Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Discussion - Paradise Lost
>
Paradise Lost - through Book 5
Roger wrote: "The proportion of Christian churches today that actually dissent from the Trinitarian formulation of Nicaea (three persons in one God; two natures and one person in Christ Jesus) is actually quite small ..."There are quite a few more Roger and over here there are many 'chapel' based congregations dating back to the Civil War who reject the Trinity, like the Muggletonians and the Plymouth Brethren (others listed below). Indeed with the currently low CofE and catholic attendances over here I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't more Non-trinitarians in the UK than Trinitarians. The Church of Scotland is Presbyterian (Calvinist & non-trinitarian) and they claim 42%. Wales too has a large number of Presbyterians, (who, of course, fought with Cromwell) Some of these sects split over the doctrine of the Trinity so there are Presbyterians who believe in it and those who don't. It seems to me that St Peter is going to have a difficult job sorting out the wheat from the chaff when the Ts and the Non-Ts get to the Pearly Gates!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrini...
This extract from Wikipedia mentions Milton's Monism in relation to PL:-
'By the late 1650s, Milton was a proponent of monism or animist materialism, the notion that a single material substance which is "animate, self-active, and free" composes everything in the universe: from stones and trees and bodies to minds, souls, angels, and God.[32:] Milton devised this position to avoid the mind-body dualism of Plato and Descartes as well as the mechanistic determinism of Hobbes. Milton's monism is most notably reflected in Paradise Lost when he has angels eat (5.433–39) and engage in sexual intercourse (8.622–29) and the De Doctrina, where he denies the dual natures of man and argues for a theory of Creation ex Deo.' Professor Rogers also mentions the Monism in PL in his lecture on Book 5.
Dianna wrote: "Thank you Madge. I feel like he is one of my best friends. I love literature and the written word so much because it allows us to be somehow eternal and hopefully connects us all together."Milton believed that poets had to be divinely inspired. He said that the true poet had a 'deep transported mind which soared aloft beyond the wheeling poles of the Ptolemaic universe to the courts of celestial Apollo'. He felt that 'the poet should live frugally, like the philosopher from Samos, and let herbs provide his harmless diet. Let a bowl of beech-wood, filled with clear water, stand by him, and may he drink soberly from a pure spring. In addition his youth must be chaste and free from crime, his morals strict and his hand unstained. He must be like a priest, when, bathed in holy water and gleaming in his sacred vestment, he rises to go and face the angry gods . . . . For the poet is sacred to the gods: he is their priest: his innermost heart and his mouth are both full of Jove.'
And "..he who would not be frustrate of his hope to write well hereafter in laudable things, ought him selfe to bee a true Poem, that is, a composition, and patterne of the best and honourablest things; not presuming to sing high praises of heroick men, or famous Cities, unlesse he have in himselfe the experience and practice of [58:] all that which is praiseworthy" which perhaps lead him to write in PL Book 1:22-6
what in me is dark
Illumine, what is low raise and support;
That to the highth of this great argument
I may assert eternal providence,
And justify the ways of God to men.
He seems to have set himself impossibly high standards - no wonder he ended up a very disappointed man:(.
MadgeUK wrote: "Roger wrote: "The proportion of Christian churches today that actually dissent from the Trinitarian formulation of Nicaea (three persons in one God; two natures and one person in Christ Jesus) is a..."Madge,
You are wrong about the Church of Scotland being non-Trinitarian. If you visit their website (http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/fa...) you will find the following:
We believe in one God:
Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
three persons living in the unity of love.
That's from their 1992 statement of faith; they also accept the Nicene Creed. Calvin was a thoroughgoing trinitarian and I have never heard of a non-trinitarian Prebyterian; I would be fascinated to encounter one. As you say, there are a number of small and more or less exotic sects like your Muggletonians that may deny the Trinity, but mainstream Christian churches do not (with the exceptions I noted previously).
Regarding Milton's monism, I propose that we stick to what we can find in PL. Certainly his angels eat and are not pure spirit, but I do not get monism out of that. They seem to be compound creatures like humans, just a little more on the spiritual side. That makes me wonder about two things: (1) Does Milton's God also eat? (2) Why did God make man, since man is seems to be just an inferior sort of angel? I think someone may have already asked this.
Roger wrote: "Why did God make man, since man is seems to be just an inferior sort of angel? I think someone may have already asked this. ..."
I was wondering this too. Rogers has a rather long discussion in this lecture about how the angels were created. In PL Satan claims the angels were self creating while Abdiel states they were created through the agency of the Son. Those two opposing claims are not reconciled as far as I can see.
If Satan is correct, God's creation of man in his own image completely separates man from angels. If Abdiel is correct then man is just a lesser kind of angel who might be able through some kind of spiritual transubstantiation (see Rogers again on the eating metaphor) become indistinguishable from the angels of heaven.
And if man is pretty much indistinguishable from angels, why is the fall necessary? Satan and his cohort essentially already took care of the issue of obedience and free will. Why is man created?
Help please.
I was wondering this too. Rogers has a rather long discussion in this lecture about how the angels were created. In PL Satan claims the angels were self creating while Abdiel states they were created through the agency of the Son. Those two opposing claims are not reconciled as far as I can see.
If Satan is correct, God's creation of man in his own image completely separates man from angels. If Abdiel is correct then man is just a lesser kind of angel who might be able through some kind of spiritual transubstantiation (see Rogers again on the eating metaphor) become indistinguishable from the angels of heaven.
And if man is pretty much indistinguishable from angels, why is the fall necessary? Satan and his cohort essentially already took care of the issue of obedience and free will. Why is man created?
Help please.
Amanda, I'm trying to get a handle on what Milton is aiming for here. Your explanation doesn't quite get me there. Although I do like that image of Old Man With Robe On Big Chair :)
Raphael says to Adam:
[T:]ime may come when men
With Angels may participate, and find
No inconvenient Diet, nor too light Fare:
And from these corporal nutriments perhaps
Your bodies may at last turn all to spirit,
Improv'd by tract of time, and wing'd ascend
Ethereal, as wee, or may at choice
Here or in Heav'nly Paradises dwell;
If ye be found obedient.
Implying man may dwell in heaven as spirit, as the angels do. And remember God sent Raphael to talk to Adam so presumably God is saying this through Raphael
God says everyone, presumably angels and man, will be ruled in heaven as an indivisable whole. No distinction is made here:
Under his great Vice-gerent Reign abide
United as one individual Soule
For ever happy: him who disobeys
Mee disobeyes, breaks union, and that day
Cast out from God and blessed vision, falls
Into utter darkness.
Abdiel says to Satan that the angels are created by God:
Son, by whom
As by his Word, the mighty Father made
All things, ev'n thee, and all the Spirits of Heav'n
By him created in thir bright degrees…
Satan claims angels are self created. The Son had no part in their making:
The Apostate, and, more haughty, thus replied.
That we were formed then sayest thou? and the work
Of secondary hands, by task transferred
From Father to his Son? strange point and new!
Doctrine which we would know whence learned: who
saw
When this creation was? rememberest thou
Thy making, while the Maker gave thee being?
We know no time when we were not as now;
Know none before us, self-begot, self-raised
By our own quickening power, when fatal course
Had circled his full orb, the birth mature
Of this our native Heaven, ethereal sons.
Raphael says to Adam:
[T:]ime may come when men
With Angels may participate, and find
No inconvenient Diet, nor too light Fare:
And from these corporal nutriments perhaps
Your bodies may at last turn all to spirit,
Improv'd by tract of time, and wing'd ascend
Ethereal, as wee, or may at choice
Here or in Heav'nly Paradises dwell;
If ye be found obedient.
Implying man may dwell in heaven as spirit, as the angels do. And remember God sent Raphael to talk to Adam so presumably God is saying this through Raphael
God says everyone, presumably angels and man, will be ruled in heaven as an indivisable whole. No distinction is made here:
Under his great Vice-gerent Reign abide
United as one individual Soule
For ever happy: him who disobeys
Mee disobeyes, breaks union, and that day
Cast out from God and blessed vision, falls
Into utter darkness.
Abdiel says to Satan that the angels are created by God:
Son, by whom
As by his Word, the mighty Father made
All things, ev'n thee, and all the Spirits of Heav'n
By him created in thir bright degrees…
Satan claims angels are self created. The Son had no part in their making:
The Apostate, and, more haughty, thus replied.
That we were formed then sayest thou? and the work
Of secondary hands, by task transferred
From Father to his Son? strange point and new!
Doctrine which we would know whence learned: who
saw
When this creation was? rememberest thou
Thy making, while the Maker gave thee being?
We know no time when we were not as now;
Know none before us, self-begot, self-raised
By our own quickening power, when fatal course
Had circled his full orb, the birth mature
Of this our native Heaven, ethereal sons.
Amanda wrote: "I think Abdiel is correct- man is created through God's word, and according to the Book of John, the Son is God's word embodied. However, man is not a lesser kind of angel any more than a created t..."I find the notion that 'God created us to give himself something else to love because it makes him happy' and that 'he was after a bigger family' etc just as fanciful as Milton's ideas. Surely you are criticising Milton for not having the same view of God as yourself? I think he is just as entitled to invent ideas about God, angels etc as you and others are. None of these ideas have been proven one way or the other and the interpretation of the Scriptures varies enormously, as well as varying over time.
I don't think that Milton/Raphael is saying that men are indistinguishable from Angels, he is saying that if they live a perfect, obedient life, they can become like angels because angels are in essence just like men. Prof Rogers referred to this 'science fiction' element of Milton's utopian idea put into the mouth of Raphael, which in many ways (as I see it!) accords with NT religious teaching about living a good life, obeying the commandments, loving God etc etc etc and you will achieve salvation and go to heaven, which is a perfect place set up for perfect people.... Milton sees the possibility granted by God for the perfectibility of man (and Adam and Eve) as about achieving angelic status which, as a utopian idea of heaven, makes perfect sense to me. Heaven for Milton is also achievable in the here and now if everyone lives a similarly perfect life on earth. That was the idea behind the Commonwealth - making England the city on the hill, a perfect nation, favoured by God etc. Alas! Alas! it didn't work then and it hasn't worked since, but we can still hope!
Come on guys - enter into Milton's science fiction world - it is surely rather a nice one, as all utopias are.
Roger wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Roger wrote: "The proportion of Christian churches today that actually dissent from the Trinitarian formulation of Nicaea (three persons in one God; two natures and one person in Ch..."Thanks Roger. My understanding is that Calvin had a lot of trouble with the Trinity which is why Presbyterians are split over it.
http://exiledpreacher.blogspot.com/20...
I agree that mainstream churches are orthodox but the Civil War and Milton were all about breaking away from the mainstream Church of England - that was what it it was all about, following the Bishop's Wars when Charles and Archbishop Laud tried to impose unwelcome crypto-catholic doctrines on the population.
Monism is opposed to dualism, opposed to the idea of God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity etc. There has been a lot written about Milton's use of monism in Paradise Lost.
Madge, for some reason you are getting multiple posts when you edit. You may want to go back and manually delete the old ones :)
Thanks Kate - I think I have caught up with them! It is 96F here and I am wilting at the keyboard in more ways than one!
Ouch! We're having record temperatures here too. I'm hiding inside with iced tea and avoiding the garden work I "should" be doing. Take it easy. 96F is too hot for man or beast as far as I'm concerned.
Satan surely lies, to himself and to his followers, when he says the angels were self-created. He rejects Abdiel's assertion that they were created by the Father through the Son because of lack of witnesses. He then asserts self-creation. But who is the witness to that? And how did they create themselves, when they were not around to do the creating? I think we see here the corruption of the intellect, tricked by pride into proclaiming nonsense.
Kate wrote: "Ouch! We're having record temperatures here too. I'm hiding inside with iced tea and avoiding the garden work I "should" be doing. Take it easy. 96F is too hot for man or beast as far as I'm co..."It's unusually hot here, too. This morning I went to a place called Boxx Berry Farm and bought salad makings, raw honey, and raspberries. Then I sat in the shade and watched the gardeners gather floral bouquets and listened to the birds while my friend picked strawberries. Not Eden, but close to it.
Roger, I think Milton is always doing multiple things. He states something and then shifts the mirrors around and looks at things from a different angle. It makes it difficult to get a handle on him...he's too slippery. You said, "But who is the witness to that? And how did they create themselves, when they were not around to do the creating? I think we see here the corruption of the intellect, tricked by pride into proclaiming nonsense.". I think this is exactly Abdiel's point. But Abdiel isn't the only one talking.
Professor Rogers raises some interesting points about the where Milton is headed with this argument of angels being self raised:
Satan's argument that the angels are self-raised has something, I think, like a foundation even in Book Five itself. It begins to resemble that condition of absolute self-determination that Raphael had promised to Adam and Eve if they remained obedient. If Adam and Eve will only remain sinless, they'll be able to raise themselves to that ethereal state of angelic status. This is a world in which individuals -- rational, self-determining individuals -- determine their own status rather than accept one that has been arbitrarily imposed upon them. This is an egalitarian world that Milton is introducing us to, and I think that in moments such as these, we see Milton laboring to arrive at a theory of matter and a theory of creation that can support something like a poetics; a poetics but also a philosophy, a political philosophy of egalitarianism. To claim that matter can move itself to organize itself into stars and into angels, which is what Uriel will claim happens, is essentially to lay the philosophical foundation for a political philosophy that's not authoritarian by any stretch. It's not even hierarchical: it's egalitarian. This is a physics, a theological physics that can bolster the claims of a politics. It's a philosophy that can imagine human beings as being equally capable of organizing themselves and creating their own sense of order without the meddlesome intervention of an arbitrary God.
I think Milton is going much further with this than trying to show Satan in simple terms as a seducer of intellect. He's framing the social, political, doctrinal questions of his day in layers that don't parse easily into right and wrong. And sometimes he makes Satan sound reasonable and God sound unreasonable, but I think he does that intentionally to shock the listener into focusing on the debate. YMMV.
Professor Rogers raises some interesting points about the where Milton is headed with this argument of angels being self raised:
Satan's argument that the angels are self-raised has something, I think, like a foundation even in Book Five itself. It begins to resemble that condition of absolute self-determination that Raphael had promised to Adam and Eve if they remained obedient. If Adam and Eve will only remain sinless, they'll be able to raise themselves to that ethereal state of angelic status. This is a world in which individuals -- rational, self-determining individuals -- determine their own status rather than accept one that has been arbitrarily imposed upon them. This is an egalitarian world that Milton is introducing us to, and I think that in moments such as these, we see Milton laboring to arrive at a theory of matter and a theory of creation that can support something like a poetics; a poetics but also a philosophy, a political philosophy of egalitarianism. To claim that matter can move itself to organize itself into stars and into angels, which is what Uriel will claim happens, is essentially to lay the philosophical foundation for a political philosophy that's not authoritarian by any stretch. It's not even hierarchical: it's egalitarian. This is a physics, a theological physics that can bolster the claims of a politics. It's a philosophy that can imagine human beings as being equally capable of organizing themselves and creating their own sense of order without the meddlesome intervention of an arbitrary God.
I think Milton is going much further with this than trying to show Satan in simple terms as a seducer of intellect. He's framing the social, political, doctrinal questions of his day in layers that don't parse easily into right and wrong. And sometimes he makes Satan sound reasonable and God sound unreasonable, but I think he does that intentionally to shock the listener into focusing on the debate. YMMV.
Amanda, no God isn't talking about man when he talks to the assembly of angels. To me, it was a logical step from Raphael telling Adam that he too could be like the angels in heaven, and God telling the angels what the reign of the Son would mean, to say that in Milton's version of heaven both angels and man would be an indivisible whole under the rule of the Son.
Completely off topic
Laurele, I didn't realize you lived up in Ferndale. I think you're a bit cooler up there than we are down in South Sound. But your morning does sound wonderful:)
Laurele, I didn't realize you lived up in Ferndale. I think you're a bit cooler up there than we are down in South Sound. But your morning does sound wonderful:)
Amanda wrote: "Why didn't Milton have God come do it himself? It seems like God never leaves his Big Chair.
It seems like that to me too. Very remote. Which I find interesting, given that I assume Milton's Puritan beliefs would include a personal relationship with God. Does Milton find God remote?
Also, Adam seems a little taken aback when Raphael warns him about staying obedient, like the thought of disobeying had never occurred to him. Does Raphael plant a seed in Adam that wasn't there, opening the door to the idea of disobedience? And since God sent Raphael, wouldn't that make him (God) culpable? ..."
That sounds like the same kind of questions I keep hearing Milton ask in this poem.
It seems like that to me too. Very remote. Which I find interesting, given that I assume Milton's Puritan beliefs would include a personal relationship with God. Does Milton find God remote?
Also, Adam seems a little taken aback when Raphael warns him about staying obedient, like the thought of disobeying had never occurred to him. Does Raphael plant a seed in Adam that wasn't there, opening the door to the idea of disobedience? And since God sent Raphael, wouldn't that make him (God) culpable? ..."
That sounds like the same kind of questions I keep hearing Milton ask in this poem.
Amanda wrote: "I'm feeling like Milton is a little circuitous.
"I'm feeling like Milton is alittle very circuitous."
Fixed! ;)
"I'm feeling like Milton is a
Fixed! ;)
Maybe Milton's God is kind of like the Wizard of Oz...
As I understood it, God says something like, "This day I have created my Son...." He announces this to the gathered angels. If this is correct, they were obviously there before the Son.
Does this matter? To Satan it certainly does. To God it doesn't as He is omnipotent.
Does this matter? To Satan it certainly does. To God it doesn't as He is omnipotent.
Dianna wrote: "Maybe Milton's God is kind of like the Wizard of Oz..."I think that nails it. Milton's God is not transcendent, as the Christian God should be. He's just the baddest dude in the cosmos. Dante also visits heaven, but he doesn't meet a dude on a throne there--he has a transcendent vision. I've been trying to figure out how Milton's vision of Heaven is some sort of figure representing a spiritual reality, but Raphael's monologue on angels' diets sure looks like an attempt at serious angelology. Could Milton really believe in a non-transcendent God?
Amanda: When Satan denies he was created by God, surely that's false, though maybe Satan believes it, or half believes it, when he says it. Personally, I do not think Satan is meant to represent the Puritans. I think Milton's character is meant to represent the real Satan.
Kate: Are you saying that maybe Satan is right and Abdiel is wrong? I can't believe that. Milton as narrator repeatedly stresses that Satan is a liar and a deceiver.
Roger wrote: "Kate: Are you saying that maybe Satan is right and Abdiel is wrong? I can't believe that. Milton as narrator repeatedly stresses that Satan is a liar and a deceiver.
..."
I'm saying it's possible and that Milton raised that possibility. Every time provocative things come out of Satan's mouth, Milton seems to be exploring questions about society, about the politics of his day and their outcomes, about religious doctrine. Every time he has God act in an arbitrary or unsympathetic manner he is asking these same kinds of questions. He wants us to think about these things and so he voices them in a manner that doesn't fit our assumptions.
I think it is too simple to assume that Milton means us to think everything Satan says is a lie.
..."
I'm saying it's possible and that Milton raised that possibility. Every time provocative things come out of Satan's mouth, Milton seems to be exploring questions about society, about the politics of his day and their outcomes, about religious doctrine. Every time he has God act in an arbitrary or unsympathetic manner he is asking these same kinds of questions. He wants us to think about these things and so he voices them in a manner that doesn't fit our assumptions.
I think it is too simple to assume that Milton means us to think everything Satan says is a lie.
I would go back to the passage that Dianna quoted early in the discussion:High matter thou injoinst me, O prime of men,
Sad task and hard, for how shall I relate
To human sense th' invisible exploits
Of warring Spriits; how without remorse
The ruin of so many glorious once
And perfet while they stood; how last unfould
The secrets of another world, perhaps
Not lawful to reveal? yet for thy good
This is dispenc't, and what surmounts the reach
Of human sense, I shall delineate so,
By lik'ning spiritual to corporal forms,
As may express them best, though what if Earth
Be but the shaddow of Heav'n, and things therein
Each to other like, more then on earth is thought?
Milton seems to be doing what Raphael says is so difficult to do, and in my opinion what the Bible also does -- he is trying to express the spiritual in corporeal form. It is a kind of translation, and like all translation it invites suspicion. And while it is right to be suspicious, it is also human nature to stake a claim to the truth. Unfortunately this leads to conflicts with others who disagree. I'm not sure, but maybe this is why Raphael worries if his story might not be "lawful" to tell.
Amanda wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Amanda wrote: "I think Abdiel is correct- man is created through God's word, and according to the Book of John, the Son is God's word embodied. However, man is not a lesser kind of ..."Sorry Amanda - I didn't mean to call you fanciful, just that I find all these stories fanciful, whether they are in the bible or not or whatever the interpretations are. As an atheist that is the only way I can see them or, to use Rogers' term, I see them all as science fictional. That is not a criticism of anyone's beliefs, it is just where I am 'coming from'.
Kate wrote: "Roger, I think Milton is always doing multiple things. He states something and then shifts the mirrors around and looks at things from a different angle. It makes it difficult to get a handle on ...Professor Rogers raises some interesting points...."Prof Rogers, of course, puts the matter of the angels being 'self raised' and of Adam and Eve (and man) being able to similarly raise themselves to perfection so much better than I did! Thanks for extracting this bit of his lecture Kate, and for your other insightful interpretations.
As a religious man and a Puritan, Milton must have seen Satan as an evil person in the world and in the Garden of Eden but by the same token it is difficult, is it not, to understand why a merciful God can throw an 'anointed cherub' and other angels out out of heaven, as well casting out his first created human beings and then allowing his own son to be crucified. It takes a lot of 'justification' and arguing around these points to make any sense of God's actions, which is why people have been doing it for centuries.
Presumably Milton puts these 'provocative' ideas into Satan's mouth because it would have been blasphemous and too upsetting for his future readers if God 'left his big chair', as Amanda elequently puts it. For the same reason he puts God's 'unorthodox' ideas into Raphael's mouth. Puritans had a very strong belief in the reality of Satan, who they truly thought was among them, wreaking havoc. God, on the other hand, was the Supreme Being whose decisions could not be questioned by man - so Milton uses Satan to think all the bad thoughts in PL, including his own. I don't think Satan represents anyone in particular, just the evil in everyone or the possibility of evil. Milton seems to see the failure in heaven as the result of a sort of demonic possession and he may have seen the failure of the Puritan government on earth in the same way, as he thought through these dilemmas. His problem is, on earth and in heaven, explaining/justifying why God let it all happen. He set himself one h*** of a task, a task which has defeated all the great philosophers.
Does this article on The Puritan Mind help us see where Milton was 'coming from'?
http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanA...
Although this author makes a plea for seeing the Puritans in a better light, I cannot help but see them, and Milton, as 17C Talibans:(. But I still feel sorry for the bitterly disappointed, poor, blind, old Milton perhaps in the same way as I can feel sorry for Satan.
Roger wrote: "Satan surely lies, to himself and to his followers, when he says the angels were self-created. He rejects Abdiel's assertion that they were created by the Father through the Son because of lack of...And how did they create themselves..."Aha! But how did God create himself? Who was the witness to that? Doesn't the one make possible, in theory, the other?
MadgeUK wrote: "Roger wrote: "Satan surely lies, to himself and to his followers, when he says the angels were self-created. He rejects Abdiel's assertion that they were created by the Father through the Son beca..."Indeed, that's why the uncreated God has to be transcendent, different is kind from any of His creations. And that's why Milton's God-as-dude grates on me so.
I think I understand what you are saying Roger.
Roger wrote: "Indeed, that's why the uncreated God has to be transcendent, different is kind from any of His creations. And that's why Milton's God-as-dude grates on me so.
..."
He seems to go out of his way to avoid making God transcendent. Amanda's "Old Man With Robe On Big Chair." is a perfect description.
..."
He seems to go out of his way to avoid making God transcendent. Amanda's "Old Man With Robe On Big Chair." is a perfect description.
Isn't that pretty much how the Christians of that time saw God and don't some Christians still see God that way today?
Kate wrote: "Completely off topicLaurele, I didn't realize you lived up in Ferndale. I think you're a bit cooler up there than we are down in South Sound. But your morning does sound wonderful:)"
Gig Harbor! What fun, Kate!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DudeIsn't Satan supposed to be 'grating'? He embodies evil after all.
There are philosophers who do not think that God is transcendant, but that he is part of the here and now. The idea that 'God is dead' propounded by Nietzche and others since, is part of that thinking and some religious philosophers (forget the names) think that God poured his essence into Jesus and lived on in him - or something like that. Maybe Milton is exploring that idea - thinking outside the box of orthodoxy.
The idea of transcendance is a Platonic/Aristotlean view which the early church fathers took up but there have been views like Spinoza's (a contemporary of Milton's) who thought God only existed philosophically - that is, in the mind - and is part of the natural world, therefore not transcendant, omnipotent or any of those things. He also believed that by thinking and doing the right 'adequate' thing we could become more godlike - rather as Milton postulates mankind could become angelic.
But... isn't Milton thinking more of self-transcendance, the concept of going on a journey of self-discovery, personal enlightenment, which has been the view of many seekers after the truth?
I am not sure why folks see the 'Old Man with Robe on Big Chair' as non-transcendant? Images of God on a throne in the heavens, above everything and everyone surely show him as transcendant, supreme etc. They are very common images of God in both literature and art, like this one by William Blake:-
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fil...
Milton visited Italy and is likely to have seen Michaelangelo's paintings of God on a throne in Heaven in the Sistine Chapel, where he is indeed an old man in a (red) robe:).
http://toplinestory.com/sistine-chape...
Christian images of God the Father exist, but they are much, much less common than images of Jesus, Mary, and the saints, and than images of Hindu and pagan gods amongs adherents of such faiths. Images of God are entirely forbidden in Judaism and Islam. I think this reluctance to portray God is vindicated by the inadequacy of Milton's attempt to do it--if Milton can't do it, no-one can.Dianna: Some people may think of God as an old guy on a throne in the sky, but that's a very childish way. I suppose any way we think of Him is inadequate to the divine reality, but I say other ways are much better adapted to the mature human intellect.
Well, Roger, I hope nobody here thinks of God in that way because I don't suppose they would want to be called childish...I think the problem we are coming into is what Madge pointed out:
"But... isn't Milton thinking more of self-transcendance, the concept of going on a journey of self-discovery, personal enlightenment, which has been the view of many seekers after the truth?"
This makes sense to me because this is my world view. However, I believe there are still people who do believe that God is like a father in the sky with a real body and where do we draw the line of childish belief? Lots and lots of people believe Jesus IS God and I would not tell them they are childish even though I see things through the myth and archetype lens of those such as Jung and Joseph Campbell and maybe Milton? That's why I think the Walt Whitman poem fits in so well where I put it.
It is difficult NOT to judge another person's belief as inferior if one thinks one knows the truth. I think we are probably all guilty of it though and I don't see any reason for anyone to be offended unless they are questioning their own beliefs and it stings to think that maybe what they believe IS wrong...
I see nothing in PL that seems to recommend self-transcendence, personal enlightenment, a journey of self-discovery, or anything of the sort. Consider Raphael's words to Adam:Your bodies may at last turn all to Spirit,
Improv'd by tract of time, and wingd ascend
Ethereal, as wee, or may at choice
Here or in Heav'nly Paradises dwell; [ 500 :]
If ye be found obedient, and retain
Unalterably firm his love entire
Whose progenie you are. Mean while enjoy
Your fill what happiness this happie state
Can comprehend, incapable of more. [ 505 :]
Men can change and develop, but by continuing steadfast in love and obedience, not by self-discovery, and in the direction of becoming more holy and more spiritual, not more enlightened.
I don't suppose Milton would put it overtly since that would have been a very "heretical" idea at that time and place. I guess we will have to continue reading and see what happens...Before "the fall" Adam and Eve were incapable of transcendence just like a newborn is incapable of walking or talking...
Roger, I do agree with you that as humans we are incapable of comprehending God.
Roger wrote: "I see nothing in PL that seems to recommend self-transcendence, personal enlightenment, a journey of self-discovery, or anything of the sort. Consider Raphael's words to Adam:
Your bodies may at..."
Do you think everything Satan says in PL is a lie or an intention to mislead? Do you think Milton meant Satan to be seen that way?
If you do, then I would agree with the statement that nothing in PL supports a journey of self discovery.
OTOH If you think, as I do, that Milton uses Satan more subtly than that then I think this poem is Milton's own voyage of self discovery and he's sharing his questions with everyone who reads it.
Your bodies may at..."
Do you think everything Satan says in PL is a lie or an intention to mislead? Do you think Milton meant Satan to be seen that way?
If you do, then I would agree with the statement that nothing in PL supports a journey of self discovery.
OTOH If you think, as I do, that Milton uses Satan more subtly than that then I think this poem is Milton's own voyage of self discovery and he's sharing his questions with everyone who reads it.
Kate wrote: "Roger wrote: "I see nothing in PL that seems to recommend self-transcendence, personal enlightenment, a journey of self-discovery, or anything of the sort. Consider Raphael's words to Adam:Your b..."
Well, let's read on, and I'll try looking at it from that point of view and see how it fits.
Although I have been pretty busy the last few days hanging out with transcendentalists at the Thoreau conference, I have been following a developing thread here with interest. I am struck that several of our most astute readers are finding themselves growing uncomfortable that, in contrast to Satan, the “good guys” just don’t seem as vividly depicted. Also, that God just doesn’t seem, errm, very “Godly.” This has been characterized by the image of him as the “old man on the throne” and the dissatisfaction that He just doesn’t seem that “transcendent.”
I want to suggest that there may be a different term that helps explain our difficulty. I’m going to illustrate my points with some references from later Books, but nothing that contains any spoilers. And it seems appropriate to incorporate these thoughts into our discussion at this point, while it is active.
When I was in college I was introduced to the work of a German theologian named Rudolf Otto (1869-1937). His most famous work, titled in English,The Idea of the Holy, was published in 1917. The original title was: Das Heilige - Über das Irrationale in der Idee des Göttlichen und sein Verhältnis zum Rationalen (The Holy - On the Irrational in the Idea of the Divine and its Relation to the Rational). In it he coins a term to describe this encounter. The name he chose for it makes it clear that he is talking about something more specific than mysticism, pantheism, or, for that matter, transcendentalism. The term is numinous. It comes from the Latin, numen, which was associated with the Roman deities and acknowledgement of their commands.
A short definition he provides is: "non-rational, non-sensory experience or feeling whose primary and immediate object is outside the self".
It consists of two parts. Wikepedia describes them as: “Mysterium tremendum et fascinans (“fearful and fascinating mystery…the awe-some (fascinating and full of awe) mystery that was the object common to all forms of religious experience.”
As a college student searching for capital-T-Truth, I found this--well--fearful and fascinating.
It seems to me that it also presents an almost insurmountable problem for the artist--whether poet, painter or sculptor. Otto is clear that the object encountered is outside the self. Clearly, for Milton, it is God and His majesty and creation. We need not be “believers” ourselves (or at least we need not agree with sectarian definitions for God) to imagine (and have felt) the numinous experience. But if the experience is by definition non-rational and non-sensory, there is no way that it can be expressed in words (rational) or images (sensory). I think it is significant that major monotheistic religions like Islam and Judaism forbid imagery or even naming God.
So what is a poor poet to do? He’s got a great tale to spin and a fantastic villain to portray in all his evil glory--to say nothing of a desire to "justify" his God (and his politics) to his contentious peers. But what to do about describing God?
Frankly, I think he is largely reduced to tautology: "using different words to say the same thing twice where the additional words fail to provide additional clarity when repeating a meaning."
All he can really do is say, in various, and often very pleasing ways, “This is so amazingly wondrous that there are no words to describe it.”
Two examples.
….For who, though with the tongue
Of Angels, can relate, or to what things
Liken on Earth conspicuous, that may lift
Human imagination to such height
Of Godlike Power: (Book VI. Line 297ff)
…though to recount Almighty works
What words or tongue of Seraph can suffice,
Or heart of man suffice to comprehend? (Book VII. Line 112ff)
Again avoiding spoilers, in his lecture on the Book describing Creation, Rogers takes some pains to show how much better Milton does than Genesis at helping us really feel the majesty of creation.
Perhaps, just as we must try to put ourselves into a 17th century frame of mind to read this epic, we must also acknowledge that, on his own terms, the poet is undertaking an impossible challenge. He can appeal to as many Muses as he chooses, but he is unlikely to be able to make the reader feel fully what his characters are feeling.
I want to suggest that there may be a different term that helps explain our difficulty. I’m going to illustrate my points with some references from later Books, but nothing that contains any spoilers. And it seems appropriate to incorporate these thoughts into our discussion at this point, while it is active.
When I was in college I was introduced to the work of a German theologian named Rudolf Otto (1869-1937). His most famous work, titled in English,The Idea of the Holy, was published in 1917. The original title was: Das Heilige - Über das Irrationale in der Idee des Göttlichen und sein Verhältnis zum Rationalen (The Holy - On the Irrational in the Idea of the Divine and its Relation to the Rational). In it he coins a term to describe this encounter. The name he chose for it makes it clear that he is talking about something more specific than mysticism, pantheism, or, for that matter, transcendentalism. The term is numinous. It comes from the Latin, numen, which was associated with the Roman deities and acknowledgement of their commands.
A short definition he provides is: "non-rational, non-sensory experience or feeling whose primary and immediate object is outside the self".
It consists of two parts. Wikepedia describes them as: “Mysterium tremendum et fascinans (“fearful and fascinating mystery…the awe-some (fascinating and full of awe) mystery that was the object common to all forms of religious experience.”
As a college student searching for capital-T-Truth, I found this--well--fearful and fascinating.
It seems to me that it also presents an almost insurmountable problem for the artist--whether poet, painter or sculptor. Otto is clear that the object encountered is outside the self. Clearly, for Milton, it is God and His majesty and creation. We need not be “believers” ourselves (or at least we need not agree with sectarian definitions for God) to imagine (and have felt) the numinous experience. But if the experience is by definition non-rational and non-sensory, there is no way that it can be expressed in words (rational) or images (sensory). I think it is significant that major monotheistic religions like Islam and Judaism forbid imagery or even naming God.
So what is a poor poet to do? He’s got a great tale to spin and a fantastic villain to portray in all his evil glory--to say nothing of a desire to "justify" his God (and his politics) to his contentious peers. But what to do about describing God?
Frankly, I think he is largely reduced to tautology: "using different words to say the same thing twice where the additional words fail to provide additional clarity when repeating a meaning."
All he can really do is say, in various, and often very pleasing ways, “This is so amazingly wondrous that there are no words to describe it.”
Two examples.
….For who, though with the tongue
Of Angels, can relate, or to what things
Liken on Earth conspicuous, that may lift
Human imagination to such height
Of Godlike Power: (Book VI. Line 297ff)
…though to recount Almighty works
What words or tongue of Seraph can suffice,
Or heart of man suffice to comprehend? (Book VII. Line 112ff)
Again avoiding spoilers, in his lecture on the Book describing Creation, Rogers takes some pains to show how much better Milton does than Genesis at helping us really feel the majesty of creation.
Perhaps, just as we must try to put ourselves into a 17th century frame of mind to read this epic, we must also acknowledge that, on his own terms, the poet is undertaking an impossible challenge. He can appeal to as many Muses as he chooses, but he is unlikely to be able to make the reader feel fully what his characters are feeling.
Zeke, this seems more than just a poetical difficulty in trying to describe transcendent spirituality in mundane language. Milton could have easily made God a more remote, overarching, mysterious entity within the poem. For reasons of his own, he chose not to do so.
He tries to use lyricism and language to evoke feelings throughout PL so far and is pretty good at it, too. Maybe you don't get to feelings of transcendence that way, but you could get closer. To say (which Milton does in a few places, including Roger's quote at #96) that humans just cannot comprehend God would be a little more believable if Milton actually TRIED to make God less like an ornery self-satisfied guy sitting on his throne.
He tries to use lyricism and language to evoke feelings throughout PL so far and is pretty good at it, too. Maybe you don't get to feelings of transcendence that way, but you could get closer. To say (which Milton does in a few places, including Roger's quote at #96) that humans just cannot comprehend God would be a little more believable if Milton actually TRIED to make God less like an ornery self-satisfied guy sitting on his throne.
Roger wrote: "Kate wrote: "Roger wrote: "I see nothing in PL that seems to recommend self-transcendence, personal enlightenment, a journey of self-discovery, or anything of the sort. Consider Raphael's words to ..."
I wasn't trying to attack you Roger. It's just very obvious to me that we are all approaching this poem from very different directions and coming away with no consensus about what we see in it.
It also amuses me that you and I seem to pick out the same issues as being problematic, but never agree about what the problem is :)
And yes, let's see where he's going with all this...
I wasn't trying to attack you Roger. It's just very obvious to me that we are all approaching this poem from very different directions and coming away with no consensus about what we see in it.
It also amuses me that you and I seem to pick out the same issues as being problematic, but never agree about what the problem is :)
And yes, let's see where he's going with all this...
Kate wrote: "Roger wrote: "Kate wrote: "Roger wrote: "I see nothing in PL that seems to recommend self-transcendence, personal enlightenment, a journey of self-discovery, or anything of the sort. Consider Rapha..."Set your mind at rest, I had no thought of such a thing.
Zeke wrote: "Although I have been pretty busy the last few days hanging out with transcendentalists at the Thoreau conference, I have been following a developing thread here with interest. I am struck that seve..."I think you're on to something, Zeke. C.S. Lewis is the one who introduced me to the concept of the numinous. I think it's in his autobiographical Surprised by Joy that he says the initial numinous experience for him was the idea of Squirrel Nutkin and his soaring tail. It gave him a sense of sehnsuch, I think the word is--the persistent idea that there is something "out there" that must be sought. His aching search was fulfilled when he found Christ. It is something that is very difficult to describe, though, even for a poet. The search is not a search for self-discover, but a search for 'otherness.'
Thomas wrote: "Thanks for the references, Laurele. These are quite helpful. One question though: Milton says that Satan rebels for a quite specific reason: ... yet fraught
With envie against the Son of God, ..."
It's more than just envy. Satan was the number two man in the "company," and then the founder brought in his son over the formerly loyal number two man. And the number two man got mad at this and turned against the founder. This is not at all uncommon in the business world today, is it?
It seems to me a very human motive, which raises something I find interesting -- while the Greek gods were seen very much as having human characteristics -- they ate, drank, copulated (sometimes with gods, sometimes with humans), got mad, squabbled, got into snits, most Christians haven't, I think, traditionally seen their deities (including all the angelic host) as having human emotions or human attributes, even though we are made in God's image. In his presentation of Satan, it seems to me that Milton reverts a bit to the Greek concept of the angels now as ethereal, other-worldly creatures devoid of emotion, but as much more human, experiencing envy, anger, guile, hatred, resentment, all very human emotions.
Heather wrote: "AI wonder if Milton is trying to defend God having created Adam and Eve in a paradisiacal and innocent state. He does seem to allude to the fact that they cannot comprehend as much happiness as the angels do."
Nice question, Heather! I'm not sure of the answer, but I'll ponder the question.
And welcome to the discussion -- for a first post here, this is great. Let us hear more from you!
MadgeUK wrote: The gist of the story (from a Freudian p.o.v...) seems to be that Satan was once a very favoured son but he sinned and so was cast out but Jesus remained a perfect son and so was promoted to sit at the right hand of God etc. Hence there was reason for jealousy on Satan's part. Sibling rivalry and all that. As Professor Rogers puts it, "no wonder Satan was 'miffed'". It wasn't very sensible parenting and maybe Milton is commenting on this, perhaps also as a swipe at the bad governership of Cromwell/Parliament. "Keeping in mind what some Americans may have forgotten from their brief survey of English history -- Cromwell had several sons, of whom Richard succeeded him as Lord Protector. I don't know whether there was any rivalry among them to succeed Oliver when he died, my English history isn't that strong, but it wouldn't surprise me, and if so there might be a echo of this in the Satan/Son situation -- not succession, presumably, since nobody can succeed God, but elevation to number two.
Kate wrote: "Just now reading Rogers lecture on Books v-vi and he makes a great statement about PL:"It's important to keep this distinction in mind because this poem simply cannot be reduced. Sometimes it tries to be reduced, but it cannot be reduced, to those ringing declarations of what sound like the official positions of the poem.: "
Excellent point. Somebody had asked whether a certain point was what we were supposed to get out of the poem, and I thought, there isn't just one, or two, things we are to get out of the poem but a multitude or richnesses. The poem is as long as it is not just to be long, but because there is so much density, complexity, and richness in it.
Roger wrote: "Christian images of God the Father exist, but they are much, much less common than images of Jesus, Mary, and the saints, and than images of Hindu and pagan gods amongs adherents of such faiths. I.......throne in the sky...that's a very childish way...." I would hardly call Michaelangelo and the other great painters childish Roger! A walk around the churches and galleries Rome or Florence reveals dozens of such portraits by the world's greatest artists. Statues of God abound too:-
http://schriftman.files.wordpress.com...
Russian Orthodox Church iconography shows thousands of images of God such as this one, which can be seen in Beverley Hills of all places!:-
http://www.barakatgallery.com/Store/i...
This book is devoted to portraits of God:-
http://www.amazon.com/Portraits-God-B...
And of course the first illustrated edition of PL in 1688 included a portrait of Satan railing at God on a 'throne in the sky':-
http://www.christs.cam.ac.uk/darkness...
Because it is considered that humans cannot comprehend God does not stop them trying to portray him. Milton's portrait in words has helped to keep Paradise Lost a bestseller for over 300 years and Michaelangelo's 400 year old portraits in the Sistine Chapel are one of the most popular tourist sites in the world. This is one of the most beautiful images of God there, breathing life into Adam (sans red robe):-
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fil...
I see self discovery and enlightenment as being part of the process of the 'obedience' which leads to 'what happiness this happie state can comprehend'. Milton, a classics scholar, would have known the Socratic maxims: 'know thyself' and 'the unexamined life is not worth living' and also Shakespeare's take on it in Hamlet 'this above all/To thine own self be true...'. As Kate says, Milton is sharing his voyage of self discovery with us. In the meantime I think some of us are seeing what William Blake (who revered Milton) saw - that Milton is 'a true Poet and of the Devil's party without knowing it'. These are Blake's illustrations to Paradise Lost (including one of God creating Eve in Book VIII):-
http://www.pitt.edu/~ulin/Paradise/Bl...
BTW the colour red denoted power in medieval painting such as Michaelangelo's. The preparation of red pigment from cochineal beetles or from the rose madder plant was tedious and expensive so only kings, cardinals and other nobles were allowed to wear red clothing or were portrayed wearing it. Ditto purple. This is an interesting website about the history of pigments for those interested:-
http://www.webexhibits.org/pigments/i...
Love your comparison with the business world Everyman:). And yes, there is a lot of the Greek in Milton's descriptions of heaven, angels etc. which isn't surprising considering Milton's classical background. Here is something about Richard Cromwell, Oliver's eldest son, who was originally well-received when nominated as his successor but after Cromwell's death the economy went to pot, the unpaid Army 'revolted' and the rot set in. (There has been speculation that Richard C is the Christ figure in PL because he was nominated by God, just as Cromwell nominated Richard.)
http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/b...
Milton retained his post when Oliver died and was an advisor to Richard but thought he should have been more tolerant towards Protestant heterodoxy. His writing at this time was mainly against church tithes, like the following amusing paragraph:-
'...certainly it is not necessarie to the attainment of christian knowledge that men should sit all thr life long at the feet of a pulpited divine; while he, a lollard indeed over his elbow cushion, in almost the seaventh part of 40 or 50 years teaches them scarce half the principle of religion; and his sheep oft times sit the while to as little purpose as benefiting as the sheep in their pues at Smithfield [market:]and for the most part by some Simonie or other, bought and sold like them.'
Milton disagreed with the idea of the Protectorate as being one ruler under both Oliver and Richard and made various representations about re-electing a 'perpetual Grand Council' to oversee the elected Parliament - the elite Rogers mentions. It seems like a Platonian vanguard of 'philosopher kings'. Do you see anything of The Republic in PL Everyman? Plato used a ship analogy to describe the state and here, in a tract addressed to Richard Cromwell, Milton does too:
'...the ship of the Commonwealth is always undersail; they sit at the stern and if they steer well, what need is ther to change them; it being rather dangerous? Adde to this that the Grand Council is both foundation and main pillar of the whole State; and to move pillars and foundations, unless they be faultie, cannot be safe for the building.' (The Readie & Easie Way...)
On earth and in heaven it seems Milton was opposed to tyrannies of one person, perhaps even God, whose angels, along with the Son, I think he might have seen as part of the elite Grand Council he perceives as an ideal. And as part of the ultimate (libertarian) utopia for all. Just a thought.
That's why I think the Bible itself is sometimes so difficult. I wish I knew Hebrew and Aramaic!