One of these devils is not like the other

By
One of my first thoughts after reading a few pages of this work was how much Goethe's Satan (Mephistopheles) contrasted with John Milton's Satan from Paradise Lost.

 The Satan Milton presented was temperamental, a know-it-all, and contradicted himself multiple times.  It was easy for us to understand him and the way he acted because his traits were those of humans; we were made to think of ourselves when reading his thought process.  He was also extremely lacking in respect (except for that one brief moment he admitted he was wrong) and openly insulted God often.
Mephistopheles seems completely different.  For starters, he's quite respectful when conversing with his creator and addresses Him properly as well as asking permission to torment Faust instead of just doing it like Milton's satan would have.  He also doesn't carry an air of false superiority and childishness like the latter, instead it seems he has a type of maturity and acceptance of his position.  During his conversation with God, they didn't speak to each other as one would think enemies would; they were civil and respectful but with enough room to for you to know they weren't friends.  All I could think of was 'frenemies' while reading their conversation.  
After analyzing Milton's Satan during our study of Paradise Lost, I wonder what Goethe's purpose was in portraying Satan this way. Or is this just the way he imagined him to be?


I commented on Natalie's and Sophia's post.

Comments

  1. Ethan LafontOctober 23, 2017 at 11:33 PM

    I wouldn't say they are frenemies, but I would suggest that because it is known that God is much more powerful, has and will win, Mephistopheles is keeping himself in check. Who knows, maybe he was much more temperamental in the past, and we are just seeing a different snapshot of him because of past, unwritten events??

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An Honest Reaction to Reading "Honest to God"

By
Originally I said in my last blog post that I liked this book, but I have sort of changed my mind. It is not that I hate it or anything, it is just weird and I don’t really agree with what John Robinson is saying most of the time. I appreciate that he is trying to write something different and new, but my problem is that some of the ideas are just a little too radical for my taste, and I disagree with him a lot. In the seventh and last chapter of the book, Robinson himself acknowledges his radicalness and writes about how he knows that this type of thought on religion is controversial. He goes on to write how all great thinkers were seen as controversial when they first started and says, “Every new religious truth comes as the destroyer of some other god”. To further prove this point, he uses the example of how Socrates was condemned as an atheist for not believing in multiple gods, and while it is true that Socrates was a great philosopher who was not seen as so when he was alive, I ...
Read more

Raphael and a man walk into Eden...

By
I'll just start off by saying Raphael is one of the three named archangels in Scripture we hear the least about, and I thoroughly enjoy just reading and seeing his name pop up. Regardless, I want to touch on Adam's recounting of his own..."birth". Take that with a grain of salt as Adam was not physically born, but rather he simply became. In truth, we should all be able to give a similar account to their first memory of consciousness and fully aware. Adam was created, but he realized he could walk, talk, and speak without first learning. Imagine being able to think clear thoughts in your native language and be a functioning individual right out of the womb. It's an incredible thought, and Adam can give a recall of this like it were yesterday...which it might have been, who knows? Aside from that, Adam could even give an account to Eve's creation. The Bible says nothing pertaining to this matter so this is where Milton does a bit of adlibbing and writes around ...
Read more

Extra blog

By
OK so, honors project! Honestly I really loved it as a whole. I said this already in the video, but I feel like I personally could've done better. I just feel like I didn't have enough time to completely process some questions and be able to give my best responses. I really enjoyed reading the O'Connor piece, which I think was everyone's favorite anyway. I love narrative stories like that, but honestly I'm glad I got to be in the Russell group. I feel like that group was the easiest to argue and answer from, honestly. As a whole, I would love to do a project like this again in later semesters. It was a lot of fun and time FLEW by.
Read more