Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Discussion - Paradise Lost
>
Paradise Lost - through Book 5
I did not know we were referring to churches Roger, I thought we were referring to images of God generally. Yours, of course, is an American experience, mine is a European one. I am more familiar with art galleries than with churches although I have seen images of God in several Russian Orthodox churches and quite a few in Italian ones. Catholics are, of course, well known for their portrayal of Christ and Mary images which are considered idolatrous by some other Christian groups, including Milton who, in Book IX, for instance, criticises church buildings and other idols. In Book I he likens Pandemonium to St Peter's Basilica for instance, which contains the tomb of St Peter and 140 statues of saints:-http://www.italyguides.it/us/roma/rom...
On the question of images of God being forbidden by Exodus 33:20 and various religious authorities since; this has, of course, helped to preserve his mystery and ineffability. There is no reason in fact why God cannot be portrayed as often as Jesus, Mary, the Angels and the Saints have been but limiting the number of his images available to the various congregations of the world since the early church fathers decreed it, retains his mysteriousness. Jews do not even pronounce his name. There is a whole history bound up with the depiction of God's image:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_the_...
I doubt that the same injunctions could be given to people today given that we are bombarded by images of all kinds 24/7. Martians and aliens are mysteries to us but there is no shortage of their images:).
I read St John's Revelations this afternoon and noted several references to the One being on a throne: '...behold a throne was set in heaven, and One sat on the throne...' etc so images of a God on a throne stem from the Bible. Clouds and Rainbows are also mentioned, so all the imagery that people (and Milton) commonly use is there. The saints and elders wear white robes. I know it is prophesied that Jesus will return wearing a red robe (to symbolise sacrifice?) but I didn't find that in Revelation. In this Chronology of the Book of Revelation God is portrayed with a blue/purple robe, the medieval colour for an Emporer:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronolo...
The next book we read (VI) encompasses the Book of Revelation as we read about Milton's description of the War in Heaven:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_H...
There is a virtual online game based on PL's War in Heaven!
http://lucite.org/lucite/content/war_...
Milton apparently drew upon Homer's Iliad and Virgil's Aeneid for his depiction of the battles.
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 ..."That's a nice point. Milton is dealing in ideas that are complex and multi-faceted. Trying to simplify it into one idea is, as another post noted earlier, to rob it of much of its magnificence.
Diana had quoted Whitman earlier; I'll add from him:
"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)"
Or, as F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote,
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."
It's valuable to try to analyze Milton analytically, and many here are doing a fine job at it. But sometimes he goes beyond analytical clarity, and at those times I think we just have to be awed by his the complexity, intelligence, and sheer beauty of his imagery and language.
Everyman wrote: "It's valuable to try to analyze Milton analytically, and many here are doing a fine job at it. But sometimes he goes beyond analytical clarity, and at those times I think we just have to be awed by his the complexity, intelligence, and sheer beauty of his imagery and language.
..."
100% agreement here. I'm awed by what he's doing in this poem on a whole raft of different levels including the poetry itself.
..."
100% agreement here. I'm awed by what he's doing in this poem on a whole raft of different levels including the poetry itself.
I love that Whitman too Everyman, very appropriate. I read recently that Milton has been called a 'one-man sect' and that seems so very true:):).And all these complex ideas are contained within the best language since Shakespeare - wow!
MadgeUK wrote: "I did not know we were referring to churches Roger, I thought we were referring to images of God generally. Yours, of course, is an American experience, mine is a European one. I am more familiar w..."I assure you my experience of Europe is quite extensive. And I say there is an excellent reason why God the Father cannot be protrayed like Jesus, Mary, and the angels: He is not a human being, and did not customarily appear to human beings. On the other hand, there is the semi-anthropomorphic presentation in Revelation 4 you point out: God evidents sits (Rev 4:2), and has a hand (5:1). But otherwise He is only described as "like jasper and carnelian" (4:3), and "From the throne issue flashes of lightning, and voices and peals of thunder" (4:5)--doesn't seem very human-like to me.
Even some Orthodox evidently forbid icons of the Father altogether, on the grounds that they were forbidden by the 7th Ecumanical Council is AD 787. (http://orthodoxwiki.org/God_the_Father).
Milton need not have presented the Father anthropomorphically--Dante didn't. Yet Milton did. Why?
Kate wrote: "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?"
Excellent questions. Yes, I agree that (at least so far in the poem) God seems to prefer using surrogates, though he was shown to have spoken directly with Adam about his expectations for them.
As to the personal relationship, that seems to me implied in the "He for God, she for god in him" passage. Milton does seem in that passage to suggest there there was a personal relationship between God and Adam.
As to why he doesn't intervene at this point, but sends Raphael, it could be because he already knows, as he has said, that they are going to succumb, and perhaps either he doesn't want to make it that they are more directly disobeying an explicit warning from him, or that he wants to stay of out if personally to leave them freer to make their own decision.
But I'm not sure if it's either, or partly both, of these, or something totally different.
For our Biblical scholars, is there a Biblical basis for using Raphael as the go-between?
Roger wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "I did not know we were referring to churches Roger, I thought we were referring to images of God generally. Yours, of course, is an American experience, mine is a European one. I am..."Martians and Angels aren't human beings either and we portray those! We can imagine a non-human being and that is what Milton and various artists have done. Why not?
Dante was an exiled catholic living in Italy and may have been more circumscribed in his portrayal of God than Milton, a Puritan living in a non-catholic country who fervently believed in the freedom of the press.
I just finished reading book 6 and I have so many questions and thoughts in my head. I may write it down now and copy and paste later so I don't lose my train of thought.
Everyman wrote: "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."This reminds me of the scene where Satan, on his journey down to Paradise, tries to hide his emotions to deceive Uriel (Book IV):
Thus while he spake, each passion dimm'd his face
Thrice chang'd with pale, ire, envie and despair, [ 115 :]
Which marrd his borrow'd visage, and betraid
Him counterfet, if any eye beheld.
For heav'nly mindes from such distempers foule
Are ever cleer. Whereof hee soon aware,
Each perturbation smooth'd with outward calme, [ 120 :]
Artificer of fraud; and was the first
That practisd falshood under saintly shew,
Deep malice to conceale, couch't with revenge:
Yet not anough had practisd to deceive
Uriel once warnd; whose eye pursu'd him down [ 125 :]
The way he went,
Assuming that Adam and Eve do not have these emotions (yet), it occurs to me that Satan is going to fix that quite shortly. It would appear that the cause of "human" emotions, (at least the distempered varieties) is rebellion against God.
MadgeUK wrote: "Dante was an exiled catholic living in Italy and may have been more circumscribed in his portrayal of God than Milton, a Puritan living in a non-catholic country who fervently believed in the freedom of the press..."
This seems backward to me. There is no Catholic prohibition that I am aware of against anthropomorphizing the Father. The Last Judgement is on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel for goodness sakes! Catholics have had a long running love affair with religious art. Too much so in the case of a few Renaissance popes.
OTOH, the Protestants were always railing against Catholic idolatry, so I can't believe they were more inclined to humanize the Father. Nor did they seem very interested in art as a means to describe or explain God. I think that is one of the reasons that Paradise Lost stands out as unique.
I think Roger is correct in saying that the Father does not really have a human aspect, unlike Christ or the Virgin, so he isn't often given human form either in visual art or in literature. It detracts from His mystery to do so.
This seems backward to me. There is no Catholic prohibition that I am aware of against anthropomorphizing the Father. The Last Judgement is on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel for goodness sakes! Catholics have had a long running love affair with religious art. Too much so in the case of a few Renaissance popes.
OTOH, the Protestants were always railing against Catholic idolatry, so I can't believe they were more inclined to humanize the Father. Nor did they seem very interested in art as a means to describe or explain God. I think that is one of the reasons that Paradise Lost stands out as unique.
I think Roger is correct in saying that the Father does not really have a human aspect, unlike Christ or the Virgin, so he isn't often given human form either in visual art or in literature. It detracts from His mystery to do so.
I think that with the evolution of human thought (I am talking about western thought here in particular since we are reading a classic of the western canon) there has been evolution in the western conception of God. These changes do not come about automatically with the western humanity as a whole but a little bit at a time. Dante and Milton were just a couple of people who could be considered divinely inspired as I would go so far to say Walt Whitman was. It seems to me that a poet's way of looking at things often differs from the accepted standard.
Thomas wrote: "Assuming that Adam and Eve do not have these emotions (yet), it occurs to me that Satan is going to fix that quite shortly. It would appear that the cause of "human" emotions, (at least the distempered varieties) is rebellion against God.
..."
As if I needed even more things to think about here! Thanks Thomas. That has some interesting possiblities.
..."
As if I needed even more things to think about here! Thanks Thomas. That has some interesting possiblities.
I am going to post this link as we get ready to read book 6 for those who, like me, are not so familiar with all these archangels...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archangel
Everyman wrote: "For our Biblical scholars, is there a Biblical basis for using Raphael as the go-between? According to the biblical story in the Book of Tobit, Raphael was sent by God to help the blind Tobit, his son, Tobias and a seemingly unrelated woman named Sarah.
I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who enter and serve before the Glory of the Lord." (Tobit, 12.15)
Below is a short synopsis which might indicate its importance to Paradise Lost.
Sarah is being pursued by a demon Asmodeus who keeps killing her husbands on their wedding night. Raphael is sent to heal Tobit and Sarah and to protect Tobias on a trip to retrieve some family money. Raphael takes the form of Azariah, hired as Tobias' traveling companion. He protects Tobias on the journey and directs Tobias to save a fish he catches in the Tigris river. Tobias collects the money, meets and marries Sarah (who turns out to be a cousin) and burns some fish entrails to chase Asmodeus away to Egypt. They both return home and using some of the fish guts, restores his father's sight.
Everyman wrote: "For our Biblical scholars, is there a Biblical basis for using Raphael as the go-between?"I don't claim to be a Biblical scholar—I don't read either Hebrew or Greek—but there's no reference to Raphael in the Protestant canon and only two references to him in the Apocrypha, neither of which has anything to do with Eden.
This seems to be more of Milton fleshing out the story, and, perhaps (as someone else—Roger?—has already suggested), an opportunity for him to elaborate some of his own theological ideas.
MadgeUK wrote: "Roger wrote: "Christian images of God the Father exist, throne in the sky...that's a very childish way...."I would hardly call Michaelangelo and the other great painters childish Roger!"
Not to put words in Roger's mouth—and I've just finished reading the entire folder in one go, so I may have my messages mixed—but I had the impression Roger was responding to a subtext in Amanda's rather apt observation about Milton's portrayal of God as Old Man With Robe On Big Chair: the idea of a static being limited to human scope vs. a dynamic, transcendent I AM. In that sense, a static portrayal is certainly underdeveloped.
That's no reflection on the skill of any of the many painters who have attempted the subject matter of Revelations. Their medium is static by definition; it doesn't follow that their paintings are childish in subject, intent or execution.
Milton isn't limited to portraying a single, static scene, yet against the sumptuous, dynamic backdrop of the rest of the epic, he projects an underdeveloped image of God the Father. It's almost as if one stands before a huge, richly-detailed canvas that has a bright blur as its focal point (though an eloquent blur, to be sure).
Everyman wrote: "It's valuable to try to analyze Milton analytically, and many here are doing a fine job at it. But sometimes he goes beyond analytical clarity, and at those times I think we just have to be awed by his the complexity, intelligence, and sheer beauty of his imagery and language.
..."
Kate: 100% agreement here. I'm awed by what he's doing in this poem on a whole raft of different levels including the poetry itself.
These fine comments justify something that might otherwise be deemed too off-topic. It's an anecdote I picked up at the Thoreau Conference.
Mary Moody Emerson, Ralph Waldo Emerson's aunt, was born in 1774 in the Old Manse, a house in Concord, MA next to the bridge upon which the "shot heard round the world" (RWE) was fired. (Sorry Madge! It can't be avoided!) She said that she was "in arms" that day.
A speaker today argued that, despite being a generation older, she provided the intellectual stimulation that flowered in Emerson and led to the transcendental movement. But that is a story for another day.
Family setbacks led to her being raised in poor circumstances in Maine. While there she found a book in the attic with the cover torn off. Reportedly, she read it many many times, indeed, virtually memorized it. All without knowing what it was.
Years later, when Harvard educated relatives (males of course) visited, they immediately recognized it as Paradise Lost.
I got a chill when I heard this. It says so much about the times and the power of the poem.
She had almost memorized it.
She, like other women, couldn't be formally educated.
Couldn't be a minister, lawyer, or politician.
Notwithstanding, she became a fiercely independent (dare I say "self-reliant") intellect and force in our intellectual history.
No one knows how she "analyzed" the poem; I find it very moving to consider what the poem must have meant to her though. Ultimately, she abandoned her Congregationalist upbringing I believe. But I think her experience with the poem is an example of what Everyman and Kate are talking about here.
..."
Kate: 100% agreement here. I'm awed by what he's doing in this poem on a whole raft of different levels including the poetry itself.
These fine comments justify something that might otherwise be deemed too off-topic. It's an anecdote I picked up at the Thoreau Conference.
Mary Moody Emerson, Ralph Waldo Emerson's aunt, was born in 1774 in the Old Manse, a house in Concord, MA next to the bridge upon which the "shot heard round the world" (RWE) was fired. (Sorry Madge! It can't be avoided!) She said that she was "in arms" that day.
A speaker today argued that, despite being a generation older, she provided the intellectual stimulation that flowered in Emerson and led to the transcendental movement. But that is a story for another day.
Family setbacks led to her being raised in poor circumstances in Maine. While there she found a book in the attic with the cover torn off. Reportedly, she read it many many times, indeed, virtually memorized it. All without knowing what it was.
Years later, when Harvard educated relatives (males of course) visited, they immediately recognized it as Paradise Lost.
I got a chill when I heard this. It says so much about the times and the power of the poem.
She had almost memorized it.
She, like other women, couldn't be formally educated.
Couldn't be a minister, lawyer, or politician.
Notwithstanding, she became a fiercely independent (dare I say "self-reliant") intellect and force in our intellectual history.
No one knows how she "analyzed" the poem; I find it very moving to consider what the poem must have meant to her though. Ultimately, she abandoned her Congregationalist upbringing I believe. But I think her experience with the poem is an example of what Everyman and Kate are talking about here.
She's fascinating Zeke. Thanks. I had to go google up some more information. Here's a link for those interested in her: http://www.emersoncentral.com/mary_mo...
Roger wrote: "Dianna wrote: "Maybe Milton's God is kind of like the Wizard of Oz..."I think that nails it. ..."
I'm not sure this gets it. The Wizard of Oz didn't really do anything other than speak in a loud voice and terrify people. Milton's God did create earth, Adam, and Eve, and endowed them with life and, he contends, free will. Quite a different thing, IMO.
Thanks for your kind intervention Aranthe:). The website below comments that Milton's portrayal of God has sparked one of the 'most controversial and long running debates', and that it is always 'a tricky business to represent God in literature'. We are only doing here what folks have been doing for centuries and Milton was always on a hiding to nothing:(. http://www.christs.cam.ac.uk/darkness...
There are some extremely interesting thoughts about Milton's God as seen by various critics here:-
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2A...
I thought that both Amanda and Roger were commenting that portraying 'God in a robe on a chair' etc was unbiblical, childish and somehow wrong. Whereas I found it quite normal and in accordance with biblical descriptions which have frequently been used by writers and artists. For a Supreme Being to be remote and static seems OK to me - like a Board Chairman supervising business from an office at the top of a skyscraper, using Raphael to arbitrate rather as a CE would use a Personnel Officer. But then I do not understand religious 'transcendence' at all, any more than I understand the 'spirit' or the 'soul', and this may be my problem in this discussion. These ethereal worlds and ideas are beyond my ken because I do not believe in them. I can only look at the characters and events in an 'earthly' way. Sorry if this offends.
Rhonda wrote: "Everyman wrote: "For our Biblical scholars, is there a Biblical basis for using Raphael as the go-between? According to the biblical story in the Book of Tobit, Raphael was sent by God to help ..."
I find it interesting that in the whole of PL, Milton places such importance on the angels, when the Bible, especially in the New Testament (besides the times Angels served as messengers), clearly denotes the rank of angels as even lesser than that of humans.
For example, see Hebrews chapter 1,
"1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
4Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
13But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
14Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?"
And also in Hebrews chapter 2:
"5For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
6But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?
7Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him."
In fact, I am always irked whenever this fascination with the angels occurs in classical literature, because it betrays an unconquerable urge to romanticize ... and this is from people who are quite knowledgeable on the "hierarchy of the heavens" (if I can refer to it that way)... Which is actually a significant Roman Catholic influence. The Puritans of the upcoming centuries move away from this understanding, just as they had already rejected Christian art, Cathedrals, and etc. by Milton's time.
Regarding the transcendence of God - I can see how William Blake could consider Milton a heretic and Devil's tool. God's triune nature, along with the fact of his omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, and etc. was established quite conclusively in Augustine's "The Trinity." In fact, Augustine warns against any "human" understanding of God by saying that "it is difficult to contemplate and fully know the substance of God; who fashions things changeable, yet without any change in Himself, and creates things temporal, yet without any temporal movement in Himself. And it is necessary, therefore, to purge our minds, in order to be able to see ineffably that which is ineffable; whereto not having yet attained, we are to be nourished by faith, and led by such ways as are more suited to our capacity, that we may be rendered apt and able to comprehend it."
It is ironic, though, that the Puritan rhetoric was skewed in the opposite direction, as we were able to see several centuries later in the incredibly famous "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," where the attempt was to present God as allpowerful and transcendent and immanent, yet Jonathan Edwards limited him to only the wrathful role of judge and executioner...
I think we need to remembe that since Milton was a poet and artist he does have what's called "poetic license." I am not sure (and maybe I should know by now) but does Milton think he is writing the "true and literal" account of creation?
Everyman wrote: "Roger wrote: "Dianna wrote: "Maybe Milton's God is kind of like the Wizard of Oz..."I think that nails it. ..."
I'm not sure this gets it. The Wizard of Oz didn't really do anything other than..."
Yeah, but all that's off-camera. In the action of the book so far, He looks & sounds like the WoO.
Dianna wrote: "I think we need to remembe that since Milton was a poet and artist he does have what's called "poetic license." I am not sure (and maybe I should know by now) but does Milton think he is writing t..."C S Lewis writes: '...the sound course is to judge the poem on its merits, not to prejudge it by reading doctrinal errors into the text. And as far as doctrine goes, the poem is overwhelmingly Christian. Except for a few isolated passages it is not even Protestant or Puritan. It gives the great central tradition. Emotionally it may have such and such faults; dogmatically its invitation to join in this great ritual mimesis of the Fall is one which all Christendom in all lands can accept.'
In his Preface to Paradise Lost Lewis calls it Augustinian, Hierarchical and Catholic, with the exception that Milton is an Arian who does not believe in the 'coeterinty and equal deity of the three persons' - in the Trinity. In this he is being orthodox or heretical depending upon which doctrine you subscribe to. He was above all being a poet and as Dianna says, exercising poetic licence.
On the subject of angels eating Lewis points out that Thomas Aquinas believed that angels were purely immaterial; when they 'appear' human to the human senses they have temporarily assumed a body of air, sufficiently condensed for visibility. Hence, for Aquinas an angel could not eat; when he appeared to do so it was not actual eating but a symbol of spiritual eating. 'That is a [catholic:] view that Milton went out of his way to controvert.' When the Archangel Raphael dined with Adam it was not symbolic - 'nor seemingly, nor in a mist'. There was real hunger, real nourishment. Milton thought this anthromorphic idea was true and he was not alone because there is a body of ancient work which reiterates these ideas about gods taking human shape and doing human things. In the 16C, for instance, there were many reports (including one by Machaevelli) of aerial combat between angels and demons. It is the ancient Greek idea of the gods from Olympus coming down to mix with humans, even to give them children. (Hyacinth is twice mentioned in PL for instance.)
Alina comments on the importance he places on angels. Perhaps Milton used angels just as Shakespeare used fairies, because they make a good story? Or maybe he used them because after the Restoration of a crypto-catholic king there were more crypto-catholics around who believed in angels? Or was he just being satirical, especially vis a vis Satan? It is rather strange that an avowed anti-catholic should place such emphasis on them in what he considered to be his greatest work.
The Archangel Raphael is credited with saving the world from the Flood because he advised Noah to build an Ark and he is also associated with healing, especially blindness, so these may be reasons why Milton used him.
Amanda: Milton is using the Book of Revelation as well as the Book of Genesis and in St John's Revelation the One is very remote. (I read it yesterday.:)) The story of Creation is drawn from Genesis but the establishment of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, the temptation by the serpent and the dismissal of Adam and Eve from the Garden are taken from Revelation. Milton made the radical choice to begin his poem with the aftermath of the fall of angels, in effect turning the biblical sequence on its head - rather as the Civil War had been described as 'the world turned upside down'.
MadgeUK wrote: "C S Lewis writes: '...the sound course is to judge the poem on its merits, not to prejudge it by reading doctrinal errors into the text. And as far as doctrine goes, the poem is overwhelmingly Christian. Except for a few isolated passages it is not even Protestant or Puritan. It gives the great central tradition. Emotionally it may have such and such faults; dogmtically its invitation to join in this great ritual mimesis of the Fall is one which all Christendom in all lands can accept.' "And yet no one can deny that works like PL and Inferno, while 'overwhelmingly' Christian, have in a sense diverted (or at least greatly affected) the course of classic and Biblically-inspired literature (and maybe even Christianity itself) in the succeeding centuries...
Alina wrote: "I find it interesting that in the whole of PL, Milton places such importance on the angels, when the Bible, especially in the New Testament (besides the times Angels served as messengers), clearly denotes the rank of angels as even lesser than that of humans."While I think your point is well taken and I am sure that many have already meditated on the limited capacity of angels, the NT remains replete with them, from before the Annunciation to aiding Christ in the wilderness, the angel consoling Christ in the garden of Olives (Luke 22:43) and finally to Revelation where they perform specific duties. It is, of course, this which gives the church history the conclusion that each church has its guardian angel.
Interestingly, although angels usually take the form of men, in Revelation it seems probable that the four beasts before the throne of God are angels.
The issue during the time of Christ is that while the Pharisees (and Essenes) believed in angels, the Sadducees did not. However the Pharisees were a much larger group than the Sadducees and less conservative as a rule.
The most interesting issue of angels (at least the good ones) is that they seem to have limited participation in human matters, clearly under strict orders from the Deity to perhaps give information or attempt to persuade but little else, though one supposes that they shall become more active at the final battle of Armageddon.
The evil angels, besides Satan, do not seem to appear in a recognizable form except to invisibly tempt and lure the naive into sin. Clearly Milton has taken poetic license in the naming of these...and it is quite a magnificent portrayal,though the character of each seems verifiable in myth or literature. Still, I always smile at the Hollywood interpretation of the two miniature angels on the shoulder of someone trying to decide which direction to go. (Animal House comes to mind.)
Ultimately I often wonder that the angels who remained with God did not become either tired or jealous of God spending so much time with mankind. We have not, after all, had such a splendorous record of listening to God's word. It seems reasonable to some degree that if man were, in fact, created a little lower than the angels, that the angels ought to be the source of more attention rather than mere errand boys.
Rhonda wrote: "The most interesting issue of angels (at least the good ones) is that they seem to have limited participation in human matters, clearly under strict orders from the Deity to perhaps give information or attempt to persuade but little else, though one supposes that they shall become more active at the final battle of Armageddon. "Not to derail the discussion even further, but ultimately, the angels just didn't KNOW the true nature of Christ's sacrifice and all it entailed for the salvation of mankind - essentially the biggest event of the New Testament, and they are ignorant...
In 1st Peter chapter 1:
"11Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
12Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into."
In contrast, Milton's angels are not just fully reasoning creatures (in book vi - not a big spoiler, I pomise - we see that Abdiel thinks of having 'tested' God and "whose reason I have tried/Unsound and false; nor is it aught but just"), but in some instances alarmingly close to being as omniscient as God (think Raphael's speech on the creation of the world and Lucifer's reason for the fall).
Alina wrote: "And yet no one can deny........."Not sure of your meaning here Alina? Do you mean that people have 'taken on' the notions in Dante and Milton et al rather than looking to the Bible itself? Paradise Lost was certainly as widely read as the Bible for several centuries, together with Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. (PL was also popular in the British Empire and was an examination subject on Indian syllabuses, where it competed with the Indian epics.)
MadgeUK wrote: "Alina wrote: "And yet no one can deny........."Not sure of your meaning here Alina? Do you mean that people have 'taken on' the notions in Dante and Milton et al rather than looking to the Bible..."
Madge, that's exactly what I mean. I remember being taught the Pilgrim's Progress as a teenager, in lieu of the actual Gospels and Epistles...
In addition, certain concepts from PL (not the least of which being the less than fully transcendent nature of God, along with Milton's interpretations regarding Lucifer's fall) have crept into mainstream Christian thought and have long been accepted as Biblical fact.
ETA: at least in my practical and personal experience in the church...
There is nothing crypto-catholic about angels. They are a common Christian belief, for they appear many times in the Bible. In Milton's time I daresay virtually everyone believed in them. Less so now; moderns often interpret them as allegories.
Milton begins PL in the middle of the action (in media res) because that is a convention of epic literature. It also provides a gripping beginning--all those demons lolling stunned in the burning lake.
MadgeUK wrote: "Thanks for your kind intervention Aranthe:)."I hope I didn't sound officious. I hesitated to say anything and only did so because the static nature of the portrayal was something I noticed in my reading of it (and wondered if it seemed so to anyone else).
I generally lurk until I get a good feel for the culture of an online community before I comment, but I've so enjoyed PL that I couldn't resist jumping in—perhaps where Milton's angels might have feared to tread.
"...it is always 'a tricky business to represent God in literature'. We are only doing here what folks have been doing for centuries..."...and I'd have been greatly surprised (not to mention disappointed), if we weren't.
"These ethereal worlds and ideas are beyond my ken because I do not believe in them. I can only look at the characters and events in an 'earthly' way. Sorry if this offends."If I took offense so easily at a different perspective, I'd not have sought out a group of intelligent people for lively discussion. ;-)
MadgeUK wrote: Alina comments on the importance he places on angels. Perhaps Milton used angels just as Shakespeare used fairies, because they make a good story? Or maybe he used them because after the Restoration of a crypto-catholic king there were more crypto-catholics around who believed in angels? Or was he just being satirical, especially vis a vis Satan? It is rather strange that an avowed anti-catholic should place such emphasis on them in what he considered to be his greatest work.Milton uses angels because he is writing about a time when there were only two humans. Also, he is writing about the origin of evil, and evil had its origin in a fallen angel who tempted the first man and woman. Why did God send an angel down to instruct Adam? Because the angels are His ministering spirits. Their delight is to do God's bidding. Today, God makes use of people as well as angels (and the forces of nature) to work His will. Why? Because He is God.
Isaiah 6:
1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.
2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.
3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.
4 And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.
5 Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.
6 Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar:
7 And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged.
8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.
Rhonda wrote: Ultimately I often wonder that the angels who remained with God did not become either tired or jealous of God spending so much time with mankind. We have not, after all, had such a splendorous record of listening to God's word. It seems reasonable to some degree that if man were, in fact, created a little lower than the angels, that the angels ought to be the source of more attention rather than mere errand boys.We only have the record of God's dealings with humans in the Bible. It is awe-inspiring to imagine how much we don't know about angels, other galaxies, what is going on in Heaven, today, etc. We have been give just a tiny view of All.
Roger wrote: "There is nothing crypto-catholic about angels. They are a common Christian belief, for they appear many times in the Bible. In Milton's time I daresay virtually everyone believed in them. Less s..."Exactly.
Aranthe wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Thanks for your kind intervention Aranthe:)."I hope I didn't sound officious. I hesitated to say anything and only did so because the static nature of the portrayal was something ..."
Aranthe: I thought yours was an excellent and interesting intervention and not at all 'officious'. I was just commenting upon it in my usual way. Sorry if I sounded as if I was offended - that wasn't the case at all.
Laurel/Roger: There was a purge of references and statuary to do with angels in Puritan times because it was thought that people were directing their prayers to them rather than to God. Iconoclasm was also rife at this time and the Protestation Oath taken by English people in 1642 was a pledge to defend the true religion 'against all Popery and popish innovation', which included crosses, statues, altar rails and communion tables, which were subsequently destroyed. References to angels were dropped from Church of England burial services between 1549 and 1600 and several Protestant scholars queried the existence of 'guardian angels' of which Calvin wrote 'those who limit the care God takes of each of us so a single angel, do great injury to themselves and to all the members of the church'. Statues of defaced angels can still be seen in English churches today eg:-http://www.guildenmorden.gov.uk/dowsi...
In his book on Daemonology James I wrote 'Since the coming of Christ in the flesh, and establishing of his Church by the Apostles, all miracles, visions, prophecies, and appearances of angels or good spirits are ceased.'. He equated demons with angels which became a common belief. The extreme Protestantism of James I led to the suppression of the idea of angels but catholics held on to the notion and they were 'resurrected' under Charles I & II, who were crypto-catholics who interfered with the liturgy of the Church of England as practiced by the earlier Puritans under James. Milton gave up the idea of a ministry in the CofE because of these interferences. The Restoration also saw the restoration of crosses, statues, alter rails etc. in English churches. (Protestants also seem to have clung to the idea of an angel at the deathbed, as when Horatio says to Hamlet 'goodnight sweet prince, and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest' and Bunyan too wrote that the deathbed of the ungodly is surrounded by devils but the Christian is surrounded by angels.)
As folks have noted, there are differences in descriptions, names and numbers of angels between the Jewish, Catholic and Protestant bibles, the latter acknowledging far fewer than the former. Milton appears to use a mix between all three and he uses unorthodox ideas about them - like having them eat and excrete (contrary to Aquinas). Whether or not he believed in them we do not know but we do know that he was strongly opposed to idolatry and catholicism, which has hierarchies of angels, archangels etc which did not appear in the Protestant canon of his time, which is why I thought he might be using satire or appealing to crypto-catholics. I think that he uses angels and the whole hierarchy in heaven because, as Prof Rogers mentions, he was able to compare it to the social hierarchy of the Commonwealth thereby drawing certain moral and political conclusions.
(There is a lovely story about Luther when he was writing his commentary on the Letter to the Romans. He got very excited by its prognostications and, looking up from his work, said to his dog 'Be thou comforted little dog, thou too in the Resurrection shall have a little golden tail'. Just one Christian interpretation amongst so many but rather a nice one. I wonder if it applies to cats:).).
MadgeUK wrote: "Laurel/Roger: There was a purge of references and statuary to do with angels in Puritan times because it was thought that people were directing their prayers to them rather than to God. Iconoclasm ..."That is an interesting observation. The more extreme reformers objected to images of angels, and denied that they appeared to people after Christ's time (not that they existed at all, I presume, and certainly not that they were the same as demons!). Now Milton provides Prostestant images--not physical, to be sure, but literary. Is he trying to meet a spiritual need?
Not just the more extreme I am afraid - the vandalism was widespread, probably as a result of crowd hysteria whipped up by James and his preachers, and later by Cromwell's soldiers. James I wrote that as one third of the angels had turned into demons more could do so. Satan could also tempt them to do so, therefore they were not to be trusted just as Satan was not to be trusted. (In 1467 a Protestant scholar had calculated that there were 400 million angels and 133,316,666 were demons!) King James I had an enormous influence on the Christianity of England not least because he had his Bible written and placed in every church in the country. Another connection with idolatory is that some believed that every idol, including those of angels and saints, had a real demon attached to it who encouraged mortals in the worship of idols and tempted them into sin. C S Lewis mentions that Milton drew upon the Zohar, the Judaic Kabbalah, which says that demons are the fallen angels of the fourth world who betray mortals into sin.
No wonder people got scared of angels-cum-demons! I suppose it is possible that Milton was trying to rehabilitate them but that doesn't sit very well with his Puritan image.
I just came across this quote about Milton's images by the American author and Professor of Renaissance literature, Rosemond Tuve:- 'The true way to appreciate the dynamic of Milton's images is to understand them in the intellectual setting of his age: We may not be able to accept them literally as theological truth, but we ought to be able to enter into them as a living pattern of thoughts about liberty and authority, dignity and obedience, order and impulse.'
Great citation Madge. As one who appreciates the idea of accepting the poem according to Milton's time, but who has found much of the recent theological discussion going above his head, I would welcome examples. This might help me better concretize the point made in the citation.
Just where do various angels represent these abstract concepts.
(I admit that I write this feeling a little bit grumpy about Raphael after Book VIII)
Just where do various angels represent these abstract concepts.
(I admit that I write this feeling a little bit grumpy about Raphael after Book VIII)
The high conversations about matters political, theological, metaphysical could crowd out the poetry of PL. Here's one example I liked in Book V:
That golden scepter which thou didst reject
Is now an iron rod to bruise and break
Thy disobedience.
By the way, as metaphor, this could neatly refer to the consequences of our own misuse of man's "dominion" over the earth and its resources.
That golden scepter which thou didst reject
Is now an iron rod to bruise and break
Thy disobedience.
By the way, as metaphor, this could neatly refer to the consequences of our own misuse of man's "dominion" over the earth and its resources.
We should have a thread for posting bits of the poetry like this. It's kind of a fluffy thread to have, but they get lost in the discussion threads and they are appealing by themselves. What do you think, moderators?
Amanda wrote: "Milton's portrayal of God so far is remote and uninvolved in the lives of Adam and Eve, when the Biblical account has God walking through the garden with Adam and conversing with him often- that was, after all, why He created him."Welcome back!
Yes, it's interesting how much more remote Milton seems to make God than he is presented in Genesis. I wonder whether this is in part because Genesis was seem more as a Jewish book; the emphasis in Judaism is more on God, and in Christianity more on Christ.
We'll see a bit more of God down the road, so to speak, so shouldn't perhaps fix our thoughts of how Milton views him in stone yet, but we've mentioned before that one of the traditional criticisms of Milton is that he makes Satan a much more compelling and interesting figure than God, which connects with your comment about Milton reducing God's role below that of Genesis. .
Dianna wrote: "I think we need to remembe that since Milton was a poet and artist he does have what's called "poetic license." I am not sure (and maybe I should know by now) but does Milton think he is writing t..."I can't answer definitively (if indeed anybody can), but that's not my impression. After all, he laid out pretty clearly what his purpose was: to justify the ways of God to man.
Alina wrote: "And yet no one can deny that works like PL and Inferno, while 'overwhelmingly' Christian, have in a sense diverted (or at least greatly affected) the course of classic and Biblically-inspired literature (and maybe even Christianity itself) in the succeeding centuries... "Absolutely. And as Dianna noted, Milton does have poetic license (as did Dante). And in both cases, some of the traditional churchmen of their ages were not happy with them!
Rhonda wrote: "While I think your point is well taken and I am sure that many have already meditated on the limited capacity of angels, the NT remains replete with them,"Nice analysis, Rhonda. Like you, I do enjoy the way he names the fallen angels as being the divinities worshiped by non-Christians.
Roger wrote: "Milton begins PL in the middle of the action (in media res) because that is a convention of epic literature. It also provides a gripping beginning--all those demons lolling stunned in the burning lake."Lol. Very true! It's a much more dramatic opening, and makes us wonder just what a war between angels would have been like.
Madge, I said images of God the Father were uncommon, not unknown. I agree that you can find them if you look for them. But go into any church where images abound (Catholic, and especially Orthodox). You will find very few Father images, if any, and many images of Christ, Mary, and saints.