Yahweh, at least if his latest book is any indication


I think I read him going absolutely nuts about the above topic somewhere. It was not in Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human, was it? I did read that and that was the end of my Bloomsian days! Which book was that? I think he is a highly academic critic who helped me a lot in my student days, that's about that!


I will have to see if I can get through Paradise Lost one day...it isn't high on my list.

I loved Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained (specially the former) when I read them in my undergraduate days. Still I would be very reluctant to undertake this task again.

[Virgil]

Not entirely. Bloom seems to have some deep-seated fascination with Yahweh, at least if his latest book is any indication; no matter how adept, all the big boys seem to want to have the biggest one when they compare each other in the men's room.:blush:

I will have to see if I can get through Paradise Lost one day...it isn't high on my list.

Well, Bloom is Jewish. You should read Paradise lost. It's a great read.

[J.D.]

I pretty much agree with your assessment of both Milton and Shakespeare. Milton is a great poet but Shakespeare transcends. But I will disagree that Milton does not experiment with language as much as Shakespeare. In some respects he pushed th language even further, but in a direction that may have been less "natural" than Shakespeares.

You're absolutely right. I didn't mean to say that Milton didn't experiment with language; I meant only to say that the particular kind of language "play"--and I want to emphasize "play" over experiment--often found in Shakespeare strikes me as so natural and perfect and confident (with the exception of a few clunkers, of course), whereas Milton's often seems, I don't know--is mannerism the right word to describe it?

[/QUOTE] I'm sorry. I completely disagree that writers have any special insight into human nature than any other person. It is their ability to express it that transcends. What you are suggesting is the Romantic notion of the artist as having some special devine nature. Fundementally it's his ability to represent that knowledge that makes him any different. [/QUOTE]

Yes, I suppose that is what I'm suggesting. But I don't think all artists have it, just as I don't think all people have it. And I think plenty of people do have it but can't express it, normal everyday people, and when you meet them you know they have it; maybe they blow you away in five minutes during a conversation at a bar; or maybe they don't say but do something perfect that nobody else would think of that is just perfect for a particular moment. All of which fits with what you're saying--that the ability to represent it is absolutely necessary and should be judged. But yes, I do think some artists have a special insight, not because they are artists, but just because they have it. A percentage of the population has it. A percentage of that percentage also has the ability to represent it. Shakespeare falls into that percentage of a percentage.

The other option is to believe that every single person out there has the exact same insight as the person next to him. I just don't believe that.

[Virgil]

The other option is to believe that every single person out there has the exact same insight as the person next to him. I just don't believe that.

But writers have no more, no less. You're right, you can't be a stupid person and be a writer. but given the same level of intelligence than I don't see what makes a writer different than say a doctor or an engineer. ;)

[J.D.]

Virgil:

But it isn't just intelligence; heck, I'm not even sure it's primarily intelligence. It's a way of looking at the world, or better yet, it's a way of ordering the world in your head, making sense of it. You've never met a doctor with a single-track mind who was clueless about the human experience? Trust me, they exist, and they're smart--investment smart, social geniuses, whatever. Some of them turn themselves off to insight and become surgery machines with rechargeable thirty-six-hour batteries. They don't know anything about the real human condition because a) they don't have time to, and b) that's not why they're doctors in the first place (they want that success).

Given equal intelligence, if you spend all of your time opening your mind to insight, noticing things, like an artist, trying to be a lightning rod for it, you are going to have more insight. If you spend all of your time on something else, you won't.


When I was in graduate school I used to pay attention to this one particular very good and highly decorated poet a lot, casually "overhear" his conversations--he'd talk to people, other professors, geniuses in their field, and he'd just notice or think of things that never occurred to them. There was no art to the way he'd say it; he'd just toss it off in conversation, and suddenly Dr. Jane or Joe Q. Scholar would be staring at him, mouth agape, in awe.

I get what you disagree with; it's the argument Plato puts forth that poets are divinely inspired. I don't think they get text messages straight from God or that they have a pipeline directly into the TRUTH.

[Virgil]

Virgil:

But it isn't just intelligence; heck, I'm not even sure it's primarily intelligence. It's a way of looking at the world, or better yet, it's a way of ordering the world in your head, making sense of it. You've never met a doctor with a single-track mind who was clueless about the human experience?

And I've met doctors with profound insight into the human condition. I still don't think writers have any more or less insight than another.

[stlukesguild]

you can't be a stupid person and be a writer.

Yes you can. You'll just be a stupid writer.:D Surely Paris Hilton has written a few "tell all" books by now.

[kasie]

I'm not sure it is really possible to compare Shakespeare and Milton. In the context of this thread, Shakespeare can be summed up (:) ) by 'All the world's a stage...' and Milton by '..justify the ways of God to Men...' One was a dramatist who set out to represent the diversity of human variation on the stage and had the genius to do so in a language of such richness as has never been surpassed. The other was a poet seeking to expound what he perceived to be the Truth of Life in an age when religious thought was so intense, alive and personal that it had led to a blood-soaked Civil War. (All right, I know, before someone picks me up on it, the English Civil War was about more than religious differences!) Such a high aim could be achieved only in the very richest, most sonorous language as could be commanded. Possibly the reason we find Milton hard to approach today is that we no longer live in that religious fervour, whereas we can still identify with Shakespeare's insights into the rich complexity of life. (Goodness, talk about reductio ad absurdum!)

[stlukesguild]

Personally, I don't find Milton that hard to approach... although he certainly challenges the reader at times... as does Shakespeare and surely every great writer. I think that the form of his opus... an extended epic poem which maintains a continual highly formal or poetic voice throughout may certainly be prove daunting to a great many. Surely, in the sense, he is no less challenging than Virgil, Spencer, or Dante... yet I would assume that many readers find Shakespeare more accessible than any of those writers as well. In this, Shakespeare has the advantage of a breadth... or variety of voice... something also found in Chaucer, from whom he certainly learned. Shakespeare can write in as highly poetic a manner as Milton... yet turn around and contrast this with a series of vulgarities or clever puns. Perhaps many today imagine that this makes him more human... in other eras it was imagined as a flaw... a lack of continuity of style as one might find in the proper tragedy ala Racine. Neither do I mean to suggest that Milton is monotonous. He can shift from the most high-minded discussions of religion... God... etc... to the most sensory descriptions of hell and the fallen angels or the most sensual depictions of the Garden of Eden... paradise... Eve. I don't think that it is impossible to compare Shakespeare and Milton any more than we might compare any two artists in any genre. We do it all the time when we decide which artists to spend the time or effort upon. The necessity, however, is that one not compare two diverse artists using solely the standards of one. For example, it would not be the most equitable if we were to compare Michelangelo with Matisse and use anatomical "realism", proper perspective, and other standards of the elder artist as the sole measure of their merits.

[WICKES]

Perhaps another way of putting the question might be 'who is Shakespeare's closest rival in the english language'? I mean taking everything into account: the beauty of the language, the intellectual depth etc. Chaucer? Milton? Spenser? Dickens? George Eliot? Joyce?...

[Jozanny]

Perhaps another way of putting the question might be 'who is Shakespeare's closest rival in the english language'? I mean taking everything into account: the beauty of the language, the intellectual depth etc. Chaucer? Milton? Spenser? Dickens? George Eliot? Joyce?...

Shakespeare doesn't really have any rivals in English. In world literature yes, but not English literature. On a world scale, he divides the pie with Cervantes and Dante. Each of the three are master builders. In terms of theater, Ibsen is Shakespeare's second, the second most produced, studied, and appraised.

I have seen nearly as much of Ibsen as Shakespeare produced for the stage.

[stlukesguild]

His closest rivals in English? Chaucer, Milton, perhaps Spencer and Dickens... although I essentially agree with Jozy... one would do far better to compare him with Dante, Cervantes, Goethe, Tolstoy, Homer... perhaps Montaigne... Proust... Ferdowsi... the Bible.

[mortalterror]

Shakespeare doesn't really have any rivals in English. In world literature yes, but not English literature. On a world scale, he divides the pie with Cervantes and Dante. Each of the three are master builders. In terms of theater, Ibsen is Shakespeare's second, the second most produced, studied, and appraised.

I have seen nearly as much of Ibsen as Shakespeare produced for the stage.

If you are going to open the dispute up to a world level, and you don't want to compare dissimilar writers, I think Aeschylus is roughly as good a playwright as Shakespeare. The problem is that so much of Aeschylus is lost, while we have all of Shakespeare's plays to pick and choose from when we make our assessments. However, they did both write different versions of what is essentially the same story. Hamlet is basically an updated adaptation of The Libation Bearers. Aeschylus has a much tighter control of plot, thematic unity, and dramatic action, but Shakespeare has the edge in character. Both are first class lyricists and poets. If you are going to make a judgement about who is the best playwright ever then Aeschylus is a much closer match and a much stronger contender than Ibsen.

[stlukesguild]

Certainly there are Greek playwrites and poets who are world class... and we are indeed limited in our ability to judge considering how much has been lost. For all we know the lost plays of Aeschylus or Sophocles may have been even better than what survived. On the other hand... the rest may have been crap and all that survived is all that deserved to survive.

[WICKES]

. Aeschylus has a much tighter control of plot, thematic unity, and dramatic action, but Shakespeare has the edge in character. Both are first class lyricists and poets. If you are going to make a judgement about who is the best playwright ever then Aeschylus is a much closer match and a much stronger contender than Ibsen.


Surely no one has ever matched Shakespeare for the sheer beauty and power of his language? Aldous Huxley says somewhere that only Dante approaches Shakespeare in his use of language, but is still a poor second. At times the language is overwhelming- so beautiful you can only gasp. I've never heard this claimed for Aeschylus, though I think you are quite right to mention him as a rival. There is really no equal in world literature imo. Not that others haven't matched him in certain areas (Chaucer, Tolstoy and Dickens in the range of characters; Dante in the beauty of the language and mystic vision; Cervantes in humour etc), but no one can compete with his breadth and range. He really covered everything (Huxley once wrote to a friend 'been reading a lot of Shakespeare recently- the problem with this is that I can see no point in writing anything anymore- he has said it all') .

[mortalterror]

Surely no one has ever matched Shakespeare for the sheer beauty and power of his language? Aldous Huxley says somewhere that only Dante approaches Shakespeare in his use of language, but is still a poor second. At times the language is overwhelming- so beautiful you can only gasp. I've never heard this claimed for Aeschylus, though I think you are quite right to mention him as a rival. There is really no equal in world literature imo. Not that others haven't matched him in certain areas (Chaucer, Tolstoy and Dickens in the range of characters; Dante in the beauty of the language and mystic vision; Cervantes in humour etc), but no one can compete with his breadth and range. He really covered everything (Huxley once wrote to a friend 'been reading a lot of Shakespeare recently- the problem with this is that I can see no point in writing anything anymore- he has said it all') .

Actually, Aeschylus is, like I said before, roughly Shakespeare's equal in the beauty and power of his language. That's both men's strong suit. You have to look at other dimensions such as plotting, character, and action to find a tie breaker. The problem is that Aeschylus is better at plotting, and Shakespeare is better at character; so there we have another tie. While the action of a Shakespearean play is generally greater in quantity, the action of a play by Aeschylus has more thematic unity. You'd be hard pressed to find two better matched writers in all of Western literature.

Also, I'd say that Dante's Divine Comedy actually exceeds anything Shakespeare did. It's only when both writers bodies of work are taken at a whole that Shakespeare edges Dante out, and you really have to put several of his best plays together to get the sheer range of character, the panopticon of society as it were. You don't get all of Shakespeare in any one work the way you can get all of Dante. You'll either get comedy, or tragedy, or history, but never at the highest levels all at once. Also, Aristophanes, Twain, Rabelais, and even Heller have exceeded Shakespeare in the field of comedy. You don't need to bring in Cervantes to have him beat on that score. You speak of Shakespeare's extremely wide range, but you don't get that from any single play the way you would from Tolstoy's War and Peace. While I do think that Shakespeare is probably the greatest writer who ever lived, I won't go crazy and suggest that he didn't write a lot of drivel, that he didn't have his weaknesses, and isn't bettered by other writers on a score of points. For instance, he's rather weak in plot sometimes. He's prone to tangents and digressions. He's vital and witty but his plays can lack for structure and thematic unity. Sophocles, Racine, and Calderon all handle plot better than Shakespeare does.

[Jozanny]

Aeschylus has a much tighter control of plot, thematic unity, and dramatic action, but Shakespeare has the edge in character. Both are first class lyricists and poets. If you are going to make a judgement about who is the best playwright ever then Aeschylus is a much closer match and a much stronger contender than Ibsen.

You might be confusing what is derivative with popularity. Goodness knows I am no expert on theater, but in terms of what and who rivals Shakespeare in the contemporary canon, I still go with Ibsen. The playwrights share many similarities despite the entirely different eras from which they hail, including the universalism kasie touched on. There is something of Lady Macbeth in Hedda Gabler. It may not be fair to compare the two men. One was the father of modern realism and the other is, well, in totality, the greatest reflection of what Western civilization is, but in terms of classical drama that theater students cut their chops on, it is Shakespeare and Ibsen.

The Greek plays are important, produced and adapted to contemporary multi-cultural ethos, but they are not mega blockbuster stuff.

Modern theater died for the sake of Broadway musicals in any case, a genre for which I have nothing but contempt, whatever the glories of South Pacific's revival.

[WICKES]

In the English language, who fights for the position of second greatest writer then? My guess is that it's between Chaucer, Milton, George Eliot, Dickens and Joyce. Perhaps the bronze would be fought over by Spenser, Donne, Keats, Wordsworth, Shelley, Beckett (possibly also Malory, Byron, D H Lawrence?...)

[mortalterror]

The Greek plays are important, produced and adapted to contemporary multi-cultural ethos, but they are not mega blockbuster stuff.

There are something like 42 extant ancient Greek plays (not counting the recently discovered plays by Menander), and 37 or 38 plays by Shakespeare. If you removed Shakespeare from the canon, the Greek plays are the only thing that could fill that void. Euripedes is the greatest writer of character. Aristophanes is the greatest comic writer. Sophocles is the greatest in terms of plot and action, with Aeschylus combining much of the two other tragedians along with his own first class vitality, power, and poetry. Ibsen is nothing compared to any one of them, let alone all taken together. A better match for Ibsen would be Chekov.

This discussion reminds me of Aristophanes' play The Frogs. Aristophanes' characters felt that the world needed better playwrights after the recent death of Euripedes; so they go down into Tartarus to seek out the greatest writer and bring him back to life. What transpires is basically Euripedes challenging Aeschylus to a rap battle, line for line from their best plays to see who was the best.

What amuses me is that people are wondering which is better Milton or Shakespeare, when I always thought that Milton wasn't as good as Chaucer let alone Shakespeare. After the first three, things tend to get a little muddled. Some people say Spenser. Some people say Wordsworth. I'd say at that point it's pretty much up for grabs. You may convince somebody that Milton is better than Chaucer; but it will be much more difficult to prove that Milton is better than Shakespeare.

[WICKES]

Would it be fair to say that the three greatest writers in the English language are Shakespeare, Chaucer and Milton (in whatever order)? Do you think most literary critics, intellectuals, writers etc would agree?

[mortalterror]

Would it be fair to say that the three greatest writers in the English language are Shakespeare, Chaucer and Milton (in whatever order)? Do you think most literary critics, intellectuals, writers etc would agree?

I'd say that's certainly fair. I think that Canterbury Tales is better than Paradise Lost, and Troilus and Criseyde beats out Paradise Regained or Samson Agonistes. I haven't read Comus or The Book of the Duchess so I can't give an extended comparison of both writers entire oeuvre. You might compare Milton's Latin poems to Chaucer's translations of Boethius and The Romance of the Rose, or Milton's political writing to Chaucer's treatise on the Astrolabe. But overall I'd say that's a pretty good assertion.

[stlukesguild]

Yes Shakespeare... followed by Chaucer and Milton as a toss-up. At times I would favor one... and then the other. After that I'd probably go with Spencer... but I'm admittedly biased... greatly enamored of his sonnets and Epithalimion as well as Muiopotmos... without even considering the Faerie Queene. After that? Blake? Wordsworth? Joyce? Dickens? Whitman?

[Oenomaus]

Let's look at this definition more carefully: "measure a writer's merits upon whether not s/he presents a truer understanding of the world than we had before". So does that rule out McBeth because it relies on witchcraft or Hamlet because there is a ghost or Orwell's 1984 because it's a hypothetical state or Wuthering heights because there are supernatural elements or Frankenstein because it's science fiction, or any contemporary science fiction? Or what about Homer with his gods and goddesses or Dante with his journey from Hell to Heaven? Come on, the measure is not based on an understanding of the world but on the language and skill of the writer.

I think art-for-arts' sake encompasses more than merely formalistic or decorative skills. For example, I personally don't consider Soviet propaganda films to be great art no matter how skillful the editing because they are repugnant distortions of reality. You can't say that for "Macbeth." The supernatural does not make those work that you listed any less meaningful just because they deal with the human condition in an allegorical or imaginative manner. I personally don't care for Orwell's "1984" because I don't think it's a good novel : the prose is uninspired, the characters are poorly developed, the theme is too superficially expressed, etc. This despite the fact that I agree with it morally. I'm personally not impressed with author's whose skills are purely decorative or formalistic. Nor do I confuse good intentions with good literature.


And what exactly does a "truer understanding of the world" have to do with art?

Everything, as far as I am concerned.



Homer and Virgil are considered Western writers because the cultures or societies in which they worked essentially formed a large part of the basis (along with that of Judeo-Christianity) of Western culture: especially its art, music, and literature. Certainly there were breaks in the chain, but one might just as well reject Spain as a Western nation because of the era of Islamic rule as well as the centuries of near isolationism with regard to events and ideas post-Enlightenment (if not post-Reformation).

Definitions and delineations like these are often arbitrary but if influence is going to be defined as absorption then why stop there. Were the Sumerian-Babylonians Western? Or the Egyptians? What about the first millennia Arabian, which was as large of an influence on the West as the Classical?

[stlukesguild]

SLG- And what exactly does a "truer understanding of the world" have to do with art?

Oenomaus- Everything, as far as I am concerned.

Well I'm glad you clarified that. We'll have to keep that in mind when deliberating over any of your comments... especially when one considers that a "truer understanding of the world" may not be the goal of a great many artists of real merit. By the way... who decides what is "truer"?

SLG- Homer and Virgil are considered Western writers because the cultures or societies in which they worked essentially formed a large part of the basis (along with that of Judeo-Christianity) of Western culture: especially its art, music, and literature. Certainly there were breaks in the chain, but one might just as well reject Spain as a Western nation because of the era of Islamic rule as well as the centuries of near isolationism with regard to events and ideas post-Enlightenment (if not post-Reformation).

Oenomaus- Definitions and delineations like these are often arbitrary but if influence is going to be defined as absorption then why stop there. Were the Sumerian-Babylonians Western? Or the Egyptians? What about the first century Arabian, which was as large of an influence on the West as the Classical?

Certainly any delineation is arbitrary to an extent. When we speak of "the West" we usually mean Europe and North America... but surely this is arbitrary. Persian, Egyptian, Arabic, Moorish... even Indian and Chinese cultures (through trade along the Silk Road) have a greater contact with "the West" than Russia until quite recently. And if we consider the ancient Hebrews "Western" then why not the rest of the Middle-Eastern cultures? Of course Greece has far more claim to being a Western culture considering that it is in Europe, Greek architecture, sculpture, drama, poetry, philosophy, and mythology form one of the foundations of Western thought, and Greece remains a bastion of Western culture as the Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire. First century Arab influence? What exactly was that? Pre-Islamic Arab history is rather sparse. Certainly the Persians (or Parthians) were a culture of great importance at that time... but don't let Persians hear you mistaking them for Arabs.

[Oenomaus]

First century Arab influence? What exactly was that? Pre-Islamic Arab history is rather sparse. Certainly the Persians (or Parthians) were a culture of great importance at that time... but don't let Persians hear you mistaking them for Arabs.

My mistake. I meant first millennium, NOT first century. I had Christianity in mind, as well as the intellectual achievements of the Islamic Renaissance (8th century to the time of the Mongolian invasion). Granted, I'm stretching the first millennium to include an extra 2 or 3 centuries, but that should make more sense.

[stlukesguild]

My mistake. I meant first millennium, NOT first century. I had Christianity in mind, as well as the intellectual achievements of the Islamic Renaissance (8th century to the time of the Mongolian invasion). Granted, I'm stretching the first millennium to include an extra 2 or 3 centuries, but that should make more sense.

The "Arab" cultures I imagine as the most influential upon Western civilization (and that I find of the most interest) would be those of Islamic Spain or Al Andalus under the rule of the Islamic Moors as part of the Umayyad Caliphate. Their achievements would include the the marvelous architecture, including Alhambra, the great palaces at Granada that was exclaimed the "most beautiful in the world". To this we could add the marvelous Arabic lyrical poets such as Ibn Zaydún. The examples of the lyrical poetry of Islamic Spain spread to southern France and had a profound impact upon the poetry of Provençal... and in turn Italy and the whole of the Renaissance. A volume of this poetry, Poemas Arabigoandaluces, collected and translated by the Spanish scholar, Emilio Garcia Gomez, sparked a renewed interest in the Arab poetry of Spain (and the entire history of Islamic Spain) and had a profound influence upon such poets as Federico Garcia Lorca, Antonio Machado, Rafael Alberti, Miguel Hernandez... and other central figures of Modern Spanish poetry. Among the great Arabic Philosophers of Spain we must include Ibn Arabi, whose Book of Mahomet's Ladder was an influence upon Dante's Comedia. Hebrew achievements in Arab Andalusia were equally spectacular, including the philosopher Maimonides, as well as the greatest Hebrew poets after those of the Bible: Solomon Ibn Gabriol, Shmu'el Hanagid, Moshe Ibn Ezra, Yehda Halevi, and Avraham Ibn Ezra. The most important contribution to Western culture of Arabic Spain, however, was undertaken by Christian scribes in the employment of their Arabic lords: the translation and thus preservation of works of the Classical West (Greece and Rome)... many of which included the sole known copies of these texts. Many of these texts were brilliantly illuminated and the style of Islamic Spanish art... drawing upon the traditions of Moorish art... were as influential, if not more so, than Sub-Saharan African art upon the stylistic innovations of Picasso... and through him... the whole of Modernism in art.

The Persians of the period may have been even more spectacular in their achievements. After having shaken off the rule of the Arabs... and the shame of the and highly cultured Persian Empire having been defeated by what were relatively uncultured nomadic tribes... Persian culture reasserted itself producing a "golden age" of poetry, art, and architecture. The greatest Persian poet, Ferdowsi, composed his masterwork, the epic Shahnameh (Book of Kings) under the last days of Arab rule. His work would act as a model for following Persian poets and is seen as having a place not unlike the Hebrew Bible... representing the whole of a culture in captivity. Other great Persian poets would include Nasir Khusraw, Farid ad-Din Attar, Rumi, Hafez, Imadaddin Nasimi, etc... Persian art and architecture would reach its "golden age" under the Safavid Dynasty, following the expulsion of the Mongols. The paintings of this period have especially influenced European artists... beginning with the Renaissance Venetians (who had trade relations with the Middle-East and even sent the great painter Gentile Bellini to Istanbul/Constantinople) and continuing into the 20th century with artists such as Paul Klee and Henri Matisse.

I'm actually deeply fascinated with both of these cultures... and with Islamic art, which has had a deep impact upon my own work... so I would have no problem with the notion of including them among "Western Culture":D

[minimang]

Milton is better than Shakespeare. Why? Name at least 5 of Shakespeare's greatest poems. Sonnet 18? Seven Ages of Man? Can you say more? And you think that these poems are far greater than the magnificent Paradise lost? Are you kidding me? Yes, great poets bow before him because they love his poetic plays not his poetry! He has a theatrical advantage that no great poet has. But these great poetic words lies in his plays. All these quotes treasured in the ages are in his plays. So you can't really call them poetry. Most people forget that these great poetic words are just poetic lines in a written play. His real poetry are mostly love poems. Now, please don't tell me that these sonnets can beat Paradise Lost or Divine Comedy. He is a greater playwright than he is a greater poet.

[Jeremydav]

If it's poetry in a play then it's still poetic. Shakespeare is a better writer than Milton. I'd be hard pressed to find any professionals to disagree.

[OrphanPip]

Milton is better than Shakespeare. Why? Name at least 5 of Shakespeare's greatest poems.

That's a silly argument, you might as well ask us to try and name 5 of Milton's greatest plays, which would be quite the task considering he never wrote any.

[kelby_lake]

If it's poetry in a play then it's still poetic. Shakespeare is a better writer than Milton. I'd be hard pressed to find any professionals to disagree.

Agreed. If you asked people what Milton wrote, they probably wouldn't be able to answer you. Even the ones that could would cite only Paradise Lost. I can't think of anything else that he wrote actually (I don't count Paradise Regained or whatever the sequel's called). Whereas everybody can name at least one Shakespeare play if not loads. There's a reason for that.

Minimang, you've made errors in your argument. Seven Ages of Man is not one of Shakespeare's poems- it's a monologue from As You Like It. And Dante wrote the Divine Comedy, not Milton. Have you read any of Milton's work?

[Orestes]

Agreed. If you asked people what Milton wrote, they probably wouldn't be able to answer you. Even the ones that could would cite only Paradise Lost. I can't think of anything else that he wrote actually (I don't count Paradise Regained or whatever the sequels called). Whereas everybody can name at least one Shakespeare play if not loads. There's a reason for that.

Minimang, you've made errors in your argument. Seven Ages of Man is not one of Shakespeare's poems- it's a monologue from As You Like It. And Dante wrote the Divine Comedy, not Milton. Have you read any of Milton's work?


you are right..

[kelby_lake]

You might be confusing what is derivative with popularity. Goodness knows I am no expert on theater, but in terms of what and who rivals Shakespeare in the contemporary canon, I still go with Ibsen. The playwrights share many similarities despite the entirely different eras from which they hail, including the universalism kasie touched on. There is something of Lady Macbeth in Hedda Gabler. It may not be fair to compare the two men. One was the father of modern realism and the other is, well, in totality, the greatest reflection of what Western civilization is, but in terms of classical drama that theater students cut their chops on, it is Shakespeare and Ibsen.

The Greek plays are important, produced and adapted to contemporary multi-cultural ethos, but they are not mega blockbuster stuff.

Modern theater died for the sake of Broadway musicals in any case, a genre for which I have nothing but contempt, whatever the glories of South Pacific's revival.

I'd argue that Chekhov is vital to classical drama. His tragicomedies are wonderful observations. The Seagull is particularly beautiful.

The influence of the Greek tragedies (I don't care much for Greek comedy) is undeniable- particularly its influence in American drama. Theatre began with the Greek tragedies.

I don't think modern theatre 'died', unless by 'died' you mean that it was less commercially successful. Even then, the 20th century still spawned lots of great playwrights. And you underestimate musicals. Sure a lot of them are very populist but many are witty. Kiss Me Kate is a good example of a witty musical- a must-see if you've read The Taming of The Shrew.

[Transmodernism]

Great thread!

I think it would be hard to make the case that Milton is greater than Shakespeare simply due to Shakespeare's almost unlimited impact on what came after. Shakespeare's influence on English literature and culture has no rival.

But on the other hand, it's like comparing apples and oranges. Shakespeare wrote about humanity, the human condition, personality flaws and the tragedy that they produce, etc. Milton wrote about the religious, the divine, the cosmic order of things. One wrote about earth; the other, heaven. Both were magnificent at what they did. But they did different things.

[mortalterror]

That's a silly argument, you might as well ask us to try and name 5 of Milton's greatest plays, which would be quite the task considering he never wrote any.

Besides Samson Agonistes and Comus that is.

[JCamilo]

Plus one could say, Milton did a Shakespeare when he wrote Paradise Lost. But that is silly, Milton would be one of the greatest poets of english language without Paradise Lost. Most of the romantic poets of XIX are more close to Milton than Shakespeare because Milton has a notable body of poetry, Lycidas is easily one of the greatest poems of this style I have seen.
And the political work of Milton is far from irrelevant as well.

Anyways, Milton could punch for real, his left upperhand will throw that crossdressing boy flying.

[OrphanPip]

Besides Samson Agonistes and Comus that is.

I suppose a closet drama that was never meant to be performed counts, but Comus is a masque


Agreed. If you asked people what Milton wrote, they probably wouldn't be able to answer you. Even the ones that could would cite only Paradise Lost. I can't think of anything else that he wrote actually (I don't count Paradise Regained or whatever the sequel's called). Whereas everybody can name at least one Shakespeare play if not loads. There's a reason for that.


I think a good deal of people are familiar with Lycidas, Il Penseroso, L'Allegro, and his sonnets.

[kelby_lake]

I think a good deal of people are familiar with Lycidas, Il Penseroso, L'Allegro, and his sonnets.

Really?! I'm not talking about academics or experts of that era, I'm talking about people who have read pretty widely.

[OrphanPip]

Really?! I'm not talking about academics or experts of that era, I'm talking about people who have read pretty widely.

Well, for people who read poetry widely at least.

[mortalterror]

I suppose a closet drama that was never meant to be performed counts, but Comus is a masque

A masque is a type of drama. Comus is basically a pastoral play.

[OrphanPip]

A masque is a type of drama. Comus is basically a pastoral play.

That's a sketchy distinction, a masque is not quite the same as a play, or else we would consider ballet's and court opera to be plays as well, and masques include elements of both. They're an entertainment piece that contains elements of drama, but they're essentially a mixed form.

Although, some research turned up that Comus, though being titled a masque, has little in common with the masque tradition.

[JCamilo]

Really?! I'm not talking about academics or experts of that era, I'm talking about people who have read pretty widely.

I am not expert and I have read all poetry of Milton, so it goes on.

Anyways, this is accidental popularity. I do not think people are really familiar with Shakespeare plays, rather the several versions out there and the majority of them, I am sure, are because School will make him part of the english study. Maybe in 100 years (and maybe it is a stretch, I think right now it is true), Poe poetry will be more famous than both Milton and Shakespeare, considering the mimicrying black bird. I am sure right now, Jim Morrison is more well know than Emily Dickinson or Walt Whitman, and much more than Emerson.

Anyways, the Shakespeare cult seems to think he is the ultimate quality and I think even in english there was those who did as good as he did. His lyrics are not superior to Keats's Odes, Milton's lyrics, Wordsworth Ballads, Elizabeth Barret's sonnets to Portuguese, Yeat's lyrical works, William Blake... Take Coleridge, the guy was so good that even without writing a poem, he could produce one that is extremelly famous. His Marineer is a masterwork. And we have also Robert Browing dramatic poetry and Melville Moby Dick, which Ahab is easily as "stage stealing" character as Hamlet.

The difference is how much Shakespeare did it over and over and over. Very hard to see so much, so well done.

[Jeremydav]

And wouldn't that distinguish him? The claims you've made about writers who are superior to Shakespeare doesn't really seem to stretch beyond your opinion. A lot of the writers you've cited also mimicked Shakespeare, so...

[Seasider]

@KelbyLake
Theatre began with the Greek tragedies.
But the tradition of classical literature was lost for many centuries. As far as England was concerned theatre began with The Mystery Plays which were Bible stories presented to an audience which was for the most part illiterate.

I am surprised that there has been little mention of Milton's Samson Agonistes. I was taken as a 16 year old to a performance of it in, as far as I remember St Pauls Cathedral in London. It was a one -man performance by Abraham Sofaer. It was very impressive and surprisingly accessible.

Early on someone commented on Milton as Husband. Robert Graves wrote Wife to Mr Milton which illustrates why it might not have been a bed of roses for her.

[Cunninglinguist]

after Shakespeare burst a blood vessel to the brain over a glass of wine with I forget who.

Err... It was Michael Drayton and someone else, I believe


Modern theater died for the sake of Broadway musicals in any case, a genre for which I have nothing but contempt, whatever the glories of South Pacific's revival.

Thank you..


I think a good deal of people are familiar with Lycidas, Il Penseroso, L'Allegro, and his sonnets.

Not like Romeo & Juliet, Macbeth, Hamlet, Othello, Tempest, and King Lear, most, if not all, of which are typically read by high school students in England, Canada, and America. The works by Milton you mention are never even uttered in high school; furthermore seldom is Paradise lost and/or Regained, unless maybe you're in AP/IB/Honors English.


I am not expert and I have read all poetry of Milton, so it goes on.

Anyways, this is accidental popularity. I do not think people are really familiar with Shakespeare plays, rather the several versions out there and the majority of them, I am sure, are because School will make him part of the english study. Maybe in 100 years (and maybe it is a stretch, I think right now it is true), Poe poetry will be more famous than both Milton and Shakespeare, considering the mimicrying black bird. I am sure right now, Jim Morrison is more well know than Emily Dickinson or Walt Whitman, and much more than Emerson.

Anyways, the Shakespeare cult seems to think he is the ultimate quality and I think even in english there was those who did as good as he did. His lyrics are not superior to Keats's Odes, Milton's lyrics, Wordsworth Ballads, Elizabeth Barret's sonnets to Portuguese, Yeat's lyrical works, William Blake... Take Coleridge, the guy was so good that even without writing a poem, he could produce one that is extremelly famous. His Marineer is a masterwork. And we have also Robert Browing dramatic poetry and Melville Moby Dick, which Ahab is easily as "stage stealing" character as Hamlet.

The difference is how much Shakespeare did it over and over and over. Very hard to see so much, so well done.

I dont mean to be polemical but... What are you talking about? Poe will never be more popular than Shakespeare save amongst small cliques of brooding emo-teens who think that they're deep. Poe is overrated, and I'm not alone in this assertion. I don't think a comparison between Jim Morrison and Shakespeare is apt. For starters musicians wont be studying Jim Morrison like writers study Shakespeare for 400 years to come. Maybe you can compare him to John Lennon.

As said before by SLG, Shakespeare is so good because he is ever-new. One could argue that this is in part because of an unwarranted status which, as a consequence of it's size, fills us with an expectation that leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Though I believe there's some of this, I would generally disagree.





I think the debate really comes down to how we define best. If it is by who achieved the largest innovative stride, then it is Shakespeare. Though there are many, many respects in which we can judge them, though most would leave Shakespeare on top.

At the end of the day I think it ultimately comes down to the question, if we were in the position of Alfred Dreyfus, whose work would we rather have with us, Shakespeare or Milton? Most of us would choose Shakespeare, as it encompasses so broad a range of human emotions. In so far as content goes Milton's greatness, for me, does not lie in the humanistic aspects of his characters (of which only Satan stands out, which was not an original invention, might I add) or his plots, but his theological argument.

[Alexander III]

I have yet to read Paradise Lost so I cannot comment in regards to Milton.

However in regards to Shakespeare I must confess its seems that in anglophone nations there is a disillusionment of Shakespeare. Is Shakespeare the greatest english poet ? Probably. Is he miles above the other contenders, no; in fact he merely wins not due to having the best characters or verse( in that he has been equalled by many greats) he wins because he has a wider range compared to all other writers.

However most people on the forums and in english speaking countries overrate him vastly. There is not one high school which does not teach Shakespeare, is that wrong ? No, but all others except for Shakespeare are obscured compared to him which is unjust. Personally I find Byron, Keats, Shelley,Pope, Spenser all to be roughly equals to Shakespeare.

Oh and Seasider, Shakespeare was greatly influenced by the greek playwrights, they were his largest and main influence. Aeschylus's impact upon Shakespeare is akin to Shakespeare's impact upon all subsequent english verse.

[kelby_lake]

@KelbyLake
Theatre began with the Greek tragedies.
But the tradition of classical literature was lost for many centuries. As far as England was concerned theatre began with The Mystery Plays which were Bible stories presented to an audience which was for the most part illiterate.


I'm talking about modern theatre, theatre as entertainment and an art form. It all springs from the Greeks ;)

[stlukesguild]

I dont mean to be polemical but... What are you talking about? Poe will never be more popular than Shakespeare save amongst small cliques of brooding emo-teens who think that they're deep. Poe is overrated, and I'm not alone in this assertion.

I think what JCamillo is suggesting is that the popularity of a writer among the generally "well read" is no measure of the artistic merit of a work of art. Shakespeare is certainly read more often than Milton... but then again poetry itself lags far behind the novel in popularity even with those who would think of themselves as well read (we only need to look at the popularity of Orwell or Dostoevsky here at LitNet). I certainly recognize Shakespeare as being the greater writer for the same reason that JCamillo cites: He simply achieves a level of brilliance far more often than Milton.

I doubt that Poe will ever surpass Shakespeare in popularity... but I don't discount the possibility. Neither do I discount Poe's merits. He may be overrated in certain circles... but I also recognize that he is underrated in other circles... especially in academia in America. The French, on the other hand, recognize Poe as a major figure whose impact upon Gautier, Maupassant, Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Verlaine, etc... is undeniable. Poe is also rated more highly Latin-America especially with writers such as J.L. Borges.

All of that is neither here nor there except to clarify what I believe was JCamillo's intention.

I don't think a comparison between Jim Morrison and Shakespeare is apt. For starters musicians wont be studying Jim Morrison like writers study Shakespeare for 400 years to come. Maybe you can compare him to John Lennon.

Again... I doubt that JCamillo was suggesting in any way that Jim Morrison was at all worthy of comparison with Shakespeare, but rather that popularity itself is no measure of artistic merit. Jim Morrison, Jack Kerouac, George Orwell, etc... are all far more popular within a great many circles of well-read than Goethe, Proust, Joyce, and any number of writers of far greater merit.

[mortalterror]

The difference is how much Shakespeare did it over and over and over. Very hard to see so much, so well done.

Yes, if poetry were a race, then there are perhaps a hundred different poets who could keep pace with him for the first hundred yards. But over the course of a marathon only five or six would manage to stay in his company as the rest dropped away. Those would be Homer, Dante, Firdawsi, Valmiki, and Vyasa. Ovid, Virgil, Tasso, Chaucer, Spenser, Milton, Racine, Goethe, and Aeschylus would follow not too far behind.

[Seasider]

Oh and Seasider, Shakespeare was greatly influenced by the greek playwrights, they were his largest and main influence. Aeschylus's impact upon Shakespeare is akin to Shakespeare's impact upon all subsequent english verse.

It is probable that Shakespeare as the son of a prominent citizen of Stratford upon Avon attended the local Grammar School from the age of 7 to 14. The curriculum would certainly have included Latin and probably Greek. His knowledge of the Greek writers would probably have come via Plutarch either in the Greek original or possibly via Sir Thomas North's translation of Plutarch's Parallel LIves of Greeks and Romans. His debt to North/Plutarch is evident in The Roman Plays; Julius Caesar Anthony and Cleopatra Coriolanus. Source of Troilus and Cressida was possibly John Lydgate's Troy Book or maybe Chaucer. Timon of Athens probably Plutarch via North andTitus Andronicus could have been derived from Thyestes by the Roman dramatist Seneca.
I would be very glad to have you elaborate on the influence of Aeschylus on Shakespeare.

[Jeremydav]

I have yet to read Paradise Lost so I cannot comment in regards to Milton.

However in regards to Shakespeare I must confess its seems that in anglophone nations there is a disillusionment of Shakespeare. Is Shakespeare the greatest english poet ? Probably. Is he miles above the other contenders, no; in fact he merely wins not due to having the best characters or verse( in that he has been equalled by many greats) he wins because he has a wider range compared to all other writers.

However most people on the forums and in english speaking countries overrate him vastly. There is not one high school which does not teach Shakespeare, is that wrong ? No, but all others except for Shakespeare are obscured compared to him which is unjust. Personally I find Byron, Keats, Shelley,Pope, Spenser all to be roughly equals to Shakespeare.

Oh and Seasider, Shakespeare was greatly influenced by the greek playwrights, they were his largest and main influence. Aeschylus's impact upon Shakespeare is akin to Shakespeare's impact upon all subsequent english verse.

Byron equal to Shakespeare? Spenser? I can understand Keats, Shelley, and Pope (Pope is vastly underrated in the public sphere; he gets quite a bit of attention in undergrad, though) but Spenser without a doubt was a lesser contemporary of Shakespeare. Byron is one of the lesser Romantic poets (Keats, Shelley, Wordsworth, Coleridge--all of these poets surpass him) and I can hardly see him compared to Shakespeare.

[JCamilo]

Byron best poems are on level of Shakespeare yes. The problem is that Byron best poems are much rare than Shakespeare plays. And the four guys that may surpass Byron, are an elite of english poetry, not like he is being surpassed (If much) by poets of this forum. Guys like Byron are much closer to the top than not. Superior writers or not is a bit ridiculous, but yes, that Shakespeare did it often make his career expectional. He is.

As Stlukes pointed, Poe example is a exercise of fiction, but I doubt very much if The Raven is not one of the most popular poems of english language. His translation history easily surpass the history of translation of any other english poem. (And I would like to point that the original poster said about non experts reading. So yes, popularity....)

And may sound funny, Milton was more popular and even more reggarded than Shakespeare, it was after romantic movement that it changed. And it is an accident. If we would turn back from first century until XVIII century most people would say "I do not want to be controversial, but Shakes what? He does not even know latim, like Virgil..."

[OrphanPip]

I don't think it's fair to dismiss Spenser as a lesser contemporary of Shakespeare, I would say he is the better lyrical poet of the Elizabethan period. The Faery Queene and the Amoretti and Epithalamion are both major achievements. Spenser went out of favor in the 20th century, but he's definitely one of the big names in English poetry, bigger than Pope at least. I don't think Spenser is better than Shakespeare, but he's not a minor poet.

Universities still dedicate entire courses to the study of Spenser.

[Alexander III]

Byron equal to Shakespeare? Spenser? I can understand Keats, Shelley, and Pope (Pope is vastly underrated in the public sphere; he gets quite a bit of attention in undergrad, though) but Spenser without a doubt was a lesser contemporary of Shakespeare. Byron is one of the lesser Romantic poets (Keats, Shelley, Wordsworth, Coleridge--all of these poets surpass him) and I can hardly see him compared to Shakespeare.

May I ask what of Byron have you read ?

From there I shall be able to best answer your question

[Jeremydav]

Don Juan and assorted short poems--"She Walks in Beauty," "Epitaph to a Dog," "So we'll go no more a roving," etc.

[stlukesguild]

I must agree with OrphanPip... Spenser cannot be so easily dismissed. His Amoretti takes the stock concept of the series of sonnets written to an idealized (perhaps even non-existent) lover to an entirely new level as he composes a series of sonnets which follow his wooing of his future wife from the early stages of her disinterest... even disdain... to blossoming friendship, love, and passion, culminating in the brilliant wedding poem or Epithalimion.

I have read several critics who credit Spenser (as opposed to Chaucer) with the birth of English literature... in part because of the fact that Chaucer (unlike Spenser) lacked any immediate predecessors and any real literary impact for quite some time... and in part due to the manner that Spenser's Faerie Queene builds upon Ariosto and establishes English as a language capable of the highest poetic achievements. I can't imagine Shakespeare's poetic language without the rich example of Spenser. As much as I like Byron, Shelley, and Pope, I can't imagine any of them eclipsing Spenser.

[JCamilo]

Eclipsing is a bad concept, usually a great poet only send light to his precussors. Which is why those discssions are a wrong turn, Shakespeare is only as great as the past generations created from is work. Greatness can be also perceived by the greatness of of those after them...

[Jeremydav]

The works of Shakespeare have much greater substance than The Faerie Queene or other works by Spenser. While the style of Spenser's writing may be impressive, surely Shakespeare has a deeper understanding of the human condition.

[JCamilo]

Really? I think there is much more authors who actually had more perception about human condition. Does not matter if they are called philosophers or had a religious title...

[stlukesguild]

The works of Shakespeare have much greater substance than The Faerie Queene or other works by Spenser. While the style of Spenser's writing may be impressive, surely Shakespeare has a deeper understanding of the human condition.

Perhaps so... although one may question what an external concept such as an understanding of the human condition has to do with the aesthetic merits of a work of art... but the question wasn't whether Shakespeare was better than Spenser (he is) but rather it was with the suggestion that Spenser was well beneath Shakespeare while Keats, Shelley, and Pope might almost be imagined as on the same level. Personally, I think Milton, Chaucer, and Spenser come closest among English-language writers (in spite of my love of Blake). Beyond the English language? Dante, Homer, Tolstoy, Firdawsi, Virgil, Ovid, Goethe, Cervantes... and of course Euripides, Sophocles, and Aeschylus may have been even greater contenders had more survived... and then we have The Bible, The 1001 Arabian Nights, the Mahabharata, etc...

[JCamilo]

That would be akim to say that Robert Louis Stevenson had much more understanding of how a narrative works, Shakespeare language could be impressive, but Stevenson had much control of plot than William.

What matter is the language, if Spencer had or not this undetstandment, it is irrelevant. It could be that he didnt need it at all.

[Seasider]

Off topic and I apologise but Byron's satire The Vision of Judgement is well worth reading. George the Third has just died and has arrived at The Pearly Gates. Various contemporaries are asked whether he should be allowed in. Then Satan makes a grand entrance:-

XXIV
But bringing up the rear of this bright host
A Spirit of a different aspect waves
His wings, like thunder-clouds above some coast
Whose barren beach with frequent wrecks is paved;
His brow was like the deep when tempest-toss`d;
Fierce and unfathomable thoughts engraved
Eternal wrath on his immortal face,
And where he gazed a gloom pervaded space.

[kelby_lake]

How are Milton's plays? Shakespeare had the rare ability of being able to master two different forms of writing.

[OrphanPip]

I'm not familiar with the plays, but Milton was a decent prose writer. Although, from reading a bit of his prose, you sometimes get the sense that he was essentially the Goebbels of the Cromwell government.

[JCamilo]

I think Samson is ok, Comus is better. But Milton was very good with lyrical poetry and epic poetry. This is two forms as well. People should stop bashing Byron, the guy persona sometimes made him lost his "sense", but when he hit the nail, he did with mastery.

[kelby_lake]

I think Samson is ok, Comus is better. But Milton was very good with lyrical poetry and epic poetry. This is two forms as well.

Not really- they're still both poetry.

[JCamilo]

And? Dramatic poetry is poetry too. Lyrical poetry rules and Narrative poetry rules are two different things. Not all great lyric poets were great with dramatic poetry or epics (hence the ages of epics is dead on Chesterton pockets). Just need to see Keats. It is about as different as short stories and romances, both just prose.

[kelby_lake]

Yes, but poetry doesn't go beyond the written page. Plays not only have to look good on paper- they have to transcend that and fight their way in the real world. But of course, the temptation is to write a trashy crowd pleaser that you know will make you money even if it's not quality literature. Shakespeare managed to be commercial and artistic.

[JCamilo]

Poetry is what goes beyond the page.
But of course, I know what you mean, but if so, someone would analyse Shakespeare Hamlet as flawed as just narrative, but of course, inherent rules of form apply and all is relative to this genre.

[Mr.lucifer]

The works of Shakespeare have much greater substance than The Faerie Queene or other works by Spenser. While the style of Spenser's writing may be impressive, surely Shakespeare has a deeper understanding of the human condition.

Perhaps so... although one may question what an external concept such as an understanding of the human condition has to do with the aesthetic merits of a work of art... but the question wasn't whether Shakespeare was better than Spenser (he is) but rather it was with the suggestion that Spenser was well beneath Shakespeare while Keats, Shelley, and Pope might almost be imagined as on the same level. Personally, I think Milton, Chaucer, and Spenser come closest among English-language writers (in spite of my love of Blake). Beyond the English language? Dante, Homer, Tolstoy, Firdawsi, Virgil, Ovid, Goethe, Cervantes... and of course Euripides, Sophocles, and Aeschylus may have been even greater contenders had more survived... and then we have The Bible, The 1001 Arabian Nights, the Mahabharata, etc...

Because some argue that understanding the human condition is the greatest aspect of art.

[stlukesguild]

Because some argue that understanding the human condition is the greatest aspect of art.

They would be wrong... or rather might be seen as having a misguided or even naive idea about art and artists. The artist is someone who makes art. To look to the artist as someone with a profound grasp of the human condition... beyond that of the average person... is quite likely to leave the "searcher" disillusioned.

[JCamilo]

Ezra Pound actually argues that Chaucer undertanding of humans and the world was superior to Shakespeare. But there is some artform which expression has nothing to do with human nature (romantics would certainly say, understanding beauty was more relevant)

[Mr.lucifer]

Because some argue that understanding the human condition is the greatest aspect of art.

They would be wrong... or rather might be seen as having a misguided or even naive idea about art and artists. The artist is someone who makes art. To look to the artist as someone with a profound grasp of the human condition... beyond that of the average person... is quite likely to leave the "searcher" disillusioned.

To be more specific, those type of people belive art as something that teaches one about life itself by depicting it as it is. I have been told that art is something that help change the individual's view of life.

Personally, I'm type of person that appreciates art for the sake of personal enjoyment. I even apppreciate the artists of literature as storytellers.

[JCamilo]

To change someone perception of reality, view, etc, you just need to do like Monet. He would not be a great psychologist...

[mortalterror]

Or Timothy Leary. If psychological insight was all it took then Freud would be the greatest artist of all time.

[Mr.lucifer]

I'm not talking just about psychological insight but also decipition of life as it truly is. Its also something that can teach one about life.

“A work of art is not a mirror but a house of mirrors. It is not a tape recording but an echo-chamber of connected, compared, contrasted feelings and points of view"-Ray Carney

[JCamilo]

Or mislead about life. One day a spanish girl sent me a pic, but I told her to try to trick someone else. Picasso never drew girls like her and he knew a lot about women.

(a house of mirror is a place where images are distorted, unlike a baber shop, so it apparently do not agree with your view.)

[Mr.lucifer]

Or mislead about life. One day a spanish girl sent me a pic, but I told her to try to trick someone else. Picasso never drew girls like her and he knew a lot about women.

(a house of mirror is a place where images are distorted, unlike a baber shop, so it apparently do not agree with your view.)

He was refering other views of the individual. I'm not good at explaining ray carney's views on art. Check his website to learn more. My main point is art is about life.

[kelby_lake]

They would be wrong... or rather might be seen as having a misguided or even naive idea about art and artists. The artist is someone who makes art. To look to the artist as someone with a profound grasp of the human condition... beyond that of the average person... is quite likely to leave the "searcher" disillusioned.

Agreed. It's more of a romantic approach that we take to enhance the beauty of the language as opposed to seeking a life lesson. In the words of that poster Mulder had stuck on his wall in The X Files, "I want to believe".

[stlukesguild]

My main point is art is about life.

Which is a rather broad subject and includes art as well as the human condition. Indeed, a great many artists have recognized that art is a dialog with art as much as it is a dialog with life.

[JCamilo]

He was refering other views of the individual. I'm not good at explaining ray carney's views on art. Check his website to learn more. My main point is art is about life.

It is unecessary, he was well understood: he just said art is not showing life as it is.

Anyways, just, everytime someone tell you that say "Monet" and art as life will seem a rather swallow concept.

[Jeremydav]

Because some argue that understanding the human condition is the greatest aspect of art.

They would be wrong... or rather might be seen as having a misguided or even naive idea about art and artists. The artist is someone who makes art. To look to the artist as someone with a profound grasp of the human condition... beyond that of the average person... is quite likely to leave the "searcher" disillusioned.

Granted, but the portrayal of the humanity must be true, and the work must be insightful. Perhaps it is a bit of a critical trap that I fell into when I said that Shakespeare had a deeper understanding of the human condition. Rather, his work portrays the human condition more truthfully than that of, perhaps, any other writer in the English language.

[JCamilo]

Any modern day journalist potrays the human condition more truthfully than Shakespeare did. And even them would be wrong...

[stlukesguild]

Granted, but the portrayal of the humanity must be true...

Must it? I always thought art was fiction... the very name related to "artifice"... an illusion... that might be as much a fantasy as is is a portrayal of "truth" or "reality".

First of all, if one makes an assertion that art must portray the truth about humanity, the question becomes 'who, if anyone, has a monopoly upon the truth'? These two paintings by Jacques Louis Davis are commonly acknowledged as masterpieces:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5248/5255974452_f22d15f66d_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5008/5255974602_e8341b8cc4_b.jpg

Both of these paintings are quite idealized... both in their representation of Napoleon and in the portrayal of what he and the Napoleonic Wars meant. One might argue that Goya's portrayals of the Napoleonic Wars were more realistic:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5089/5255375131_aa80c54dee_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5164/5255988204_bea7670302.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5289/5255988276_79963d31a8.jpg

Each artist ultimately offers up his own subjective view of the "truth"... or even a fantasy ideal of what "truth" should be.

Many brilliant works of art would actually challenge the viewer seeking out some insight or truth about humanity. Where is such "truth" here?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YgNnpyAa54

or here:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5007/5255412987_ddd71ab816_b.jpg

and the work must be insightful.

Again... where is the insight concerning the human condition here?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0h7UJgVZGk

or here?:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5285/5256096112_f48609025d_z.jpg

One might argue that this painting (by Leon Golub) is far more insightful... far more truthful with regard to what it conveys concerning humanity than Botticelli's Primavera (above)... but few would suggest that it is the greater work of art as a consequence.

Perhaps it is a bit of a critical trap that I fell into when I said that Shakespeare had a deeper understanding of the human condition. Rather, his work portrays the human condition more truthfully than that of, perhaps, any other writer in the English language.

Again... Shakespeare's Midsummer's Night Dream would seem to me to portray a world far closer to Botticelli's Primavera, than Golub's or Goya's painting. Am I to construe that as a result this is but a minor play?

[Mr.lucifer]

Isn't a good majority of great writers from the 19th century to now considered great because they showed the world around them for what it really was? For example, ibsen is famous for causing controversy in his day for a side of society that was unconventional to the victorians' morals. Weren't some of the great european novelists like tolstoy and belzac famous for the high level of Verisimilitude in their works?

[JCamilo]

Even realists, which is more a style than anything else, are far from reality. Is Zola real?
Or Chekhov, the same guy who Gorki accused to be ending with realism?

And the great 19 writers? Baudelaire? Poe? Hans Christian Andersen? Goethe? Hoffman? Kafka? Karen Blixen? Lewis Carroll? Robert Louis Stevenson? James Joyce? Oscar Wilde? Borges?

Lets just see, Balzac and Flaubert, which indeeded had a lot of realistic portrait of daily world, also wrote fantastic tales. Dickens wrote the Christimas Carroll. A guy like Machado de Assis, wrote dialogues between a pair of boots and a history told by a dead man. Guimarães Rosa main book is about a pact with the devil, which is also present on Bulganov. Virginia Woolf wrote about an ageless dude who became a woman. The whole Magic Realism is a joke about this notion of realism.

[Jeremydav]

Granted, but the portrayal of the humanity must be true...

Must it? I always thought art was fiction... the very name related to "artifice"... an illusion... that might be as much a fantasy as is is a portrayal of "truth" or "reality".

First of all, if one makes an assertion that art must portray the truth about humanity, the question becomes 'who, if anyone, has a monopoly upon the truth'? These two paintings by Jacques Louis Davis are commonly acknowledged as masterpieces:


No one has a monopoly on truth. The type of truth I indicate is the universal truth--good art must reach any competent consumer of said art. Truth can be told through fiction and abstraction. I certainly don't mean that art has to be realistic, it just has to assert a truth about humanity.

[JCamilo]

If you cannt even say if it is true or which true it is said (as some works are still not interpreted), how it could be truth. Also, to good Art reach any consumer it must have a specific capacity of expression, not necessarily specific mensagem.

I think you are mixing the philosophical study of Ethics with Art.

[Jeremydav]

No, I'm not. I just have a different perspective on art than you. I'm not saying anyone is wrong--I'm simply arguing for my claim.

[stlukesguild]

Isn't a good majority of great writers from the 19th century to now considered great because they showed the world around them for what it really was? For example, ibsen is famous for causing controversy in his day for a side of society that was unconventional to the victorians' morals. Weren't some of the great european novelists like tolstoy and belzac famous for the high level of Verisimilitude in their works?

You mean like Verlaine, Oscar Wilde, Baudelaire, Poe, Lewis Carroll, Walter Pater, J.K. Huysmans, Theophile Gautier, W.B. Yeats, Rilke, Paul Valery, etc...:D Certainly, there were writers who were deeply concerned with presenting a "realistic" view of human existence (or challenging the accepted view of what passed for "realism"), as well as with making a social statement... but is that why they are known or have survived? Surely, there are endless "realists" who have faded into oblivion... so why did Zola, Flaubert, Dickens, Tolstoy, etc... really survive? Because they were the strongest artists.

[Mr.lucifer]

Isn't a good majority of great writers from the 19th century to now considered great because they showed the world around them for what it really was? For example, ibsen is famous for causing controversy in his day for a side of society that was unconventional to the victorians' morals. Weren't some of the great european novelists like tolstoy and belzac famous for the high level of Verisimilitude in their works?

You mean like Verlaine, Oscar Wilde, Baudelaire, Poe, Lewis Carroll, Walter Pater, J.K. Huysmans, Theophile Gautier, W.B. Yeats, Rilke, Paul Valery, etc...:D Certainly, there were writers who were deeply concerned with presenting a "realistic" view of human existence (or challenging the accepted view of what passed for "realism"), as well as with making a social statement... but is that why they are known or have survived? Surely, there are endless "realists" who have faded into oblivion... so why did Zola, Flaubert, Dickens, Tolstoy, etc... really survive? Because they were the strongest artists.

But aren't the great realist writers of the 19th century ususally held in higher regard than than most of the others?

My views of high art are influenced by ray carney and his followers.

[Alexander III]

But aren't the great realist writers of the 19th century ususally held in higher regard than than most of the others?

My views of high art are influenced by ray carney and his followers.


Also, In all academic circles it is also a well known fact that the renaissance work is only studied out of necessity,not pleasure - Da Vinci, Raffaello and Michelangelo are flimsy artists whose art did not show the plight of man during their times, rather it was obsessed with this vain beauty. They seem rather ridiculous now; what purpose could creating beauty have ? None. Demonstrating reality is the only worth of art. Beauty is utterly overrated. Beauty doesn't put food in the mouth of the poor and it doesn't give them health or shelter...useless

[kelby_lake]

Also, In all academic circles it is also a well known fact that the renaissance work is only studied out of necessity,not pleasure - Da Vinci, Raffaello and Michelangelo are flimsy artists whose art did not show the plight of man during their times, rather it was obsessed with this vain beauty. They seem rather ridiculous now; what purpose could creating beauty have ? None. Demonstrating reality is the only worth of art. Beauty is utterly overrated. Beauty doesn't put food in the mouth of the poor and it doesn't give them health or shelter...useless

Demonstrating reality doesn't do that either. Art is not meant to save the world.

[hanzklein]

Also, In all academic circles it is also a well known fact that the renaissance work is only studied out of necessity,not pleasure - Da Vinci, Raffaello and Michelangelo are flimsy artists whose art did not show the plight of man during their times, rather it was obsessed with this vain beauty. They seem rather ridiculous now; what purpose could creating beauty have ? None. Demonstrating reality is the only worth of art. Beauty is utterly overrated. Beauty doesn't put food in the mouth of the poor and it doesn't give them health or shelter...useless
Well, uhh, what's the point of living then after getting the food, health, and shelter?

[kelby_lake]

Well, uhh, what's the point of living then after getting the food, health, and shelter?

Indeed. This love of beauty is often used as evidence against divine creation.

[stlukesguild]

But aren't the great realist writers of the 19th century ususally held in higher regard than than most of the others?

By whom. We have the realists: Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Zola, Flaubert (although he flip-flops with The Temptation of Saint Anthony), Balzac, Dickens, Checkov, Hardy, Henry james, etc...

On the other side you have Baudelaire, Lewis Carroll, Rimbaud, Verlaine, Walter Pater, Poe, Melville, Gautier, Tennyson, Rilke, Yeats, etc...

It would seem a divide at this time between the realist novelists on the one hand and the poetic aesthetes on the other. Personally, I'd rather spend more time with the poetic crew... but that's just me. Even so... if I were to acknowledge the artistic superiority of Tolstoy over any writer on the poetic aesthete side it would be because of his artistic abilities... not because he was a realist.

But if we are going the way of "realism"... lets take it further... who dominates into the 20th century?

The heirs of Tolstoy, Dickens, etc... would seem to include Lawrence, Thomas Wolfe, Hemingway, Joseph Conrad, Celine, Steinbeck, Thomas Mann, etc...

On the other side we would have Kafka, James Joyce, Hermann Hesse, Yeats (again), T.S. Eliot, Gunter Grass, Samuel Beckett, J.L. Borges, Pablo Neruda, etc... and Faulkner and Proust would straddle the line owing much to either side of the spectrum. Indeed, one might argue that "realism" or "life" remains a common theme of art... but ultimately it is the quality of the art and not the depth of understanding of the human condition or reality that makes a work of art.

As Alex suggested (sarcastically) one might argue that Leonardo, Raphael, Michelangelo, Botticelli, etc... knew little of the day to day realities of peasant life... or cared little for such in their paintings where idealistic notion of beauty were far more important. Their art doesn't suffer from a lack of understanding of the human condition.

[JCamilo]

Even this line... Dostoievisky is heavinly influenced by Gogol, which realism is absurd. Melville is very realistic, but that was nothing to do with dealing with reality. Tolstoy ended writing christian stories and one of his best works is a short fable told by a horse. James has wrote ghost stories, and there goes.

[Jeremydav]

The human condition doesn't mean the suffering of peasants. This isn't a difficult concept. Art has to have a meaning that can be found universally, and displays some sort of truth about humanity. Da Vinci's wondrous paintings of beauty and flawlessness display the vanity of humans. Or divinity. Or any of the many subjects of his art. Aesthetics are of course important, but only as a medium of a deeper beauty. There is emotion in the Mona Lisa. Not just decor.

[stlukesguild]

There is emotion in the Mona Lisa.

What emotion is it? Please define it for me. What does it "mean"?

What is the meaning of this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXtpN4oXr5Y&feature=related

Or this?

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5246/5259908260_6d8427cd5b_z.jpg

The deep human meaning or truth revealed in many of Shakespeare's sonnets is little more than "When I think of you I feel blue". It is the way in which Shakespeare conveys this... his mastery of his art... that makes them great art. This is not to say that the "meaning" or rather the subject and content are irrelevant... but they do not make or break the art. The emotion and "meaning" of a work of art is something that we bring to the art. What I get from Robert Motherwell's painting may not be the same as what another viewer brings... or even what the artist brought or intended.

[JCamilo]

There is no emotion on Monalisa at all. It is just an object. The emotion is all yours. And in Art, Aesthetic is all. It is not in science, it is not in religion, it is in art.

Some concepts, your so called opnion, seems naive.

For example, universal truth? There is only one "Universal truth", it is Ethics. Beauty has nothing to do with that. It is not an universal truth at all. Therefore, Art is not about showing an universa truth, but an universal relation betwen umanking and aesthetics (which I roughtly can say, with what we define as beauty or wondrous).

Truth is even more dangerous. If truth is understood as something true no matter what, then Art has little to do with that, considering it shows the truth displayed by the artist, at that given momment. Duchamps truth has nothing to do with Mozart Truth. And it would imply that one individual, not expecionally gifted with anything more than other humans which knowledge on other areas, and not his own area which is human expression. Most artists have superficial knowledge of science and philosophy. Shakespeare was not Francis Bacon, Melville was not Charles Darwin, Virgil was not Cicero. Even if they could know one thing or another, and those thinkers had their artistic vallue (or not), the truth is that Philosophers, Scientists, Doctors, Psychologists, etc have all the same or more knowledge about the truth than an artist, that can be completely clueless.

And if true means reality, that cannt be more far-fetched. Even the sytle Realism is nothing but the desire to portrait a fiction as if it is real. They all knew, even Flaubert, the most realist of all, that in the end his art was the style, the right word, the rhytm and not the descrption of a scene, but how it was done.

And the assumption art must convey a message that is the truth, implies on understandment of art. And while a guy like Voltaire wanted it, the farsant Voltaire, wanted it, guys like Mallarmé wanted only to be as obscure as possible. And he still a fine artist. It is rather a simplistic view of literatura that one can believe it aims clarity.

[Alexander III]

The human condition doesn't mean the suffering of peasants. This isn't a difficult concept. Art has to have a meaning that can be found universally, and displays some sort of truth about humanity. Da Vinci's wondrous paintings of beauty and flawlessness display the vanity of humans. Or divinity. Or any of the many subjects of his art. Aesthetics are of course important, but only as a medium of a deeper beauty. There is emotion in the Mona Lisa. Not just decor.

I am not familiar with the Mona Lisa, however in Michelangelo's David, there is no emotion which had not already been portrayed, their is no insight into the human condition. There is only the most beautiful representation of a man I have ever seen.

The deep infatuation which society has with all forms of art, since the dawn of man is because while all other subjects seek truth in their respective fields, art does not. Art does not seek truth, it creates its own world its own truth, it transcends all that is real and mortal, it aspires and creates that which has no tangible foothold in our reality and thus it gains the appearance of something transedal, divine, ethereal; which is why humanity is so attracted by it.

[Seasider]

...all Ye know on Earth,
And all Ye need to know.

[Transmodernism]

Perhaps we should let Milton speak for himself when he heap'd 'pon Will praise, arguing that the Bard's accomplishments were so great that no epitaph could possibly do the man justice:


What needs my Shakespeare for his honored bones
The labor of an age in piled stones?
Or that his hallowed reliques should be hid
Under a star-ypointing pyramid?
Dear son of Memory, great heir of Fame,
What need'st thou such weak witness of thy name?
Thou in our wonder and astonishment
Hast built thy self a livelong monument.
For whilst, to th' shame of slow-endeavoring art,
Thy easy numbers flow, and that each heart
Hath from the leaves of thy unvalued book
Those Delphic lines with deep impression took,
Then thou, our fancy of itself bereaving,
Dost make us marble with too much conceiving,
And so sepulchred in such pomp dost lie
That kings for such a tomb would wish to die.

[Seasider]

Amen to that.

[oshima]

Art is not solely meant to convey truth or portray the deeper or hidden realities of life, although it certainly can and has done this in triumphant ways. No, art is primarily about a human being creating something new into the world, whether to express his experience, experiment ascetically, simply manifest his will, or for a million other reasons. Art is, "I have created." and then we all discuss the art and connect it to other art because it is interesting and a delightful workout for the intellect or our sense of beauty (or ugliness, or the beauty in ugliness or the ugliness in beauty.)
The reason it is so worthy to compare Milton to Shakespeare is because it ignites conversation about creation about what inspires us and what we find banal or misconceived. In the comparison new ideas are found that perhaps make our own creative endeavors more informed and meaningful.

[Transmodernism]

Art is not solely meant to convey truth or portray the deeper or hidden realities of life, although it certainly can and has done this in triumphant ways. No, art is primarily about a human being creating something new into the world, whether to express his experience, experiment ascetically, simply manifest his will, or for a million other reasons. Art is, "I have created." and then we all discuss the art and connect it to other art because it is interesting and a delightful workout for the intellect or our sense of beauty (or ugliness, or the beauty in ugliness or the ugliness in beauty.)
The reason it is so worthy to compare Milton to Shakespeare is because it ignites conversation about creation about what inspires us and what we find banal or misconceived. In the comparison new ideas are found that perhaps make our own creative endeavors more informed and meaningful.

Great points!

Perhaps part of the difficulty of assessing which of these two was better lies in the fact that they had different artistic goals. As you said, art can be so much, it can do so many things; it can give insights into the human condition, but many works of art do completely different things and have nothing to do with said condition.

Milton and Shakespeare were both great poets who wrote profoundly different works of literature on profoundly different themes; they had differing artistic goals. We should be quite happy that we, as English speakers/readers, have such a rich literary inheritance.

And plus, if the two of them were together today, they'd probably go out for a cup o' Joe at Starbucks and get along quite splendidly.

[JCamilo]

Milton would probally be a big bully calling Shakespeare a wussy and pulling his moustache...

[stlukesguild]

Of course Shakespeare could always get back at him a few years later after Milton went blind.

[JCamilo]

crossdressing as Milton's wife

[kelby_lake]

crossdressing as Milton's wife

Lol :D

[stlukesguild]

Might lead to some more sonnets.:D

[Mr.lucifer]

Imagine if they had a child together.

[JCamilo]

It would be one more play, with Ben Johnson falling in love with both

[stlukesguild]

John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester might be better suited to tell the tale.

[JCamilo]

Which would present a scene of Lucifer refusing Shylock entrance in hell...

[Alexander III]

De Sade would write up how the child was conceived...