Paradise Lost--through Book 3

[Laurel]

Dianna wrote: "Zeke I also have problems with that story and also with the story of how Lot offered his daughters to the wicked men of the city of Sodom so they would not defile the angels. I am glad I live in a..."

Lot was a scoundrel, Dianna, as were many of the people in the Bible. He's a good example of the truth that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

[Laurel]

Amanda wrote: Some view the story of Abraham and Isaac as prophetic. God stopped Abraham from committing a horrible act, and offered instead a ram for sacrifice. This can be seen a prophecy of God offering his Son, often referred to as a perfect lamb, as a method by which men can overcome sin.

Also, I've heard the interpretation that the reason Abraham and Isaac (who was grown at this point) were so willing to be promptly obedient is because they knew God would provide mercy. As in, it appeared that God was leading them into danger and heartbreak, but they trusted in His greater purpose and care, and He did come through. They trusted God's character- as it seems Milton does, as well.

Exactly, Amanda.

[[deleted user]]

Laurele: I have told that story to children many times, Zeke, and have always emphasized what I think is the point of the story: God did not have Abraham take his son's life; He does not demand human sacrifice as the gods of the surrounding nations did. Another little point that I bring up is Abraham's reply to Isaac when Isaac asked his father where the sacrificial lamb was.

I wish you had been my teacher Laurele.

And I appreciate the way you are here to guide those of us who are more secular or "liberal" in our own faith beliefs.

I'm working on a post based on C.S. Lewis about ways to read the poem on its own terms, which is a struggle for me. But the information from you, and others, has been very helpful.

[Thomas]

Zeke -- if you're not familiar with Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling you might find it interesting. It's getting off topic, so I won't comment on it too much, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

[[deleted user]]

Thanks Thomas. I remember reading it in college. I should revisit it. I remember being troubled by it.

[[deleted user]]

Thomas, thanks for the reminder on Kierkegaard. I went looking for an anthology of his to look for F&T and found I'd shelved it in between Weber's Essays in Sociology and Kubler-Ross's On Death and Dying. Not at all sure what that says of my thought processes :(

[MadgeUK]

Zeke wrote: "I appreciate the way you [Laurel:] are here to guide those of us who are more secular"

I heartily second that!

[Dianna]

Laurele, Lot is definitely not someone I want to model my life after. That's why I wonder why God saved him yet turned his wife into a pillar of salt just for looking back at the city of Sodom as he was destroying it. I guess maybe I am off topic (I have a tendency to do that sometimes...).

Lot also got drunk and exposed himself to his daughters and they supposedly decided that since they were the last people on earth they should have sex with him so they could repopulate the world. Sin always seems to be the woman's fault in the Old Testament.

[[deleted user]]

Hardly on the (literally) cosmic level of much of the discussion to date, I wanted to point to a couple of lines that I enjoyed, and which show Milton the craftsman at work.

1. In Shakespeare I enjoy the quibbles, or puns, that sprinkle even the most serious work. There is a great one at line 80 of Book III. God, describing Satan to the Son, says:

"Only begotten Son, sees thou what rage
Transports our Adversary..."

My edition notes that Transports means both "drives" and "bears." However, even better is the modern meaning which would be "alters."

2. At line 135, when God speaks, "ambrosial fragrance" fills heaven. His words are sensed not heard.

3. The definition of hypocrisy cannot be left unnoted:

Hypocrisy, the only evil that walks
invisible, except to God alone.

Worthy of Mark Twain. And so true!

4. Can anyone help me with the scansion of the closing two lines? Satan is descending to Paradise and, if I scan it correctly, he lands with a thump, because it ends one foot short.

Throws his steep flight in many an airy wheel,
Nor stayed, til on Niphates' top he lights.

[Laurel]

Dianna wrote: "Laurele, Lot is definitely not someone I want to model my life after. That's why I wonder why God saved him yet turned his wife into a pillar of salt just for looking back at the city of Sodom as ..."

Right, Dianna. Please do not be a Lot.

[Laurel]

Zeke wrote: 4. Can anyone help me with the scansion of the closing two lines? Satan is descending to Paradise and, if I read it correctly, the last line, where he lands, ends one foot short.

Throws his steep flight in many an airy wheel,
Nor stayed, til on Niphates' top he lights.

Did you give Niphates' three syllables? What is Niphates, by the way?

[[deleted user]]

Darn! Oh well. At least I tried.

[Laurel]

I mentioned that Milton used the entire Bible, not just the first three chapters of Genesis, in his creation of Paradise Lost. Here is a passage in Philippians 2 that he used for Book 3:

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

We're getting in Milton's first three books a strong contrast between the pride of Satan and the humility of Christ. Satan's pride, by the way, is far more human than Christ's humility, which may be why so many people side with Satan when they read Milton. Pride we can understand, but who wants to be humble?

[MadgeUK]

And yet Christ argues with God, which isn't particularly humble:-

'O Father, gracious was that word which clos'd
Thy sovran command, that Man should find grace;
, that Man should find grace;
For which both Heaven and earth shall high extol
Thy praises, with the innumerable sound
Of hymns and sacred songs, wherewith thy throne
Encompass'd shall resound thee ever blest.
For should Man finally be lost, should Man,
Thy creature late so lov'd, thy youngest son,
Fall circumvented thus by fraud, though join'd
With his own folly? that be from thee far,
That far be from thee, Father, who art judge
Of all things made, and judgest only right.
Or shall the Adversary thus obtain
His end, and frustrate thine? shall he fulfill
His malice, and thy goodness bring to nought,
Or proud return, though to his heavier doom,
Yet with revenge accomplish'd, and to Hell'
Draw after him the whole race of mankind,
By him corrupted? or wilt thou thyself
Abolish thy creation, and unmake
For him, what for thy glory thou hast made?
So should thy goodness and thy greatness both
Be question'd and blasphem'd without defence.....

....And now without redemption all mankind
Must have been lost, adjudg'd to Death and Hell
By doom severe, had not the Son of God,
In whom the fulness dwells of love divine,
His dearest mediation thus renew'd.
Father, thy word is past, Man shall find grace;
And shall grace not find means, that finds her way,
The speediest of thy winged messengers,
To visit all thy creatures, and to all
Comes unprevented, unimplor'd, unsought?
Happy for Man, so coming; he her aid
Can never seek, once dead in sins, and lost;
Atonement for himself, or offering meet,
Indebted and undone, hath none to bring;
Behold me then: me for him, life for life
I offer: on me let thine anger fall;
Account me Man; I for his sake will leave
Thy bosom, and this glory next to thee
Freely put off, and for him lastly die
Well pleased; on me let Death wreak all his rage.
Under his gloomy power I shall not long
Lie vanquished.

[MadgeUK]

I was thinking of the religious meaning of humility:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humility...

Are men 'beneath' Christ - I thought he was one of them?

[Roger]

MadgeUK wrote: "I was thinking of the religious meaning of humility:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humility...

Are men 'beneath' Christ - I thought he was one of them?"

Christ has two natures, divine and human. His divine nature is superior to ours, though His human nature is equal. That's Christian orthodoxy. Milton's view (from what I've heard) was that Christ is a created being, not part of the Godhead. I don't know if he ascribed two natures to Him. Interesting question.

[Dianna]

Yes indeed! Very interesting!

[Laurel]

MadgeUK wrote: "I was thinking of the religious meaning of humility:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humility...

Are men 'beneath' Christ - I thought he was one of them?"

Here is a definition of humility that I like better. It's from The Screwtape Letters," I think, and goes something like this: "Humility is the state of mind in which one could design the most beautiful cathedral in the world, Know it to be the most beautiful, and rejoice in the fact, but rejoice no more than if his best friend had done it."

[[deleted user]]

In his chapter titled Hierarchy, Lewis makes much of the importance of order in the (prelapsarian) or ideal world. In such a world every one and every thing is superior to some and lesser than others.

Lewis argues that this life of degree is, in fact, a "life of beatitude." Accepting one's proper place in the hierarchy, each individual benefits and "delights in the ceremonious interchange of condescension (a beautiful word we have spoiled) on the one side and reverence on the other."

[Dianna]

Zeke, doesn't that somehow contradict what Jesus does when he washes the disciples feet, for example.

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/wh...

{Master = Servant

Immediately upon reading the account, we notice that Christ performs a menial task generally done by the lowliest servant in the household. Jesus says of this in verses 13-15:

"You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet; you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you. Most assuredly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. "}

[[deleted user]]

@Dianna: I will leave that to those more schooled than I. Frankly, I think Jesus is one of the most (wonderfully) subversive figures in history. A favorite book title of mine --a book about liberation theology in Latin America--was To Be a Christian is to Be a Revolutionary.


I would venture that, as I understand the Great Chain of Being, appearances can be deceiving. For example, the reign of Charles is tyranical because he is not genuinely superior; subjects do not owe him reverence and his condescension to them is of the negative kind.

In that light, what Jesus is saying could be that social distinctions are irrelevant to God and, from an anti-Trinitarian perspective, which Milton would have shared, Christ is acknowledging the superiority of God, the one "who sent him."

[Dianna]

I agree with that Zeke. I believe that social distinctions are irrelevant and that the reason Jesus was crucified was because he wanted to change the status quo. It seems that almost all the people I admire in history have wanted to change the status quo and have been murdered...Socrates, Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., John Lennon...

[Thomas]

Roger wrote: "Milton's view (from what I've heard) was that Christ is a created being, not part of the Godhead. I don't know if he ascribed two natures to Him. Interesting question. "
..."

There is an indication of Milton's view in God's response to the Son, directly after the passage quoted by Madge above, lines III:275-343. Jesus

"hast been found
By merit more than birthright Son of God,
Found worthiest to be so by being good...

"Here shalt thou sit incarnate, here shalt reign
Both God and man, Son both of God and man...

But after the last judgment,

"Then thou thy regal scepter shalt lay by,
For regal scepter then no more shall need,
God shall be all in all."

Which isn't to make matters crystal clear, but God and the Son are clearly separate here, the Son a creation of the Father, at least until the last judgment.

Milton's treatment of the issue in The Christian Doctrine is long and laborious (and heavily supported by scriptural references) and I'm not entirely satisfied with my understanding of it, but this seems to be his conclusion:

Rev xix. 13 "his name is called The Word of God" -- that is, of the one God: he himself is a distinct person. If therefore he be a distinct person, he is distinct from God who is unity. How then is he himself also God? By the same right as he enjoys the title of the Word, or of the only begotten Son, namely, by the will of the one God. This seems to be the reason why it is repeated in the second verse -- "the same was in the beginning with God;" which enforces what the apostle wished we should principally observe, not that he was in the beginning God, but in the beginning with God; that he might show him to be God only by proximity and love, not in essence..."

What I conclude from this is that Milton would say no, they are not of the same nature. At one point he even makes the purely rational argument that since God is infinite in nature, the notion that the Son is also infinite is absurd -- for how can there be two distinct but coexisting infinities?

Which reminds me... What is an "Eternal coeternal beam"?

[MadgeUK]

Zeke wrote: "In his chapter titled Hierarchy, Lewis makes much of the importance of order in the (prelapsarian) or ideal world. In such a world every one and every thing is superior to some and lesser than othe..."

Coeternal means existing together eternally. It is probably one of the many words Milton invented:).

Lewis' 'Life of Beatitude' was very much a Victorian p.o.v. too :-

The rich man at his castle
The poor man at his gate]
GOD made them high or lowly
And ordered their estate.

It was a view which kept women and working people in subjection for centuries.:(

Here is an interesting p.o.v. about the way in which Milton treats Adam and Eve as unequal, even though Genesis 1:27 says 'God created man in his own image...male and female he created them'. Milton's view that women were inferior was a common one even though there were other Puritans who were challenging it with their insistence that all were equal before God.:(. :-

http://www.editorskylar.com/effiminat...

Milton's belief that Christ was a separate being is part of his rejection of the Trinity. In his lecture on Book III John Rogers mentions that in PL God does not choose to sacrifice his son, Christ voluntarily subordinates himself to God: 'Behold me then: Me for him, life for life/I offer: On me let thine anger fall.' Rogers sees this as underlining Milton's liberal/libertarian thinking, that people can make choices, have free will.

Rogers also mentions that there is no basis in the Scriptures for the idea of the Trinity, which was rejected by other prominent Christian scholars at the time, including Newton, and later, John Locke.

[[deleted user]]

My own modest contributions aside, the conversation about the nature of the Son has been helpful to me. However, Thomas included a quotation from the poem that still has me confused.


"hast been found
By merit more than birthright Son of God,
Found worthiest to be so by being good...

I know what I would like this to mean, but it would be inconsistent with what others have taught me about the theology of the poem.

[Roger]

Rogers also mentions that there is no basis in the Scriptures for the idea of the Trinity..."

Rogers's opinion is disputed by a very large number of eminent scholars.

[Dianna]

That confused me...Roger talking about Rogers...I thought you were talking to yourself there ;) lol

I hope we aren't going to have a doctrinal disputation on the idea of the Trinity because it has been my experience that people believe what they want to believe and there is not much anyone can do to change someone's mind once it is made up.

I, personally, don't believe the doctrine of the Trinity even though I was raised in a church that taught it. Words are just words and people can interpret them any way they want to interpret them.

As a matter of fact, eminent scholars contributed to the crucifixion of Christ...

[Roger]

Dianna wrote: "That confused me...Roger talking about Rogers...I thought you were talking to yourself there ;) lol

I hope we aren't going to have a doctrinal disputation on the idea of the Trinity because it h..."

Roger. Just clarifying fact vs. opinion.

[Dianna]

But do you not agree that eminent scholars can be wrong?

Eminent scholars thought the earth was flat and believed it was the center of the universe...

[MadgeUK]

Whether or not there is a Trinity is a dispute that will run and run since like so many scriptural ideas there is nothing to prove or to disprove it. It keeps scholars and publishers in work though:). I think perhaps Prof Rogers was saying that was what Milton thought, not what he thought. He is careful to avoid personal opinions on doctrinal matters. It is important to the interpretation of PL that we understand what Milton thought about it. For instance, if Jesus was part of God/the Godhead, could he have argued with him? (Just a thought.) There is also no mention of the third part of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit - in PL. Eight anti-trinitarian heretics were burned at the stake between 1548 and 1612 and yet Milton was brave enough to assert in On Christian Doctrine that 'the Father and Son are certainly not one in essence' so he was sticking his neck out, although that might be why it wasn't published in his lifetime!

Fundamentalist Muslims still believe the world is flat - it says in the Koran that the 'earth was spread out like a carpet - and some cite that as proof that the world is flat. I don't know whether some Christians still do but I expect some do if they are literalists.

[Everyman]

I got back so late for the vigorous discussion of Book 3 that I decided to sit it out and just enjoy from the sidelines. But as we get on toward Book 4, I do have a few comments I can’t help making.

The issue of blindness is crucial to Book 3, and I think perhaps it goes beyond even the excellent comments that Jeremy made [post 12:] from Blake. I tie it in with “now we see through a glass darkly,” and think perhaps Milton is imlying that being physically blind he can now see with the face-to-face purity of internal sight.

I like what Kate said [16:] about the two thrones and that Milton would have considered Satan’s Royal throne invalid. Note the “Barbaric” referring to kings in the line she quoted (applying to Eastern kings, since he didn’t dare say outright that James II was barbaric, but the implication seems there).

I enjoyed Kate’s and Laurel’s discussion on free will, with Thomas and Roger coming in a bit further on with interesting additions. Free will was particularly problematic for the early Protestants who had to wrestle with the conflict between free will and the doctrine of predestination. I’m not as convinced as Laurel is that there is a satisfactory answer. But OTOH, I wonder why we think that humans should be able to understand God in the first place. And I come back to Milton saying that he is going to justify the ways of God to man, not explain them.

One thing nobody commented on, that I saw, was that if God is really omniscient, he knew ahead of time not only that Adam and Eve would succumb to Satan, but he also knew that the Son would volunteer to save man. So that whole episode partakes more of scripted theater between them than a legitimate conversation. (How can you have a legitimate conversation with anybody if you know in advance every word they and you are going to say?)

An aside: I agree with Vikz that Socrates is more enjoyable to read than he would have been to converse with in public. (I.F. Stone wrote a very nice book titled “The Trial of Socrates” discussing why it made perfect sense for the trial to come out the way it did.)

I enjoyed the way Zeke, and others, are able to weave the comments from Rogers lectures into the discussion. Having had two nieces who went to Yale, I’m not surprised at all at the pure lecture format of the course. You don’t see the class, but it’s probably several hundred students at least; hard to teach it any other way. (That one class is probably larger than the entire student body of my college!)

I agree totally with Zeke [40:] that this discussion of the poem beautifully inter-relates two critical areas of European 16th and 17th century thought and events – the Protestant Reformation and the English Civil War. Both were almost social tsunamis.

I agree with Laurel [45:] that “I don't think that Milton does a really good job in characterizing God the Father here in Book 3.” It will be interesting to see as we go on whether we think that Milton does as good a job presenting God as a character as he does presenting Satan as a character.

When Thomas says [47:] that “To some extent I think what Milton intends to do -- look into the mind of God and explain it -- charts a similarly dangerous course,” I go back to Milton's statement that he’s trying to justify the ways of God to man. Is he also trying to explain, or just to restate and amplify the acts of God as they are portrayed and implied I the Bible? That is, is Milton really trying to explain God? Maybe we can’t answer this until later in the poem, but I think there is a significant difference between justifying and explaining. Or am I wrong here?

Dianna wrote [49:] “I am glad I live in a time of "enlightenment" but I wonder how much of our own belief system will be looked on as unenlightened in the centuries to come.” I find that a really great question. Doesn’t every generation, or at least almost every generation, think that they have found better and more enlightened answers than the generations that came before (even if we now think they were wrong, as in the “Dark Ages” seen as retreating from the more enlightened Greek and Roman cultures)?

I am finding Laurel’s explication of many of the Biblical discussions of God’s behavior [53 being one great example:] to be very enlightening. Her wisdom seems particularly relevant because she is perhaps the closest of all of us to really understanding Milton’s Biblical understanding. I am finding it valuable to read PL both on the level of my own contemporary beliefs and on the level of Milton’s contemporaneous beliefs. Laurel is helping me stay grounded in the latter.

In 62, Zeke asks:

4. Can anyone help me with the scansion of the closing two lines? Satan is descending to Paradise and, if I scan it correctly, he lands with a thump, because it ends one foot short.

Throws his steep flight in many an airy wheel,
Nor stayed, til on Niphates' top he lights.

The line scans correctly when you give Niphates three syllables. Putting it in sing-song (which, as Rogers points out, is not the way to read Milton, but may help with the scansion):
Nor stayed, til on Ni pha tes' top he lights.

Why did Milton choose Niphates for Satan’s landing point? I can’t find any particular reason; the mountain doesn’t, as far as I know, have any spiritual significance either in Christian or in pre-Christian faiths. Does anybody have any notes that would suggest why this particular mountain? Of course, the exact location of Eden was (and still is) a subject, still unresolved as far as I know, of discussion and controversy for Judeo-Christian theologians.

I both love and am awed by Laurel’s insight in post 67: “We're getting in Milton's first three books a strong contrast between the pride of Satan and the humility of Christ. Satan's pride, by the way, is far more human than Christ's humility, which may be why so many people side with Satan when they read Milton. Pride we can understand, but who wants to be humble?”

Madge, in 68, mentions Christ (actually, of course, not Christ at that point in the poem, since by my understanding he doesn’t become Christ (to Christians, at least; most Jews are still waiting for the appearance of Christ or the Messiah) until after his appearance as human) arguing with God. This reminds me of a fascinating explication I heard many years ago of Abraham arguing – really, bargaining – with God over how many good people it will take to save Sodom and Gomorrah [Genesis 18:]. The passage is fascinating because of a human getting God to change his mind by persuasion (apparently, at least; of course, God, being omniscient, knew all along that this was going to happen). Many people today have lost the belief that humans can talk and argue directly with God, but this is an integral aspect of the Bible and of Paradise Lost that we should not overlook. The God of the Bible and of the Reformation, and still of many contemporary Christians, is not a remote concept, but a true presence and intercessor in man’s affairs.

Finally, I agree with Dianna [82:] when she says “I hope we aren't going to have a doctrinal disputation on the idea of the Trinity.” I thought the theological discussions throughout this Book 3 discussion were very well done – explanation and discussion with respect for those who might both agree and disagree with any of the theological points. Dianna is right that discussion and understanding of theological elements of the poem are essential to understanding it, but that doctrinal disputes would hinder the quality and openness of the discussion, and I’m very pleased that the discussion didn’t go there. The quality of the posts and discussion throughout both this and the earlier threads has been of the highest standard. My great appreciation all, and I look forward eagerly to continuing the journey with you since my travels, for the time being, are over and I can return to full participation.

[MadgeUK]

Wow Everyman! What a summary!

I never know what to call Jesus/Christ/Jesus Christ/Son of God/Saviour/Messiah, not being a Christian or a biblical scholar they seem much of a muchness to me. Sorry.

On the justification/explanation point, Prof Rogers noted that some read the 'justify' as 'vindicate' but this is wrong because it assumes that God has done something wrong which needs vindicating and Milton did not believe that. As a lawyer I am sure you can clear this one up:). It all seems a bit like angels dancing on the point of a needle to me! :O

Mount Ararat is in the Niphates mountain range so this may have been a reason for Milton to use it as I believe there are several classical and biblical references to Mount Ararat in PL. And of course it is where Noah's ark supposedly landed.

[Thomas]

MadgeUK wrote: "There is also no mention of the third part of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit - in PL. Eight anti-trinitarian heretics were burned at the stake between 1548 and 1612 and yet Milton was brave enough to assert in On Christian Doctrine that 'the Father and Son are certainly not one in essence' so he was sticking his neck out, although that might be why it wasn't published ijn his lifetime!
"

This is presumably the reason why Milton did not finish and publish the Christian Doctrine. Not that he wasn't brave enough -- he certainly stuck his neck out at other times, and paid the consequences -- but in this case the stakes were a little too high. And hot.

[Laurel]

Thomas wrote: There is an indication of Milton's view in God's response to the Son, directly after the passage quoted by Madge above, lines III:275-343. Jesus

"hast been found
By merit more than birthright Son of God,
Found worthiest to be so by being good...

"Here shalt thou sit incarnate, here shalt reign
Both God and man, Son both of God and man...

But after the last judgment,

"Then thou thy regal scepter shalt lay by,
For regal scepter then no more shall need,
God shall be all in all."

Milton may have meant that the Son is not God in his "Christian Doctrine," if indeed he was the author of "Christian Doctrine." It seems to me that the author is putting down his own thoughts as they come to him, and his ideas on the subject may well have changed with time and maturity. I do not think, however, that Milton is saying in Paradise Lost that the Son is not God.

By merit more than birthright Son of God,
Found worthiest to be so by being good...

This, to me, says, "He is by merit even more than birthright the Son of God."

"Here shalt thou sit incarnate, here shalt reign
Both God and man, Son both of God and man...

He is God the Son and reigns as such. Sometime in the future we shall see no separation between the Persons of the Trinity, because there will be no need of separation.

[Laurel]

Everyman wrote: The issue of blindness is crucial to Book 3, and I think perhaps it goes beyond even the excellent comments that Jeremy made [post 12:] from Blake. I tie it in with “now we see through a glass darkly,” and think perhaps Milton is imlying that being physically blind he can now see with the face-to-face purity of internal sight.

Also this from the Faith Chapter:

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. --Hebrews 11:3.

[Laurel]

Thomas wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "There is also no mention of the third part of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit - in PL. Eight anti-trinitarian heretics were burned at the stake between 1548 and 1612 and yet Milton was..."

The Holy Spirit is mentioned at the very beginning of Book 1 as the one whom Milton calls upon to illuminate him, to call to his mind the things he has been taught in the Scriptures. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit does not talk about Himself.

[Dianna]

I have to say that though I, personally, don't believe in the Trinity it seems to me that Milton does.

[Roger]

Dianna wrote: "But do you not agree that eminent scholars can be wrong?

Eminent scholars thought the earth was flat and believed it was the center of the universe..."

Scholars have been wrong, but not about the Earth being spherical. That has been known since the Greek dawn of scholarship. One clue was ships disappearing hull-first over the horizon.

[[deleted user]]

Laurele, seeks to answer my question about a passage, but I'm afraid I still don't get it: By merit more than birthright Son of God,
Found worthiest to be so by being good...

This to me says, "He is by merit even more than birthright the Son of God."

I must be missing something, but this sounds like a restatement without explanation.

Milton tells us that God "literally" gave birth to the Son. (Don't know citation.) If so, the phrase is simply false. No?

On the other hand, if it is true, it would seem that other (angels? humans?)should also "by merit" be able to attain the status of Son of God.

[[deleted user]]

Regarding the Holy Spirit, one of the phrases I initially thought to be an oxymoron, turns out to be an allusion to the presence of some sort of Holy Spirit.

Dove-like satst brooding on the vast Abyss
And mad'st it pregnant:

The Dartmouth footnotes indicate that in John 1:32 the Holy Spirit appears as a Dove.

Milton is describing the Holy Spirit copulating with Chaos to create matter.

So this turns out not to be oxymoronic. Everyman, are you still waiting for my list with "bated breath?!

[Dianna]

Roger wrote: "Dianna wrote: "But do you not agree that eminent scholars can be wrong?

Eminent scholars thought the earth was flat and believed it was the center of the universe..."

Scholars have been wrong..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

I guess it depends on one's definition of scholar. I don't want to be pedantic but I made the assertion that eminent scholars can be wrong and you seem to agree with me on that so it seems beside the point to argue about who exactly thought the earth was flat. I was giving that as just one example of how those in power who are thought to have authority can be, are and have been wrong throughout history.

[Roger]

Dianna wrote: "Roger wrote: "Dianna wrote: "But do you not agree that eminent scholars can be wrong?

Eminent scholars thought the earth was flat and believed it was the center of the universe..."

Scholars h..."

I offered the tidbit on the knowledge of Earth's shape just as an interesting fact contradicting the popular notion that before Columbus people thought it was flat.

As you say, eminent scholars can be wrong, but that was not pertinent to the original point. A notion was offered as simple fact that is actually highly debatable (the notion that there is no support in the Bible for the doctrine of the Trinity). I pointed out the dissenting opinion of our scholars not to show that that the dissenting opinion was correct, but to show that that the original assertion was debatable.

[Everyman]

I think perhaps that we have gone far enough in discussing personal or contemporary beliefs about the doctrine of the trinity. For any further discussions of the trinity, let's focus on what Milton believed and how his beliefs are reflected in the poem.

Thanks.

[MadgeUK]

Milton portays God as not always good and Satan as not always evil. Thus, Blake's assertion that 'Milton was a true poet and of the devil's party without knowing it' seems true although he was of God's party as well. Therefore, we see a kind of dualism where Satan and God are coming across alternately favourable to our human (Christian) intellect and on the other hand distasteful too. We see Milton struggling to figure out how to justify God's ways but he also has to justify Satan's ways. This to me anticipates the thinking of the Age of Reason and the many debates which took place then about God, religion, good and evil and, of course, 'on the origin of the species'.

[[deleted user]]

MadgeUK wrote: "Milton portays God as not always good and Satan as not always evil. Thus, Blake's assertion that 'Milton was a true poet and of the devil's party without knowing it' seems true although he was of G..."

Exactly Madge. Milton fits in with all the other 17th C philosophers who were beginning to explore those issues. He was an exceptionally radical thinker who challenged existing convention all his life. To me there is no way his thinking would not have led him to examine the relationship between God and Satan in a new way, as well as the relationship between God and man. Milton was always curious, always questioning accepted wisdom. PL reflects Milton's internal debates on God, hence he seems to struggle in his attempt to "justifie the wayes of God to men".

And really, if it weren't for the struggle this poem would have been relegated to the dust bin. The internal conflicts are what makes it interesting and vibrant after several hundred years.

[Roger]

Kate wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Milton portays God as not always good and Satan as not always evil. Thus, Blake's assertion that 'Milton was a true poet and of the devil's party without knowing it' seems true alth..."

"Satan as not always evil" makes sense to me; Milton himself notes that he did not lose all good qualities when he fell. But "God as not always good" is different. Could Milton possibly mean that? Wouldn't that make God just the most powerful being in the neighborhood? And then where would Milton's standard of "good" come from, if not from God?

[Everyman]

MadgeUK wrote: "Milton portays God as not always good..."

I'm not sure what you mean by this, Madge. If you are applying a purely human-centered transitory definition of "good," that's correct, just as a child doesn't see a parent taking it in to the doctor to be jabbed by a needle as being at that moment good. But just as children don't always know what's good for them, neither perhaps do humans always know what's good for them.

[[deleted user]]

Roger/Everyman:

I am not sure that Milton has ever described God as "good", at least not so far in PL. Have I missed it somewhere? In book 3, the descriptions of God are all that of light: Effulgent, illuminating, bright, blazing, radiant. As in when the Son addresses God:

Thee, Father, first they sung Omnipotent,
Immutable, Immortal, Infinite,
Eternal King; the Author of all being,
Fonntain of light, thyself invisible
Amidst the glorious brightness where thou sit’st
Throned inaccessible, but when thou shadest
The full blaze of thy beams, and, through a cloud
Drawn round about thee like a radiant shrine,
Dark with excessive bright thy skirts appear,
Yet dazzle Heaven, that brightest Seraphim
Approach not, but with both wings veil their eyes.
Thee next they sang of all creation first,
Begotten Son, Divine Similitude,
In whose conspicuous countenance, without cloud
Made visible, the Almighty Father shines,
Whom else no creature can behold; on thee
Impressed the effulgence of his glory abides,

Milton's God is omniscient, all encompassing, illuminating, the source of vision (both physical and artistic, and how arrogant is that to claim God as your Muse?) but I never get the sense that he informs Milton's sense of "good" and "evil".

[Dianna]

Where do our standards of good and bad come from but our culture and our upbringing?

Jung: Evil needs to be pondered just as much as good, for good and evil are ultimately nothing but ideal extensions and abstractions of doing, and both belong to the chiaroscuro of life. In the last resort there is no good that cannot produce evil and no evil that cannot produce good.
Psychology and Alchemy (1944). CW 12: P.36

Where is a height without depth, and how can there be light that throws no shadow? There is no good that is not opposed by evil. "No man can be redeemed from a sin he has not committed," says Carpocrates; a deep saying for all who wish to understand, and a golden opportunity for all those who prefer to draw false conclusions. What is down below is not just an excuse for more pleasure, but something we fear because it demands to play its part in the life of the more conscious and more complete man.
"Woman In Europe" (1927). In CW 10: Civilization in Transition. P.271

http://www.nebulous-cargo.com/jung/go...

[Roger]

Dianna wrote: "Where do our standards of good and bad come from but our culture and our upbringing?"

Is this what Milton would say?