Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Discussion - Paradise Lost
>
Paradise Lost - through Book 5
MadgeUK wrote: "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.'"And of course, in those days, what the King said, whether or not it was theologically defensible, was deferred to by all who wanted to keep their heads, not to mention that the King was the titular head of the Church.
MadgeUK wrote: "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 t..."
I think we underestimate the power of Milton's angels if we try to understand them using the theories of modern psychology. I believe that he very much believed in the actuality of angels (as of witches) as real and present beings.
Kate wrote: "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 y..."Personally, I happen to like them coming along mixed in with the other threads of the discussion; I find it makes for a nice contrast. But if others want a separate thread for poetry, we can certainly do it. Do you mean just poetic bits from PL, or other bits such as the Whitman that was cited earlier?
Everyman wrote: "Kate wrote: "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 themselve..."
Good point Everyman, I like to come across them when I'm reading a thread too. It's just that there were some interesting bits earlier that have been swallowed by the subsequent discussion. We could just enjoy them in the moment and let the tide wash over them. I'll leave it as is.
Good point Everyman, I like to come across them when I'm reading a thread too. It's just that there were some interesting bits earlier that have been swallowed by the subsequent discussion. We could just enjoy them in the moment and let the tide wash over them. I'll leave it as is.
Everyman wrote: "I can't answer definitely..."But Everyman, he also laid out at length, in various essays, that his great ambition was to be a poet as good as Homer and other great epic writers and so he decided to justify the ways of God to man in poetry, not prose. As I posted above, he believed that poets were special and divinely inspired.
Everyman wrote: "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..."My understanding, from my book's Notes, is that this picture of a remote God - the One - is from St John's Revelation, not from Genesis. He uses both books in different parts of PL.
Zeke wrote: "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 wel..."Have you listened to Prof Roger's lectures on Book IV (latter part) and V Zeke, especially Book V? He gives some insight into this.
http://academicearth.org/lectures/par...
http://academicearth.org/lectures/par...
Everyman wrote: "I think we underestimate the power of Milton's angels...Do you believe that Milton the Puritan, who grew up under James I's religious edicts and opposed the ones of Charles I, would have believed in angels and did not agree with the destruction of angelic (and other) idols which took place during the Civil War? I am not so sure and really do wonder at his motives here. Because he writes at length about them does not mean that he 'believed' in them. They could just be a literary device, as the Greek gods were in The Iliad, the book he most imitated when describing the angel's war in heaven. I realise that those here (not necessarily yourself), whose religious inclinations are towards believing in angels would want Milton to do so but given what you said above about people deferring to what King James wrote, do you think Milton did not so defer?
(BTW Professor Tuve was a Professor of Renaissance Literature at Connecticut Uni, not a psychologist. The quote was from her book about Medieval Allegorical Imagery.)
I too like the idea of poetry popping up here and there in this thread - it can lighten the heavier topics sometimes.
MadgeUK wrote: "Do you believe that Milton the Puritan, who grew up under James I's religious edicts and opposed the ones of Charles I, would have believed in angels and did not agree with the destruction of angelic (and other) idols which took place during the Civil War? I am not so sure and really do wonder at his motives here. Because he writes at length about them does not mean that he 'believed' in them. They could just be a literary device..."For what it's worth, the Christian Doctrine makes it clear that Milton does believe in angels, and that there is plenty of scriptural support for such a belief. This doesn't mean that he approved of iconic representation of them, of course.
Thomas wrote: For what it's worth, the Christian Doctrine makes it clear that Milton does believe in angels, and that there is plenty of scriptural support for such a belief. This doesn't mean that he approved of iconic representation of them, of course.Right. I don't think many Christians who believe the Bible would not believe in angels. It's the worship of angels that is clearly interdicted in the New Testament, especially in the epistle to the Colossians:
18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
Col. 2
Thomas wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Do you believe that Milton the Puritan, who grew up under James I's religious edicts and opposed the ones of Charles I, would have believed in angels and did not agree with the dest..."Thanks Thomas. that is useful to know and settles the questions I put.
Out of curiosity, I rang a couple of my Anglican friends yesterday and neither of them believed in angels but neither of them are literalists so that perhaps explains it. My two Jewish relatives believe only in Yahweh and my close Muslim friend believes only in Allah and dismisses the Koran altogether. I think that my Caribbean relatives in Trinidad, who are orthodox Anglicans, will believe in angels.
I got to wondering what our present Archbishop of Canterbury thinks about angels because he is known to be not particularly 'literal' and does not, for instance, believe in the Resurrection, but he has in fact given angels a good press:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/pe...
This is what Muslims think about certain angels:-
'Muslims believe that angels have been created by Allah from light. They have no free will and fulfil certain functions in the service of Allah. They also worship Allah. Some angels mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah are:
Jibrail (Gabriel): He is the leader of the angels. His function was mainly to bring revelation to the Messengers.
Mikaeel (Michael): He is in charge of rain and supplying sustenance to all living beings.
Israfeel (Raphael): He is to blow the trumpet when the time for the end of the world arrives.
Azraeel (Azrael): The angel of death.
Al-Kiraam Al-Kaatibeen: Two honourable recorders who note all our actions.
This is the Muslim view of angels and Satan:
Angels, like the rest of creation, are muslims by nature or, in some sense, by compulsion. They lack the faculties which distinguish man as a volitional being from the rest of creation. Angels cannot disobey God or commit acts of evil and sin. We believe Satan was not an angel even though, under the influence of Jewish and Christian tradition, some Qur'an commentators and traditionists have argued this only as a possibility. Nor is Satan's power to do evil beyond the divine will and decree. He is simply given respite to the day when they (humankind) shall be raised up. Hence human evil - the only true evil in the world because it is an act of voluntary choice - can be overcome by divine guidance which is the task of prophets, the recipients of divine revelation.'
(I wonder if I am the only person here who doesn't believe in angels?)
You are of course right about the Muslim view, but in addition, belief in angels is one of the 6 articles of faith for being Muslim. Hence one would be hard pressed to be a Muslim without such a belief. Interestingly, there are no evil angels in Islam. There is an angel specifically in paradise (Ridwan) and another in hell (Maalik and 19 others in fact) for punishing the wicked, but none is Satan. Satan is often spoken of as having been a jinn.
The hadith talks about angels but in a very inconsistent manner.
Being a Christian, or Jew for that matter, without believing in angels must allow for a very interesting reading of the Holy Book.
I would think, without wishing to open a can of worms, that believing in angels without believing in God would invite a causal conundrum of immense proportions.
Rhonda wrote: "I would think, without wishing to open a can of worms, that believing in angels without believing in God would invite a causal conundrum of immense proportions. ..."
I'm all for closing the can of worms, but angels without God isn't too far from some types of Paganism.
I'm all for closing the can of worms, but angels without God isn't too far from some types of Paganism.
MadgeUK wrote: "(I wonder if I am the only person here who doesn't believe in angels?) ."
I hope you didn't take my comment as a reflection of my personal belief. I was just pointing out that Milton goes to great lengths in the Christian Doctrine to demonstrate the scriptural basis for his opinions, one of which is on the "the Special Government of Angels" (Chap IX).
The Christian Doctrine is a private document that Milton didn't intend for publication -- partly because he wrote it for himself, and partly because of his concerns that some parties "might take unjust offense, even though many things should be brought to light which will at once be seen to differ from certain received opinions."
His method is his own, but that he took the Bible as divine revelation there can be no doubt:
I resolved not to repose on the faith or judgment of others in matters relating to God; but on the one hand, having taken the grounds of my faith from divine revelation alone, and on the other, having neglected nothing which depended on my own industry, I thought fit to scrutinize and ascertain for myself the several points of my religious belief, by the most careful perusal and meditation of the Holy Scriptures themselves.
...it is my particular advice that every one should suspend his opinion on whatever points he may not feel himself fully satisfied, till the evidence of Scripture prevail, and persuade his reason into assent and faith.
...Judge of my present undertaking according to the admonishing of the Spirit of God -- and neither adopt my sentiments, nor reject them, unless every doubt has been removed from your belief by the clear testimony of revelation.
Rhonda wrote: "You are of course right about the Muslim view, but in addition, belief in angels is one of the 6 articles of faith for being Muslim. Hence one would be hard pressed to be a Muslim without such a b..."Muslims believe in djinns - devils - in a big way though.
I think those who read their Holy books without believing in angels or, say, the miracles, see those books as allegorical, much as I do as an atheist. The difference is that they retain a personal belief in a God/Supreme Being/Prime Mover.
Thomas wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "(I wonder if I am the only person here who doesn't believe in angels?) ."
I hope you didn't take my comment as a reflection of my personal belief. I was just pointing out that..."
Thanks Thomas - not at all.
Thanks for putting up some information about Milton's Christian Doctrine. It is one of his books that I haven't read, I must admit, and I should have done. He puts a great deal of emphasis on reason and reasoning doesn't he. I remember someone posted earlier that he thought that those who just believed what the priest told them had not reasoned enough. As I have posted elsewhere, it was a deist Age of Reason philosophy in advance of its time.
Milton was no deist. A deist believes in a remote and impersonal God uninvolved in human affairs.
"I resolved not to repose on the faith or judgment of others in matters relating to God; but on the one hand, having taken the grounds of my faith from divine revelation alone, and on the other, having neglected nothing which depended on my own industry, I thought fit to scrutinize and ascertain for myself the several points of my religious belief, by the most careful perusal and meditation of the Holy Scriptures themselves. ...it is my particular advice that every one should suspend his opinion on whatever points he may not feel himself fully satisfied, till the evidence of Scripture prevail, and persuade his reason into assent and faith.
...Judge of my present undertaking according to the admonishing of the Spirit of God -- and neither adopt my sentiments, nor reject them, unless every doubt has been removed from your belief by the clear testimony of revelation."
That sounds Quakerish to me...
But then it seems a little confusing that on the one hand he takes the grounds of his faith from divine revelation and on the other hand he "neglected nothing which depended on [his:] own industry."
I think the term deist, like any other word, is subject to interpretation. I consider myself a deist and I believe God is in everything.
Dianna wrote: I think the term deist, like any other word, is subject to interpretation. I consider myself a deist and I believe God is in everything.
I may be wrong, and, if so, no doubt will soon be corrected, but I think your belief that "God is in everything," would make you a pantheist. Pan is the god of nature.
Your comment about "Quakerish" struck me. The more I learn about Milton's emergent monism, the more it seems like the flip side of the transcendtalists' belief that our material being is only part of ourself.
I may be wrong, and, if so, no doubt will soon be corrected, but I think your belief that "God is in everything," would make you a pantheist. Pan is the god of nature.
Your comment about "Quakerish" struck me. The more I learn about Milton's emergent monism, the more it seems like the flip side of the transcendtalists' belief that our material being is only part of ourself.
Zeke, It's complicated to explain my belief. I am not a pantheist but might be a panentheist.From Wiki:
"Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe."
I believe that God is beyond comprehension but there is a part of God in everything. I believe in a spiritual realm and a pantheist would be more of a worshiper of nature or something I think...
Wow. Thanks Dianna.
I wouldn't go that far, but I really appreciate learning of the definition. I suspect some of my transcendental friends would agree with you.
I wouldn't go that far, but I really appreciate learning of the definition. I suspect some of my transcendental friends would agree with you.
I would have loved to have been at that Transcendentalist conference!
Today's trivia: The pan in pantheist is Greek for "all," as in panacea (all-cure) and panorama (all-view). It is not the goat-legged rural nature god named Pan by the Greeks, Faunus by the Romans.
Dianna wrote: "But then it seems a little confusing that on the one hand he takes the grounds of his faith from divine revelation and on the other hand he "neglected nothing which depended on [his:] own industry.""
If I read him correctly, his "industry" refers to his study of scripture, which is the basis of his belief. The point he is making is that he relies on his own industry, his own study, not that of others. He is testing his belief system to ensure that it comports with scripture. The Christian Doctrine reads like case law -- he makes his argument, and then supports each point with a string of quotations from the Bible.
Roger wrote: "Milton was no deist. A deist believes in a remote and impersonal God uninvolved in human affairs." Thomas Paine was a well known deist and it is said that he took many of his ideas from Milton.That is only one aspect of deism. There has been a lot of critical speculation that John Milton was moving towards deism, partly because of his emphasis on reason and observation and away from reliance on revelation. It is also about replacing false systems with 'true' ones and encouraging mankind to use their reason to discover the 'truth' about politics as well as about God.
God's remoteness in PL can be seen as a deistic approach to God - this does not mean that Milton's personal belief in God at this time was deistic but that he was toying with the idea of deism, thinking about it, reasoning his way through it - as Thomas puts it, 'he was testing his belief system to ensure that it comports with scriptture.'
Roger wrote: Today's trivia: the pan in pantheist is Greek for "all," as in panacea (all-cure) and panorama (all-view). It is not the goat-legged rural nature god named Pan by the Greeks, Faunus by the Romans.
Thanks Roger. Point taken. At the same time, the image of Pan, nature god, also fits my conception of pantheism. For me, the conception that there is a unity to all of creation and something of the divine in everything leads to the "capital N" Nature that is as old as the Stoics and as recent as Emerson's transcendentalism.
In the post-Darwin world it offers a bridge between the randomness of evolution and the glory of creation.
Thanks Roger. Point taken. At the same time, the image of Pan, nature god, also fits my conception of pantheism. For me, the conception that there is a unity to all of creation and something of the divine in everything leads to the "capital N" Nature that is as old as the Stoics and as recent as Emerson's transcendentalism.
In the post-Darwin world it offers a bridge between the randomness of evolution and the glory of creation.
MadgeUK wrote: "Roger wrote: "Milton was no deist. A deist believes in a remote and impersonal God uninvolved in human affairs." Thomas Paine was a well known deist and it is said that he took many of his ideas from Milton.That is only one aspect of deism..."
No, that is the essence of deism. If we start ignoring the accepted meanings of words we are going to have nothing but confusion. Deism is the belief that God created the world and set it in motion, but otherwise does not interfere with the laws of nature. Milton's God is not at all deistic. He converses with his minions, dispatches them to do His bidding, makes new creations (Christ and Eden after the Angels), and readily interferes by advising and warning His creatures.
If critics speculate that Milton was "moving towards deism," I say they're full of hooey. If they say he did not rely on revelation then they are just wrong. Milton seems not to accept the authority of the Church or of tradition, but he fully accepts the authority of the Bible as revealed scripture. And there's no possible way to get to deism while accepting the authority of the Bible.
Roger wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Roger wrote: "Milton was no deist. A deist believes in a remote and impersonal God uninvolved in human affairs." Thomas Paine was a well known deist and it is said that he took man..."
I think Madge was saying that Milton's philosophy and his way of questioning authority lead to deism. Locke wasn't a deist either, but he's usually credited with being the founder of 18th century deist philosophy.
I think Madge was saying that Milton's philosophy and his way of questioning authority lead to deism. Locke wasn't a deist either, but he's usually credited with being the founder of 18th century deist philosophy.
Roger, the accepted meanings of words change all the time. If things were static then there would be no world. Here is a link to my brand of Deism. http://www.christiandeistfellowship.c...
Maybe you are thinking of Deism in a sense of someone that doesn't try to follow the teachings of Christ. I don't know... Don't you think that questioning ideas and the world around us is healthy and when we come to something that doesn't allign with our belief to me it's time to change. I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian home and that's my foundation. Of course, we each have our own path and Milton's path is what we are concentrating on right now. I tend to think that Milton was using poetics to question and maybe even subvert the accepted beliefs of the time.
Roger wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Roger wrote: "Milton was no deist. A deist believes in a remote and impersonal God uninvolved in human affairs." Thomas Paine was a well known deist and it is said that he took man..."Roger: I am not saying that Milton was a deist and neither are any critics/historians. Throughout PL and in many of his tracts, Milton explores ideas which were around in his time. Deism was one of them - it wasn't fleshed out then and only came into being as a fully fledged philosophy in the Age of Reason/Enlightenment. Deism is not just a word, it is a philosophy and people interpret philosophies in many different ways. Several critics/historians, including Christopher Hill who is an expert on Milton, see a connecting link between the pantheistic materialism of the Diggers and Ranters, which some Puritans took on board, and deism. I am not inclined to dismiss the words of critics/historians when they have sometimes devoted their lives to the study of such things, as had Christiopher Hill.
As Dianna has shown, there are other ways of looking at deism. In France deism went an entirely different way to Deism in England and became very atheistic:-
http://www.sullivan-county.com/deism/...
Some Deists are atheists, others are not. American Unitarians say that their philosophy shares much with Deism and they are Christians:-
http://www.americanunitarian.org/dema...
Whatever Milton was, he was not orthodox and he spent his life fighting the orthodoxy of the Church of England. In doing so he used his reason, and advised others to do so; to think about the many ways in which God and the scriptures can be interpreted.
LOL I also consider myself a Unitarian Madge...on the spot on facebook where it says "religious views" I have written "gnostic Christian/Deist/Unitarian."Madge, I don't think a Deist can be an atheist because a Deist believes in the spiritual realm, including God, while an atheist does not.
What a crazy mixed-up kid you are Dianna:):):). Reading Milton won't help you one bit!
Dianna wrote: "Roger, the accepted meanings of words change all the time. If things were static then there would be no world. Here is a link to my brand of Deism. http://www.christiandeistfellowship.c......"
I am thinking of deism in the sense of what its dictionary definition is. I'm not saying that the belief is good or bad, or correct or incorrect, or that it should be adopted or abandoned by anyone. Sure, word meanings can change, but if you invent new meanings for words, you must expect to be misunderstood by everyone you talk to.
The "Christian Deist" beliefs seems perfectly consistent with nonsectarian deism; they just add some of the ethical teachings of Jesus. My only quibble would be the term "Christian," which comes from "Christ," meaning "Anointed," i.e. as Messiah. Since they evidently don't believe that Jesus was especially anointed by God, I would expect them to avoid the title Christ.
Well, Roger, I don't want to get into a philosophical debate that has nothing to do with Milton but I do believe that Christ was Anointed. Then again, I believe Walt Whitman was Anointed too...Madge, reading Milton has been a trip! It has been way more enjoyable than I ever thought it would be!
Dianna wrote: "Madge, reading Milton has been a trip! It has been way more enjoyable than I ever thought it would be!
..."
I know! And doing it with this group of people has definitely made it more interesting and brought out stuff I that would never occur to me on my own.
..."
I know! And doing it with this group of people has definitely made it more interesting and brought out stuff I that would never occur to me on my own.
And Roger, yes, I get misunderstood a lot. There seems to be some sort of continuum between rigid adherence to accepted belief and practice and over the edge pushing for change. I find myself closer to the pushing for change quadrant.
MadgeUK wrote: "Roger wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Roger wrote: "Milton was no deist. A deist believes in a remote and impersonal God uninvolved in human affairs." Thomas Paine was a well known deist and it is said th..."With a small "d," deism is not a philosophy, it is a specific belief about God. With a big "D," it can refer to a number of religious and philosophical movements which are not reflected in PL because they originated after Milton was dead.
What sign is there in PL that Milton was exploring either deism or Deism? I say there is none.
I am not acquainted with the scholarship of Mr. Hill, but if I found his arguments to be unsupported by reason and evidence, I would not hesitate to dismiss him, regardless of his lifetime of study. There are many gifted scholars who in a lifetime of study worked themselves into believing nonsense. And in any case, I prefer to rely on my own observations, industry, and reason--just like Milton, I guess.
Amanda, which of Roger's posts are you agreeing with? He and Madge have gone back and forth so often I couldn't follow your reply.
Roger wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Roger wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Roger wrote: "Milton was no deist. A deist believes in a remote and impersonal God uninvolved in human affairs." Thomas Paine was a well known deist a..."I have said that Milton was thought to be 'moving towards Deism', just as his contemporary Newton was said to be. Some thinkers are ahead of their time and Milton was one of them, as indeed many Puritans were. Philosophies do not arise out of thin air, they are decades in the making. Lord Cherbury wrote a book in 1656 on 'Truth as it is distinguished from Revelation...' which is considered the first work on Deism and Grotius, another religious dissident, advised him to publish it. Milton met Grotius in Paris and referred favourably to him several times in his own work as 'one of the best learned'.
Milton's descriptions of God in PL have partly given rise to him being thought of as flirting with Deism (my term) and several people here have spoken about the remoteness of his God, his lack of interaction with Adam and Eve, his lack of transcendance etc. These things are part of Deistic thinking. Pantheism has also been mentioned here and that too was akin to the 'Nature and reason' which Deists spoke of. Milton's heavy emphasis on reason and observation is another thing he shared with later Deists, and with his contemporaries Newton and Locke.
I also rely on my own observations but I also put a lot of industry in researching the books I read and what I have read about Milton and Deism accords with Hill, the Notes in my Wordsworth edition and my own enquiries into Deism. There are of course other writers who, like you, have disagreed with this analysis but the jury, from what I have read, appears to be 'out' on this and several other matters to do with Milton's beliefs. The Trinitarians and anti-Trinitarians are still arguing about him, for instance.
These websites claim Milton was an early Unitarian and I have read other references to that, which might please Dianna:) Milton seems to be like Joseph - he wears a coat of many colours:-
.
http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/ari...
http://www.unitarian.co.za/famous_uni...
Amanda wrote: "Kate wrote: "Amanda, which of Roger's posts are you agreeing with? He and Madge have gone back and forth so often I couldn't follow your reply."This one:
"With a small "d," deism is not a phil..."
I have explained that although Milton was dead when the actual philosophy of Deism became popular, the ideas were there well before that and he and Newton were before their time. This is the nature of great men. We may not be having thoughts ahead of our time but around us some people will be.
I have also explained what 'signs' there were and that the remoteness, the lack of interaction with Adam and Eve and lack of transcendance have been mentioned here and by other writers, as has Milton's insistence on using reason and observation.
How do others explain this well known and often written about aspect of God's character in PL, if it is not an example of Milton toying with Deism? Why is he remote (as folks here have posted)? Why is he non-interactive (as folks here have posted)? Why is he non-transcendant (as folks here have posted)? And is there any published back-up to support an opposing p.o.v.? I am not committed to mine, I just put it forward as an hypothesis. Milton's actual religion matters not a jot to me.
Here is a Google book which mentions the worries Daniel Defoe had about Milton's deism in PL. Charles Leslie's contemporary criticism is also mentioned:-
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8p...
It seems to me like Milton's God uses angels to do everything and God is just like the moving force behind them.I can't speak for any deist but myself. My position is that we should use our reason and understanding when reading anything that has been written. The Bible can be a wonderful source of inspiration but it is one of many sources of inspiration from many cultures. I believe we get into trouble when we say..."this is what the Bible says and this is what it means." It's obvious that people don't agree on how the Bible should be interpreted. I think everyone should read for themselves and come to their own understanding. For that matter that's how we should read Milton. No one understanding is necessarily better or worse or right or wrong. So far I just don't care for Milton's Wizard of Oz God.
Amanda wrote: "Well, looking at the wikipedia definition of deism, which is the same one I learned in my historical studies in college in reference to the Founding Fathers (I'm assuming it's the same philosophy),..."The Wikipedia entry gives a variety of interpretations outside of the American one and in any case it says 'there is a controversy over whether the founding fathers were Christians, deists or something in between'. The beliefs of your Founding Fathers in relation to deism were also altogether different to the beliefs of the French ('Continental European') Deists. I suspect (but have no proof) that Milton, as an Englishman, also fell somewhere 'in between'.
But you make my point here Amanda: 'Milton [may have:] subscribed to some nuances of deism' - I called it flirting. That is all that was being said by critics and myself and, yes, I agree he could have argued most philosophies that opposed him into the ground.
As to God's behaviour in PL, I think it is different in the earlier books than in the later ones and that is what gave rise to thoughts of deism (and monism and arminianism...). This is particularly the case in the relationship and conversations between Satan and Beezlebub where he parodies the objectivism of God. So perhaps Dianna will come to 'care' for Milton's God in the later books:).
I was a professional researcher and have always had to back up my findings with academic references. Personal opinion in fields in which you have no expertise yourself can often be worthless. I could have said that in my opinion the moon was made of green cheese but I wouldn't have been believed. I could say now, because it might accord with my personal feelings, that I think Milton moved towards (flirted with) atheism in his later years, but I have found no body of work to back that statement up and so I would not put it forward.
We clearly must agree to differ on this matter and move ahead in our reading. I will post something about Abdiel and the closing lines of Book 5 on the Book 6 thread, where he has been mentioned.
Zeke wrote: "The high conversations about matters political, theological, metaphysical could crowd out the poetry of PL."I do understand this point of view. At times I feel as though I'm reading almost an exegesis of Heavenly politics. But then, as you point out, some soaring lines of pure beauty bring me back to the poetic element of the work.
This is, in my experience, not unusual with epics, particularly the classical epic models that Milton was emulating. Prose literature was still in its infancy in Milton's time (the first work accepted as a novel is somewhat disputed, but whichever is chosen, it postdates Milton). Literature in his time took only two forms, poetry or drama. So telling a long story had to be done in one of these forms. (Laurel will know when Opera became a legitimate option; I'm not an opera buff, so don't know.)
Indeed, it is perhaps surprising given the epic form that there is much pure poetry in PL as there is.
MadgeUK wrote: "But Everyman, he also laid out at length, in various essays, that his great ambition was to be a poet as good as Homer and other great epic writers and so he decided to justify the ways of God to man in poetry, not prose. As I posted above, he believed that poets were special and divinely inspired. "I'm not sure that prose was really an option for him. Prose at the time wasn't used for literature, but for things like political tracts, philosophical treatises, essays, scientific writing, sermons, and theology. But none of these were what Milton wanted to write; he wanted largely imaginative writing, and prose just wasn't used for this purpose, that I'm aware of, in his time. His choices seem to have been "standard" rhymed poetry, or epic verse.
Zeke may have more about this from his reading of Lewis's Preface.
I re-read Book V last night, and before I leave it, a few notes that perhaps haven't been emphasized enough.I noted with some amusement the slap at monarchy in lines 350ff when Adam goes to meet Raphael:
Mean while our Primitive great Sire, to meet
His god-like Guest, walks forth, without more train
Accompanied then with his own compleat
Perfections; in himself was all his state,
More solemn then the tedious pomp that waits
On Princes, when thir rich Retinue long
Of Horses led, and Grooms besmeard with Gold
Dazles the croud, and sets them all agape.
Very appropriate for a Puritan!
I noted again that contrary to what some people think, for Milton, at least, the sin of Adam and Eve was not sex or sexual activity; that was going on actively in the Garden. This comes up several times, including in lines 388ff:
Haile Mother of Mankind, whose fruitful Womb
Shall fill the World more numerous with thy Sons
Then with these various fruits the Trees of God
Have heap'd this Table.
So while Genesis says that the curse of woman is to give birth in pain, it appears pretty clearly that it is the pain part, not the birth part, that Milton thinks arises from Eve's disobedience.
I don't know why, but I find it particularly interesting that Milton has his angels eating and even apparently gardening: [632ff:]
Tables are set, and on a sudden pil'd
With Angels Food, and rubied Nectar flows
In Pearl, in Diamond, and massie Gold,
Fruit of delicious Vines, the growth of Heav'n.
I was interested to see Milton, in 447, refer to the "Sons of God." But a note in the Dartmouth on-line edition takes me over to Genesis 6, and the passage (King James version)
1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Another minor but interesting word: in 718, speaking to his Son of the rebellion of Satan and the other angels, God is described as "smiling." Smiling??? About rebellion? What's that about?
I keep thinking of the story of the prodigal son for some reason.
One or two more comments from my re-reading of Book 5:At 719ff Milton says:
Son, thou in whom my glory I behold
In full resplendence, Heir of all my might,
Neerly it now concernes us to be sure
Of our Omnipotence,
What, he isn't sure of their omnipotence? Isn't that curious?
Satan is given an interesting passage at 679 which seems to me to emphasize that Milton equates Satan with Cromwell;
new Laws thou seest impos'd;
New Laws from him who reigns, new minds may raise
In us who serve, new Counsels, to debate
What doubtful may ensue; more in this place
To utter is not safe.
And again, even more strongly, at 813ff where Abdiel states (to refute) the Satanic argument:
Canst thou with impious obloquie condemne
The just Decree of God, pronounc't and sworn,
That to his only Son by right endu'd
With Regal Scepter, every Soule in Heav'n
Shall bend the knee, and in that honour due
Confess him rightful King? unjust thou saist
Flatly unjust, to binde with Laws the free,
And equal over equals to let Reigne,
One over all with unsucceeded power.
New laws are imposed from the ruler, not arising from a Parliament. The ruled may debate these new laws, and find them deserving of rebellion. The king should not have the power to bind the free without their consent.
I notice that Satan retreats to and attacks from the north. My imperfect view of much of English history is that indeed much of the civil strive arose from the north, from northern England (York in particular) and Scotland. Milton here seems to reflect this aspect of English history.
I found the passage in Book V at 519 to be apparently a succinct statement of Milton's theology of man and God:To whom the Angel. Son of Heav'n and Earth,
Attend: That thou art happie, owe to God;
That thou continu'st such, owe to thy self,
That is, to thy obedience; therein stand.
This was that caution giv'n thee; be advis'd.
God made thee perfet, not immutable;
And good he made thee, but to persevere
He left it in thy power, ordaind thy will
By nature free, not over-rul'd by Fate
Inextricable, or strict necessity;
Our voluntarie service he requires,
Not our necessitated, such with him
Finds no acceptance, nor can find, for how
Can hearts, not free, be tri'd whether they serve
Willing or no, who will but what they must
By Destinie, and can no other choose?
Myself and all th' Angelic Host that stand
In sight of God enthron'd, our happie state
Hold, as you yours, while our obedience holds;
On other surety none; freely we serve
Because we freely love, as in our will
To love or not; in this we stand or fall:
Everyman wrote: So while Genesis says that the curse of woman is to give birth in pain, it appears pretty clearly that it is the pain part, not the birth part, that Milton thinks arises from Eve's disobedience.Precisely.
And we're delighted that you did decide to jump in.
I'm loving that some many people here who were initially somewhat dubious about reading and discussing PL are finding it captivating and that the discussion is so rich and complex. Kudos to all, both our experienced members and our new ones.