Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Discussion - Paradise Lost
>
Paradise Lost - through Book 5
There's some beautiful poetry in Book 5 as Adam and Eve compose their hymns and prayers to God. I keep wanting to break out into song, because I have been listening to Haydn's The Creation, which he wrote after reading the German translation of Paradise Lost. He wrote the music for both the English and German versions. I've been listening mostly to the English, the Robert Shaw recording. I keep hearing Milton in it. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000003CYA/r...
Thanks Everyman and Laurel. The poetry of this book is indeed beautiful. The written introduction to Professor Roger's Yale Lecture on Book V might also aid our discussion, although he seems to skip the poetry and concentrates on more mundane matters:-
'The description of human sexual hierarchy in Book Four of Paradise Lost is contrasted with the depiction of angelic hierarchy in Book Five. Both the Archangel Raphael's and Satan's accounts and theories of creation are examined. The poem's complex and vacillating endorsement of arbitrary decree, on the one hand, and egalitarian self-determination, on the other, is probed. The nature of matter and physical being in Heaven and Eden are explored with particular emphasis placed on the poem's monistic elements. Overall, Milton's willingness to question accepted religious, social, and political doctrine, even that which authorities in his own poem seem to express, is stressed.'
I find this lecture extremely interesting because it discusses the sexual politics of Book IV and V in the light of Milton's changed position on how societies should be governed. Rogers suggests that the older post-Commonwealth Milton is less optimistic about society being one of equals and has decided that without some authority strife and anarchy will ensue. He therefore envisages, and spells out, in his description of the relations between Eve and Adam, God and the hierachy of the Angels, that there must be an elite, an aristocracy, within society to which the majority must willingly submit (hints of democracy?), as Eve willingly 'yields' to Adam. It seems to be a system of government similar to that proposed by Plato in The Republic about which Everyman could perhaps tell us more.
But more of all this later, I must read the poetry again for its own sake...(and listen to Haydn:)).
I like this:...
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?
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbdielI post this link for those who, like me, may not have ever heard this name before.
It's very strange to have been raised a "Christian" and to have so much thrown in this book that I never was told about. I thought I knew so much about the Bible... It goes to show we never stop learning!
Dianna wrote: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbdielI post this link for those who, like me, may not have ever heard this name before.
It's very strange to have been raised a "Christian" and to have so much ..."
In the Bible, Dianna, Abdiel is just one man in the midst of all the "begats," so it's no wonder you, like me, don't remember him.
It makes me wonder why Milton brought him out...
Dianna wrote: "It makes me wonder why Milton brought him out..."Just a good name for an angel, I guess, especially since it means 'servant of God.' He's one of my favorite characters in Paradise Lost.
Isaiah 14:12-15 is one of the Bible passages that Milton would have used for his information about Satan's pride and fall. It has a primary reference to a king of Babylon, but has long been cited by many Bible scholars as also referring to Satan. You can certainly see the pride here in all the "I wills"!12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
Here it is in context: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?...
Ezekiel 28:12-18 is the second Old Testament reference that has long been thought by many to refer to the fall of Satan. Its primary reference is to the king of Tyre.12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
In context: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?...
A third passage relating to Satan is Revelation 20. This is about his future, not his past. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?...For all you might ever want to know about Satan from the Bible, see these references: http://www.biblegateway.com/topical/t...
Here is a quick summary about Satan and his fall in the Bible:http://www.gotquestions.org/Satan-fal...
Laurele: In the Bible, Dianna, Abdiel is just one man in the midst of all the "begats," so it's no wonder you, like me, don't remember him.
For me this highlights something important to be reminded of as we proceed. Milton is not retelling the Bible. I would say Paradise Lost is a work of advocacy (for God and for Milton's individual view of Him and against other theodicies). It is also a work of creation; for example, Abdiel is a literary invention as is Raphael, the angel who figures so prominently in Book V.
Yes Milton paraphrases, quotes and alludes to much of scripture (and apocrypha). However, there is plenty here that is pure Milton, even, sometimes when it is mingled with some of the allusions and quotations.
I think it is perfectly legitimate to argue about Milton's success with such characters and scenes without being disrespectful to anyone's beliefs. (With the possible exception of Milton's :) )
I saw in Dianna's link that the name Abdiel means "servant of God" so that may be why he was chosen for the scene.
For me this highlights something important to be reminded of as we proceed. Milton is not retelling the Bible. I would say Paradise Lost is a work of advocacy (for God and for Milton's individual view of Him and against other theodicies). It is also a work of creation; for example, Abdiel is a literary invention as is Raphael, the angel who figures so prominently in Book V.
Yes Milton paraphrases, quotes and alludes to much of scripture (and apocrypha). However, there is plenty here that is pure Milton, even, sometimes when it is mingled with some of the allusions and quotations.
I think it is perfectly legitimate to argue about Milton's success with such characters and scenes without being disrespectful to anyone's beliefs. (With the possible exception of Milton's :) )
I saw in Dianna's link that the name Abdiel means "servant of God" so that may be why he was chosen for the scene.
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, that day
Honourd by his great Father, and proclaimd
Messiah King anointed, could not beare
Through pride that sight, & thought himself impaird.
Deep malice thence conceiving and disdain,
Soon as midnight brought on the duskie houre
Friendliest to sleep and silence, he resolv'd
With all his Legions to dislodge, and leave
Unworshipt, unobey'd the Throne supream
Is there any Biblical basis to this -- that Satan's rebellion is caused by his envy for the Son? Or is that Milton's creation?
Dianna wrote: "I like this:...
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,
."
I like this as well -- why do you suppose it might not be lawful? Or is this just a rhetorical device employed by a skilled storyteller? Listen kids, I'm not supposed to tell you, but...
I don't know Thomas--Milton is definitely a skilled storyteller.Back to the choice of a name. I always wondered why all those "begats" are in the Bible. I tend to think that there has to be some ulterior purpose. I think each name has meaning. I came up with this website in some searching:
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/adam-...
I don't necessarily agree with the theology of the site but it does have something pertinent to say regarding Milton, I think...
Milton has a curious way of "justifying the ways of God to man." He takes the bare bones of the story of Eden, which makes God seem arbitrary and capricious, and fleshes it out with a lot of detail from his own imagination to make a story in which God is more justified. For instance: sending Raphael in the beginning of this book to make sure Adam knows his peril. At best, that only makes me say: Okay, it could have been like that, so God isn't necessarily arbitrary and capricious. Is that all I'm supposed to get out of this?
I hate to say it Roger but so far I kind of think of Milton as the Stephen Colbert of Christianity epic poems.
Dianna wrote: "I hate to say it Roger but so far I kind of think of Milton as the Stephen Colbert of Christianity epic poems."
ROFL
ROFL
Zeke wrote: I think it is perfectly legitimate to argue about Milton's success with such characters and scenes without being disrespectful to anyone's beliefs. (With the possible exception of Milton's :) )
Good point, Zeke.
Thomas wrote: Is there any Biblical basis to this -- that Satan's rebellion is caused by his envy for the Son? Or is that Milton's creation? I think that's pure Milton, Thomas.
So, Laurele, in response to your two comments above, how do we sort out way through the thickets above? There is God's word (via scripture and Milton's interpretation (or invention) via PL.
If Satan's rebellion is "pure Milton" (obviously the significant instigator of everything else in the poem) what are the implications for our interpretation of the rest of the poem?
If Satan's rebellion is "pure Milton" (obviously the significant instigator of everything else in the poem) what are the implications for our interpretation of the rest of the poem?
Amanda wrote: " If so, was Raphael doing that on his own, or did God intend that to be Adam and Eve's future? Why create humans if they would one day just become angels?"I 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.
"...Meanwhile enjoy
Your fill what happiness this happy state
Can comprehend, incapable of more."
It seems that Adam is given to understand that they have the ability to progress through obedience to a state closer to God. Thus, giving a clear purpose to their existence in the Garden of Eden.
"Well has thou taught the way that might direct
Our knowledge, and the scale of nature set
From center to circumference; whereon,
In contemplation of created things,
By steps we may ascend to God."
Zeke wrote: If Satan's rebellion is "pure Milton" (obviously the significant instigator of everything else in the poem) what are the implications for our interpretation of the rest of the poem? Oh no, not his rebellion, just Milton's reason for same.
Dianna wrote: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbdielI post this link for those who, like me, may not have ever heard this name before.
It's very strange to have been raised a "Christian" and to have so much ..."
It is thought by some analysts that Milton thought of himself as Abdiel. Abdiel stands apart from the rebels in Heaven, just as Milton stood apart from the rebels against Parliament.
Laurele wrote: "Thomas wrote: Is there any Biblical basis to this -- that Satan's rebellion is caused by his envy for the Son? Or is that Milton's creation? I think that's pure Milton, Thomas."
There is surely some basis for Milton's story if Satan/Lucifer was once the favoured son of God - the Anointed Cherub, the highest ranking angel, the most high priest in the mountain of God etc. It makes psychological sense that he rebelled against the promotion of Jesus. According to Job 1:6 'There was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.' (Job 1:6) And in Ezekiel 28:13-14 God says: You [Lucifer:] were in Eden, the Garden of God; every precious stone was your covering: The sardius the topaz and diamond, Beryl onyz and jasper, sapphire, turqoise, emerald with gold. The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes was prepared for you on the day you were created. You were anointed cherub; I established you; you were on the holy mountain of God; you walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.'
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.
A great deal of this story which Milton relates seems to be from not only the Apocrypha, as I mentioned before, (the second book of Enoch is significant here) but, and especially here, the pseudepigrapha. The Apocalypse of Moses is especially germane to the issue as it deals with the Fall. While I would never believe Eve capable of literary exculpation on Biblical evidence alone, the pseudepigraphic evidence is positively humiliating. I suggest, without direct evidence, that many of western beliefs concerning the Fall originate from these documents. Still 2 Corinthians 11:3 describes Eve as the source of sin: But I fear lest as the serpent beguiled Eve, thorow his subtlety, even so your wits should be corrupt from the singleness that is in Christ. (Tyndale)
Also 2 Corinthians 11:13-14, Satan is described as disguising himself as an angel of light (etymologically, Lucifer or the light bearer.).
As to the other issue in which Satan is jealous of Christ, it seems clear that quotes sufficient for this argument have already been made, not the least of which is Ezekiel 28.
Ezekiel 28:6 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God;
7 Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness.
This comment on jealousy and pride is amplified in Ezekiel 28:17 and Isaiah 14:12-14.
On an aside, I have always read the meaning of Abdiel as a means through which Milton can insert himself into the story and indicate exactly what the text of PL intended to do. The Hebrew name is significant and I believe that this was how Milton saw himself.
One further thing which I have seldom seen mentioned concerning Eve: God told Adam not to eat of the tree of Life, but Adam related it to her. I have often wondered, thusly, if she regarded it as less important. Frankly I can see how this has passed down through modern times, though I say the latter tongue firmly in cheek.
Amanda wrote: "So do you all agree with Rogers when he says that the issues of gender politics are not as important in Book 5 as they are in Book 4 because of Milton's focus on the angelic hierarchy? Does that ma..."Rogers makes the point that Milton is arguing in Book 5 that we can all become as angelic as angels if we behave ourselves, obey God and submit to a just government run by an elite. Angels, as described by Raphael, have bodies just like ours, they have digestive tracts and can eat, excrete etc but through behaving perfectly and in obedience to God they have transcended the state of matter and are in a heaven of their own making - not the Heaven of Eden but the heaven where 'the mind is its own place' (cf Book 1). Milton is essentially saying that in time, given the right behaviour and obedience to the right, godly government, human beings, not just Adam and Eve, can become like this. He is describing a Utopia although Rogers describes it as a science fiction story.
I think that the gender politics in Book 4 are a foil for the angelic politics in Book 5, which is preumably why Rogers groups these two books together. In Book 4 Milton is outlining the disadvantages of submission (of Eve and mankind) in a non-angelic, unsaved state, as described by Satan in Book 4 but in Book 5 he tells us that it is possible, by living properly, and by being willing to submit to an angelic hierarchy on earth, an elite, gender becomes obsolete. Angels have no gender, they are sort of hermaphrodite and, Milton postulates, a purified mankind could become the same and thereby become free of the problems gender brings. Rogers also makes the point that it is Satan who describes the patriarchal view of the submission of Eve, thereby absolving Milton (and God) from the inequality therein. In Book 5, by contrast, he has the archangel Raphael (whose name means 'healing' and who heals blindness) explain the reasoning behind the Creation story.
I've probably summarised that very badly so I hope folks get my meaning (and Rogers') here.
(As an aside: Rogers comments that Milton's interest in and description of the digestive tracts of angels reflects an interest of his own in this part of his anatomy because he was convinced that his own bad digestion contributed to his blindness.)
I find it interesting that Milton would choose to structure Satan's conflict with God as having arisen from His anointing the Son to rule in heaven. Satan is understandably incensed with this arbitrary elevation of his peer to kingship and rebels. Abdiel (possibly the voice of Milton) counsels him to accept the will of God and to cease being impious:
Canst thou with impious obloquy condemn
The just decree of God, pronounced and sworn,
That to his only Son, by right endued
With regal scepter, every soul in Heaven
Shall bend the knee, and in that honour due
Confess him rightful King?
...shalt thou dispute
With him the points of liberty, who made
Thee what thou art, and formed the Powers of Heaven
Such as he pleased, and circumscribed their being?
But of course, what Satan is doing is exactly what Milton did. He denied the anointed King who supposedly ruled England under God's will and helped behead him. And then he justified it. Frequently. And Milton himself was bright enough to see this irony. So why does he structure the conflict in just this way?
Milton is obviously picking, choosing and amending biblical text in PL to suit his own purposes. He's perfectly willing to change the canon when he wants to. In his own life he wasn't blindly obedient or gracefully submissive to anyone as far as I can tell. He even rails against God about his blindness in Book III. So is Abdiel really Milton's voice? Would Milton actually counsel unquestioning obedience to God's will using these types of arguments?
A very subversive subtext runs throughout PL. I think it is interesting and useful to see where Milton deviates from strict interpretation of the Bible. I don't think Milton was trying to justify the ways of God to man. I think he was trying to justify them to Milton. And PL reads to me like an on going dialogue/debate where Milton is arguing with himself.
Canst thou with impious obloquy condemn
The just decree of God, pronounced and sworn,
That to his only Son, by right endued
With regal scepter, every soul in Heaven
Shall bend the knee, and in that honour due
Confess him rightful King?
...shalt thou dispute
With him the points of liberty, who made
Thee what thou art, and formed the Powers of Heaven
Such as he pleased, and circumscribed their being?
But of course, what Satan is doing is exactly what Milton did. He denied the anointed King who supposedly ruled England under God's will and helped behead him. And then he justified it. Frequently. And Milton himself was bright enough to see this irony. So why does he structure the conflict in just this way?
Milton is obviously picking, choosing and amending biblical text in PL to suit his own purposes. He's perfectly willing to change the canon when he wants to. In his own life he wasn't blindly obedient or gracefully submissive to anyone as far as I can tell. He even rails against God about his blindness in Book III. So is Abdiel really Milton's voice? Would Milton actually counsel unquestioning obedience to God's will using these types of arguments?
A very subversive subtext runs throughout PL. I think it is interesting and useful to see where Milton deviates from strict interpretation of the Bible. I don't think Milton was trying to justify the ways of God to man. I think he was trying to justify them to Milton. And PL reads to me like an on going dialogue/debate where Milton is arguing with himself.
Amanda wrote: "Kate wrote: "I find it interesting that Milton would choose to structure Satan's conflict with God as having arisen from His anointing the Son to rule in heaven. Satan is understandably incensed w..."
Oh I would definitely agree with you there :)
Oh I would definitely agree with you there :)
I think the main reason for Abdiel in they story is to show that Satan's followers had free will to reject his leadership. Satan summons them out of Heaven on a pretext, and only then preaches rebellion to them. Only Abdiel objects. The others could have, but didn't, so they are guilty too.
Roger wrote: "I think the main reason for Abdiel in they story is to show that Satan's followers had free will to reject his leadership. Satan summons them out of Heaven on a pretext, and only then preaches reb..."I'm with you there, Roger.
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.:
"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.:
I see the God/Satan argument from two points of view, first from God’s view that it is only righteous that his son be elevated and second from Satan’s point of view that God is being unfair to him in doing so. Still this reminds me of reading contrary interpretations of the entire work, much like that of, say Dryden and Blake. Still I wonder whether that wasn’t exactly Milton’s intention.Milton certainly intended PL to be something for all mankind, rather than simply English and thus extends beyond immediate English history. Ultimately Milton would disapprove of any form of government which did not emulate the justice of the Deity, as if those in charge of governing ought to emulate the upright angels. Still man and even angels are open to temptation.
I thus find it easier to interpret this poem as one of a temptation within a tale about the father of temptation. That is, in the same way in which Adam is tempted, so must the reader be tempted and thus make his decision with whom to side. It is difficult to read the comments of, Dryden and Blake together without agreeing with one side or the other. Which one is the absolute truth?
Still, if Milton’s "glorification" of Satan is no less than an effort to provide a portrait of how he appears to the common man, how temptation appears as it is offered to mankind, then PL becomes an effort to represent how our natural inclinations and appetites appeal to ourselves. Our natural desires and inclinations, even if they might be wrong, clearly do appeal much more so than does God’s somewhat distant and sterile-appearing righteousness. One has only to consider the possibility of knowing what the right thing to do in a given situation is and then being tempted to do what appeals to us. The immediate temptation is always more appealing and I believe that Milton is arguing not for the greater glory of Satan, but merely that Satan often appears to us in a more appealing manner.
Amanda wrote: "Kate wrote: "I find it interesting that Milton would choose to structure Satan's conflict with God as having arisen from His anointing the Son to rule in heaven. Satan is understandably incensed w..."But is Milton justifying his position or the positions which were taken during the Civil War, the outcome of which was such a disappointment to him? How much of PL is coded language for the real rebellions which happened around him and not just the rebellion in heaven? To me he is looking at what the Bible, and other teachings, said about Satan and the rebellion in Heaven and trying to see how it applies to his own life and times. He still believes in the Commonwealth, in a republic - there is no evidence historically that he changed his mind about that or regicide - but I feel he is looking for another way and using the Bible as a guide book. As well as being a leading politician he was a very devout man and a renowned biblical scholar, it was natural for him to use the Bible to explain and justify the predicament that he found himself and his country in.
For me, an interesting part of Rodgers' lecture on Book V was the perspective that the angels are used to allow Milton to express his Monism. If I understand it correctly, Monism counters dualism by asserting that all beings are composed of both matter and spirit to varying degrees.
As Quakers might say there literally is that of God in everyone--just less than there is in angels. Illustrating that even angels also have a corporeal is another reason Milton might have had the long passage about their digestive systems. I laughed at the comment that Adam and Eve wouldn't be able to live for long on a diet of heavenly nectar though.
Each in their several active spheres assigned,
Till body up to spirit work, in bounds
Proportioned to each kind.
...........
Differing but in degree, in kind the same.
Of course, this would be heresy to Trinitarians and, seconding Kate's citation above, elsewhere in the lecture Rodgers makes the point that, if not heretical, Milton's views are at a minimum heterodoxy.
I wonder if, perhaps, Milton is at least partly siding with Satan when, during Eve's dream he eats from the Tree of Knowledge, and says:
Forbidden here, it seems as only fit
For gods, yet able to make gods of men:
And why not gods of men, since good, the more Communicated, more abundant grows,
The author not impaired, but honored more. (69-73)
If the goal is the ultimate unity of all with God, what is the counter to this logic? (I don't mean the question in an irreverent sense.) It just seems to me Satan is making a legitimate point there.
As Quakers might say there literally is that of God in everyone--just less than there is in angels. Illustrating that even angels also have a corporeal is another reason Milton might have had the long passage about their digestive systems. I laughed at the comment that Adam and Eve wouldn't be able to live for long on a diet of heavenly nectar though.
Each in their several active spheres assigned,
Till body up to spirit work, in bounds
Proportioned to each kind.
...........
Differing but in degree, in kind the same.
Of course, this would be heresy to Trinitarians and, seconding Kate's citation above, elsewhere in the lecture Rodgers makes the point that, if not heretical, Milton's views are at a minimum heterodoxy.
I wonder if, perhaps, Milton is at least partly siding with Satan when, during Eve's dream he eats from the Tree of Knowledge, and says:
Forbidden here, it seems as only fit
For gods, yet able to make gods of men:
And why not gods of men, since good, the more Communicated, more abundant grows,
The author not impaired, but honored more. (69-73)
If the goal is the ultimate unity of all with God, what is the counter to this logic? (I don't mean the question in an irreverent sense.) It just seems to me Satan is making a legitimate point there.
MadgeUK wrote: "As well as being a leading politician he was a very devout man and a renowned biblical scholar, it was natural for him to use the Bible to explain and justify the predicament that he found himself and his country in. "
I agree. Another, more personal spin, on his attempt to justify God to man.
I agree. Another, more personal spin, on his attempt to justify God to man.
Rhonda wrote: if Milton’s "glorification" of Satan is no less than an effort to provide a portrait of how he appears to the common man, how temptation appears as it is offered to mankind, then PL becomes an effort to represent how our natural inclinations and appetites appeal to ourselves. Our natural desires and inclinations, even if they might be wrong, clearly do appeal much more so than does God’s somewhat distant and sterile-appearing righteousness. One has only to consider the possibility of knowing what the right thing to do in a given situation is and then being tempted to do what appeals to us. The immediate temptation is always more appealing and I believe that Milton is arguing not for the greater glory of Satan, but merely that Satan often appears to us in a more appealing manner.Exactly, Rhonda. It's Romans 7:
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
What is orthodoxy to one person is heterodoxy or heresy to another. There were plenty of people around in Milton's time who would have had similar views as it was a time of great religious flux. For that matter, there are plenty around today who differ considerably in their beliefs - not all believe in The Rapture for instance. The official 'Athanasian' catholic doctrine on The Trinity was also the doctrine of the Church of England in Milton's time and he and many others not only disagreed with it but were persecuted for doing so. Following the 'dissension' of the Civil War period, the Toleration Act of 1689 made it legal to accept the doctrine of the Trinity and that has been the position in the UK ever since, for both Catholics and Anglicans. However, as in Milton's time, there are quite a large number of Christian churches today who 'dissent' from this belief.http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy...
I came across this brief and fairly clear explanation of Monism in Wapedia:-
'Christianity strongly maintains the Creator-creature distinction as fundamental. Most Christians maintain that God created the universe ex nihilo and not from himself, nor within himself, so that the creator is not to be confused with creation, but rather transcends it (metaphysical dualism)(cf. Genesis). Even the more immanent concepts and theologies are to be defined together with God's omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience, due to God's desire for intimate contact with his own creation (cf. Acts 17:27) Another use of the term "monism" is in Christian anthropology to refer to the innate nature of mankind as being holistic, as usually opposed to bipartite and tripartite views.
While the Christian view of reality is dualistic (in regard to metaphysics) in that it holds to the Creator's transcendence of creation, it rejects other types of dualism (or pluralism) such as the idea that God must compete with other equal powers such as Satan (cf Gospel of John 14:30). In On Free Choice of the Will, Augustine argued, in the context of the problem of evil, that evil is not the opposite of good, but rather merely the absence of good, something that does not have existence in itself. Likewise, C S Lewis described evil as a "parasite" in Mere Christianity, as he viewed evil as something that cannot exist without good to provide it with existence. Lewis went on to argue against dualism from the basis of moral absolutism, and rejected the dualistic notion that God and Satan are opposites, arguing instead that God has no equal, hence no opposite. Lewis rather viewed Satan as the opposite of Michael the archangel.
This position neglects monists such as Paul Tillich. Since God is He "in whom we live and move and have our being" (Book of Acts 17:28), it follows that everything that has being partakes in God. [I think that this is Milton's position?:] Dualism with regard to God and creation also barred the possibility of a mystical union with God, which John Calvin rejected [and there were many Calvinists around in Milton's time:]. Such a dualism also leads to the problematic position of positing God as a particular being, the existence of which can be argued for or against, failing to recognize God as the ground and origin of being itself, as in Acts 17, or in the Jusaic Hashem, YHWH, meaning "He causes to come into being." Such a view was called by Tillich panentheism: God is in all things, neither identical to, nor totally separate from, all things. This understanding would be further supported by that understanding of the proclamation of the kingdom of God, in which it is proclaimed "on earth as it is in heaven." ( Gospel of Matthew 6:10). Such an understanding of the kingdom implies a new reality in which old dichotomies between, for example, the sacred and the profane, the temporal and the eternal, body and soul, absolutism and relativism, are overcome. All things are filled with God's Spirit (Epistle to the Romans 8:11), so that in this new creation God is "all in all" (I Corinthians 15.28; Ephesians 1.23).' [Again, this latter view seems to accord with Milton's 'God shall be all in all' III:341 which is repeated several times in PL.]
It's very strange to have been raised a "Christian" and to ha..."I agree. I was brought up as a Christian. But, this is the first time that I have met this character.
what an interesting discussion. I feel that I have little to contribute. However, I will say that I love the poetry contained within this book, especially it's opening that describes the coming of morning. I also noted with some interest that following passage. "..unpremeditated, such prompt eloquence
Flowed from their lips, in prose numerous verse " Page 119 lines 146 onwards
I wonder, is Milton trying to say that poetry existed before the fall? The lectures suggest that Milton was always trying to justify his chosen profession.
Amanda - would any religious poet read any differently given that doctrine and p.o.v. can vary from poet to poet just as in person to person? Milton's life was so bound up in politics that it was bound to come through in whatever he wrote but other poets and authors also let their views and lifestyle 'shine through' if you look deeply enough. Here we are all looking deeply at poor old Milton, the poor bloke doesn't stand a chance!
http://www.daypoems.net/plainpoems/19...A little Walt Whitman...
I am of old and young, of the foolish as much as the wise,
Regardless of others, ever regardful of others,
Maternal as well as paternal, a child as well as a man,
Stuff'd with the stuff that is coarse and stuff'd with the stuff
that is fine,
One of the Nation of many nations, the smallest the same and the
largest the same,
...
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: only the Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons among well-known denominations. However, many liberal churches regard belief in the Trinity as "unnecessary for salvation" and do not actively teach it, even if they don't deny it either.The Wikipedia article seems balanced and objective to me, for those interested in the doctrine.
I don't see anything monistic in Milton's presentation of God. God seems to be a bearded old man sitting on a throne in the sky. In fact, He needs to consult with Christ to avoid being ejected from His position:Let us advise, and to this hazard draw
With speed what force is left, and all imploy [ 730 :]
In our defense, lest unawares we lose
This our high place, our Sanctuarie, our Hill.
But this is Raphael reporting to Adam. Is he just "lik'ning spiritual to corporal forms"? If so, either the metaphor is most ill chosen, or Raphael thinks Adam woefully childlike in his understanding.
Very appropriate Dianna - I love Walt Whitman:).
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.
I loved the Whitman Dianna! Thanks. I'm also kind of surprised how much I like the language of PL. Some of it is really self indulgent (sorry Milton), but now and then an image or a phrase just captures my imagination.
Kate wrote: "I loved the Whitman Dianna! Thanks. I'm also kind of surprised how much I like the language of PL. Some of it is really self indulgent (sorry Milton), but now and then an image or a phrase just ..."I agree. Didn't think that I would love Milton's language so much as I do.
We then switch venues and see the basis for the rebellion of Satan. Laurel and others with more Biblical knowledge than I, is this section Biblically based, or did Milton create this interplay?