Milton, the Bible, and Misogyny by Philip J. Gallagher (review)

94Rocky Mountain Review Lacanian theory, semiotics, Marxism, and deconstruction, respectively. Henry Sussman's article, "Psychoanalysis Modern and Post-Modern," reviews the parallels between changes in twentieth-century literature and changes in psychoanalytic theory. This is another good introductory article. The last section, "Psychoanalysis and Literary Criticism," was another I found especially interesting. Claire Kahane's "The Bostonians and the Figure of the Speaking Woman," demonstrates how psychoanalytic awareness dissolves boundaries between author, text, and reader. Richard Feldstein's reading of Faulkner and Charles Bernheimer's of Woolf serve as fitting conclusions to the volume, because they sent me back full circle to the first article. Bernheimer's analysis of Virginia Woolf and her text, in classically psychoanalytic terms, triggered resistance in me that I was surprised to feel, having become so enlightened, I'd thought, in reading this book. I returned to Nelson, who reminded me to question my own fear of the psychoanalytic approach to literature. One odd aspect ofthis book is its front cover, adorned by Moreau's Oedipus and the Sphinx, which privileges the very tradition many ofthese authors call into question. As Flieger, for one, points out, feminism's distrust of psychoanalysis stems in part from "the Freudian . . . privileging of the male model in the Oedipal drama; and in Lacanian theory, the status ofthe phallus as privileged signifier" (54). In this painting, the phallus—though covered by the strategically placed foot ofthe sphinx—is at the geometric center ofthe page. CYNTHIA A. KIMBALL State University of New York at Buffalo PHILIP J. GALLAGHER. Milton, the Bible, and Misogyny. Eugene R. Cunnar and Gail L. Mortimer, eds. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1990. 185 p. Philip Gallagher argues forcefully that "far from being an advocate of the subjection of woman, this good and great poet [Milton] set out with Abdelian zeal to divest both the Bible and the Judaeo-Christian tradition of virtually every vestige of antifeminism" (7). Granting that many sections of the Bible are repositories of misogyny, Gallagher offers a detailed examination of Paradise Lost and Samson Agonistes to show that Milton departed from Biblical tradition in any instance in which his source material seemed to take a negative view of women. The work is divided into three parts in which the creation, fall, and regeneration are considered in three successive chapters. Regarding the fall, Gallagher suggests that Satan's deception of the angel Uriel should be read as a parallel to the deception of Eve. Eve need not be regarded as Adam's inferior intellectually because she does not see through Satan's wiles; like Uriel, she is intelligent and sinless, but no match for the father of lies. He also finds a parallel between the descent ofRaphael to warn Adam in Paradise Lost and the marriage of Samson to the Woman of Timna in Samson Agonistes. Characterizing both the angel and the woman as examples of God's prevenient grace, Gallagher insists that by making every Book Reviews95 effort to warn Adam and Samson, God has rendered them entirely responsible for their falls and so has hastened their respective regenerations. God thus lovingly provides a conviction ofguilt which hastens spiritual renovation. While this argument at first seems to verge on casuistry, Gallagher quite compellingly points out that Samson received divine prompting to marry the Woman of Timna. He was not the helpless victim of his own lust; rather, his marriage supplied him with the means of exacting retribution against God's enemies. Thus, the Woman ofTimna becomes an agent whom God uses to bring Samson to a recognition ofhis own guilt. Moreover, the Biblical Samson's assignation with Dalila is a selfish affair while in Milton's text he has public political reasons. He is depicted as understandably confused because his earlier marriage had received God's sanction. Gallagher concludes his book with a thought-provoking comment on the contemporary debate over charges that Milton was, or was not, a misogynist. He observes that the denunciations ofKatherine M. Rogers and Sandra Gilbert do not finally disturb him; instead, he is concerned about the grounds and tactics used by female scholars to defend Milton. According to Gallagher, to discuss Eve's fall as developing...