No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Come Be My Love: The Song of Songs, Paradise Lost, and the Tradition of the Invitation Poem
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 October 2020
Abstract
The invitation poem, in which the beloved is urged to come away to an idealized place, is among the most enduring genres of European love poetry. The tradition begins with the biblical Song of Songs, which sets several important precedents: a dialogic framework, a close association of lover and landscape, and a sense of love as exile. Medieval and Renaissance invitation poems follow the Song of Songs but shift its emphases toward monologue, materialism, and importunity. Milton thus inherits a dual tradition of invitational poetry, both aspects of which figure prominently in Paradise Lost. Recognizing the traditional features of the genre therefore illuminates significant moments in the epic, including, notably, Eve's final speech. The invitational tropes in this passage reveal how Eve reconceives of exile as homecoming and how she reestablishes a sense of radical mutuality with Adam by completing a dialogue that began before the Fall.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2013 by The Modern Language Association of America
References
Works Cited
Assis, Elie. Flashes of Fire: A Literary Analysis of the Song of Songs. New York: Clark, 2009. Print.Google Scholar
Bergant, Dianne. The Song of Songs. Collegeville: Liturgical, 2001. Print. Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry.Google Scholar
Biblia sacra, iuxta vulgatam versionem. Ed. Weber, Robert. 4th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Print.Google Scholar
Black, Fiona C. The Artifice of Love: Grotesque Bodies in the Song of Songs. London: Clark, 2009. Print.Google Scholar
Bradley, Dennis R. “Iam dulcis arnica venito.” Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 19 (1984): 104–15. Print.Google Scholar
Bruster, Douglas. ‘“Come to the Tent Again’: ‘The Passionate Shepherd,‘ Dramatic Rape and Lyric Time.” Criticism 33 (1991): 49–72. Print.Google Scholar
Cheney, Patrick. Marlowe's Counterfeit Profession: Ovid, Spenser, Counter-nationhood. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1997. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dronke, Peter. “The Song of Songs and Medieval Love-Lyric.” The Bible and Medieval Culture. Ed. Lourdaux, W. and Verhelst, D. Leuven: Leuven UP, 1979. 236–62. Print.Google Scholar
Flinker, Noam. The Song of Songs in English Renaissance Literature: Kisses of Their Mouths. Cambridge: Brewer, 2000. Print.Google Scholar
Forsythe, R. S. “‘The Passionate Shepherd’ and English Poetry.” PMLA 40.3 (1925): 692–742. Print.Google Scholar
“Iam, dulcis arnica, venito.” The Cambridge Songs / Carmina Cantabrigiensa. Ed. Ziolkowski, Jan M. New York: Garland, 1994. 334–35. Print.Google Scholar
Kerrigan, William, and Braden, Gordon. “Milton's Coy Eve: Paradise Lost and Renaissance Love Poetry.” ELH 53 (1986): 27–51. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labreche, Ben. “Espousing Liberty: The Gender of Liberalism and the Politics of Miltonic Divorce.” ELH 77 (2010): 969–94. Print.Google Scholar
Landy, Francis. Paradoxes of Paradise: Identity and Difference in the Song of Songs. Sheffield: Almond, 1983. Print.Google Scholar
Landy, Francis. “The Song of Songs.” The Literary Guide to the Bible. Ed. Alter, Robert and Kermode, Frank. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1987. 305–19. Print.Google Scholar
Lewalski, Barbara Kiefer. Paradise Lost and the Rhetoric of Literary Forms. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1985. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marlowe, Christopher. The Collected Poems of Christopher Marlowe. Ed. Cheney, Patrick and Striar, Brian J. New York: Oxford UP, 2006. Print.Google Scholar
Marlowe, Christopher. “The Passionate Shepherd to His Love.” [1599]. Marlowe, Collected Poems 159.Google Scholar
Marlowe, Christopher. “The Passionate Shepherd to His Love.” [1600]. Marlowe, Collected Poems 157-58.Google Scholar
Milton, John. The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce. The Complete Prose Works of John Milton. Ed. Wolfe, Don M. et al. Vol. 2. New Haven: Yale UP, 1959. 217–356. Print. 8 vols. 1953-82.Google Scholar
Milton, John. Paradise Lost. Ed. Fowler, Alastair. 2nd ed. London: Longman, 1998. Print.Google Scholar
The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Ed. Coogan, Michael D. et al. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford UP, 1991. Print.Google Scholar
Ovid. Metamorphoses. Trans. Miller, Frank Justus. Rev. Goold, G. P. 3rd ed. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1984. Print. Loeb Classical Lib. 2 vols. 1977-84.Google Scholar
Polydorou, Desma. “Gender and Spiritual Equality in Marriage: A Dialogic Reading of Rachel Speght and John Milton.” Milton Quarterly 35 (2001): 22–32. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Revard, Stella P. “Eve and the Language of Love in Paradise Lost.” Renaissance Ecology: Imagining Eden in Milton's England. Ed. Hiltner, Ken. Pittsburgh: Duquesne UP, 2008. 31–44. Print.Google Scholar
Rogers, John. “Transported Touch: The Fruit of Marriage in Paradise Lost.” Milton and Gender. Ed. Martin, Catherine Gimelli. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004. 115–32. Print.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Shraga, trans. The Rashi Chumash. Vol. 1. Southfield: Targum, 1997. Print. 5 vols.Google Scholar
Theocritus. “Idyll XI.” The Greek Bucolic Poets. Trans. Edmonds, J. M. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1977. 140–47. Print. Loeb Classical Lib.Google Scholar
Turner, James Grantham. One Flesh: Paradisal Marriage and Sexual Relations in the Age of Milton. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987. Print. 5 vols.Google Scholar
Virgil. “Eclogue 2.” The Eclogues and Georgics. Ed. Williams, R. D. New York: St. Martin's, 1979. 5–7. Print.Google Scholar
Waddell, Helen, ed. and trans. Mediœval Latin Lyrics. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, 1948. Print.Google Scholar