Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Discussion - Paradise Lost
>
Resources
I went looking for some illustrations of Paradise Lost and ended up finding this website which is full of all sorts of interesting information about Milton and his epic poem.
Andreea wrote: "I went looking for some illustrations of Paradise Lost and ended up finding this website which is full of all sorts of interesting information about Milton and his epic poem."Cool site. Great find!
Yes, that is an excellent website to which I had posted a link regarding the 1688 Illustrations before I saw that Everyman had put up this Resource thread.
Amanda wrote: "I found this lecture from..someone..at Vancouver Island University about how the poem is a failure (?!) because Milton doesn't ever actually justify the ways of God thoroughly. Interesting read.
h..."
He actually says that Milton failed in his intention to justify the ways of God to man, but that that failure is what gives the poem its stature:
h..."
He actually says that Milton failed in his intention to justify the ways of God to man, but that that failure is what gives the poem its stature:
I wish to argue that Milton fails on both counts. This poem provides neither a rational justification for story of the fall of humanity...nor an aesthetically pleasing account of why God behaves the way he does. On both counts God emerges as quite unacceptable, in spite of the narrator's obvious desire to make Him acceptable...(T)he tension between this deliberate intention and the failure of the poetry to deliver that intention is a source of major interest in the poem...I would like to argue that it is precisely the failure of this poem to deliver on its intentions which makes it still (in spite of the obvious labour it requires to get through) so exciting to read.
Interesting lecture.
A short biographical article pointing out some interesting influences in Milton's life as well as the tensions within PL: Return to Paradise: The New Yorker
I am re-reading my 1984 edition of Christopher Hill's little book The Experience of Defeat : Milton and Some Contemporaries which may interest those who have wondered about the psychological effect which the downfall of the Commonwealth and the Restorian had on the various religious and political participants. Incidentally, John Bunyan was in the New Model Army and was one of those who suffered a 'crisis of faith' after the Restoration. He continued to preach when all nonconformist preaching was banned by Charles II and spent 11 years in prison, where he wrote several books including Pilgrim's Progress.
Part one of a two part post:
C.S. Lewis in A Preface to Paradise Lost has two chapters that I have found both informative and, in a relatively gentle way, admonishments. These are Chapter IX, "The Doctrine of the Unchanging Human Heart," and Chapter X, "Milton and St. Augustine." Together, they are only about eight pages long, but I don’t know if there is a link to them online.
I will try to summarize them without doing too much damage to Lewis. The latter chapter offers a good summary of the Augustinian theological assumptions from which Milton is operating. The first (aside from prominent use of an acronym I couldn’t decipher –L.C.M.—suggests a way to approach the poem.
He begins by establishing a straw man, the method of the Unchanging Human Heart. "According to this method, the things which separate one age from another are superficial." In this method, the reader believes that "if we strip from Virgil his Roman imperialism, from Sidney his code of honour, from Lucretius his Epicurean philosophy, and from all who have it their religion we shall find the Unchanged Human Heart, and on this we are to concentrate."
In this approach the value we find in the text occurs from de-contextualizing the characters and the author: taking the armor from the knight to reveal the man beneath with whom, presumably, we can find some human affinity and themes applicable to our lives.
Lewis offers an alternative. "Instead of stripping the knight of his armor, you can try to put his armor on yourself; instead of seeing how the courtier would look without his lace, you can try to see how you would feel with his lace...The possible Lucretius in myself interests me more than the possible C.S. Lewis in Lucretius."
This last sentence really brought me up short. I am certainly guilty of that as many of my posts demonstrate. Of course, there is a conversation to be had between the 21st century and the 17th-- or 18th or 19th. And I intend to continue interrogating the assumptions of PL. But to read the poem that Milton wrote--as opposed to the one Phillip Pullman might write, for example, it is essential to understand his assumptions and beliefs on their own terms.
Who is John Milton? What does histheodicy? What has he experienced in life? These are essential to understanding the poem he wrote, rather than the one I may desire to read.
Lewis castigates a professor who urged finding the "lasting originality" in Milton by "disentangl[ing:] from theological rubbish the permanent human interest." One can almost see a sneer on his face as he compares this to disentangling Hamlet from the revenge code or a centipede from its legs.
Instead, he urges us to, "plunge right into the ‘rubbish,’ to see the world of the poem as if we believed it, and then, while we still hold that position in our imagination, to see what sort of poem results.
C.S. Lewis in A Preface to Paradise Lost has two chapters that I have found both informative and, in a relatively gentle way, admonishments. These are Chapter IX, "The Doctrine of the Unchanging Human Heart," and Chapter X, "Milton and St. Augustine." Together, they are only about eight pages long, but I don’t know if there is a link to them online.
I will try to summarize them without doing too much damage to Lewis. The latter chapter offers a good summary of the Augustinian theological assumptions from which Milton is operating. The first (aside from prominent use of an acronym I couldn’t decipher –L.C.M.—suggests a way to approach the poem.
He begins by establishing a straw man, the method of the Unchanging Human Heart. "According to this method, the things which separate one age from another are superficial." In this method, the reader believes that "if we strip from Virgil his Roman imperialism, from Sidney his code of honour, from Lucretius his Epicurean philosophy, and from all who have it their religion we shall find the Unchanged Human Heart, and on this we are to concentrate."
In this approach the value we find in the text occurs from de-contextualizing the characters and the author: taking the armor from the knight to reveal the man beneath with whom, presumably, we can find some human affinity and themes applicable to our lives.
Lewis offers an alternative. "Instead of stripping the knight of his armor, you can try to put his armor on yourself; instead of seeing how the courtier would look without his lace, you can try to see how you would feel with his lace...The possible Lucretius in myself interests me more than the possible C.S. Lewis in Lucretius."
This last sentence really brought me up short. I am certainly guilty of that as many of my posts demonstrate. Of course, there is a conversation to be had between the 21st century and the 17th-- or 18th or 19th. And I intend to continue interrogating the assumptions of PL. But to read the poem that Milton wrote--as opposed to the one Phillip Pullman might write, for example, it is essential to understand his assumptions and beliefs on their own terms.
Who is John Milton? What does histheodicy? What has he experienced in life? These are essential to understanding the poem he wrote, rather than the one I may desire to read.
Lewis castigates a professor who urged finding the "lasting originality" in Milton by "disentangl[ing:] from theological rubbish the permanent human interest." One can almost see a sneer on his face as he compares this to disentangling Hamlet from the revenge code or a centipede from its legs.
Instead, he urges us to, "plunge right into the ‘rubbish,’ to see the world of the poem as if we believed it, and then, while we still hold that position in our imagination, to see what sort of poem results.
Part two of a two part post.
The next chapter attempts to summarize what Lewis believes Milton believed. Using quotations and citations from both PL and Augustine he offers a schematic. I will skip the citation and try to hit the assertions:
1. God created all things as good.
2. What we call bad things are good things perverted.
3. This occurs when a conscious creature becomes more interested in itself than in God and wishes to exist ‘on its own.’ This is the sin of Pride.
4. Good can exist without evil (as in Milton’s Heaven and Paradise) but not evil without good.
5. Though God created all creatures good, he also foreknows that some will voluntarily make themselves bad. He also foreknows the good he will make of their badness.
6. Those who will not be God’s sons become God’s tools.
7. Satan attacked Eve because he knew she was less intelligent and more credulous. (This will be a fun one to test ourselves with!)
8. Adam was not deceived. He did not believe what his wife said to him was true, but yielded because of the social bond between them.
9. The fall consisted of disobedience. The only point of forbidding the apple was to instill obedience. It has no intrinsic importance. (“It is an apple, just as Desdemona’s handkerchief is a handkerchief. Everything hangs on it, but in itself it is of no importance.”)
10. While the Fall consisted in disobedience, it resulted from Pride.
11. Thus, it was punished by man’s loss of Authority over his inferiors: his passions and physical organism.
12. For instance, sexuality changed. The sexual organs are no longer under the direct control of the will. (“You can clench your fist without being angry and you can be angry without clenching your fist.”)
13. In summary, Lewis quotes Addison: “The great moral which reigns in Milton is the most universal and most useful that can be imagined, that Obedience to the will of God makes men happy and that Disobedience makes them miserable.”
Now we are back to the subject of the preceding chapter (and post). If there is no God, the poem has no evident relation to real life. What are those of us, who like me, believe at most parts of the above, to do. Lewis suggests we have two choices:
1. We can “sweep away the main thing Milton was writing about as a mere historical accident and fix on quite marginal or subsidiary aspects of his work as the real core.”
2. We can “try by an effort of historical imagination to evoke that whole hierarchical conception of the universe to which Milton’s poem belongs, and to exercise themselves in feeling as if they believed it.”
I think this is a bit too black and white. As I tried to indicate in an earlier post about Satan as Leader, there is much to be gained from PL apart from the theological frame. However, I am now determined to work at reading with the imagination Lewis argues for in refuting the Doctrine of the Unchanging Heart.
The next chapter attempts to summarize what Lewis believes Milton believed. Using quotations and citations from both PL and Augustine he offers a schematic. I will skip the citation and try to hit the assertions:
1. God created all things as good.
2. What we call bad things are good things perverted.
3. This occurs when a conscious creature becomes more interested in itself than in God and wishes to exist ‘on its own.’ This is the sin of Pride.
4. Good can exist without evil (as in Milton’s Heaven and Paradise) but not evil without good.
5. Though God created all creatures good, he also foreknows that some will voluntarily make themselves bad. He also foreknows the good he will make of their badness.
6. Those who will not be God’s sons become God’s tools.
7. Satan attacked Eve because he knew she was less intelligent and more credulous. (This will be a fun one to test ourselves with!)
8. Adam was not deceived. He did not believe what his wife said to him was true, but yielded because of the social bond between them.
9. The fall consisted of disobedience. The only point of forbidding the apple was to instill obedience. It has no intrinsic importance. (“It is an apple, just as Desdemona’s handkerchief is a handkerchief. Everything hangs on it, but in itself it is of no importance.”)
10. While the Fall consisted in disobedience, it resulted from Pride.
11. Thus, it was punished by man’s loss of Authority over his inferiors: his passions and physical organism.
12. For instance, sexuality changed. The sexual organs are no longer under the direct control of the will. (“You can clench your fist without being angry and you can be angry without clenching your fist.”)
13. In summary, Lewis quotes Addison: “The great moral which reigns in Milton is the most universal and most useful that can be imagined, that Obedience to the will of God makes men happy and that Disobedience makes them miserable.”
Now we are back to the subject of the preceding chapter (and post). If there is no God, the poem has no evident relation to real life. What are those of us, who like me, believe at most parts of the above, to do. Lewis suggests we have two choices:
1. We can “sweep away the main thing Milton was writing about as a mere historical accident and fix on quite marginal or subsidiary aspects of his work as the real core.”
2. We can “try by an effort of historical imagination to evoke that whole hierarchical conception of the universe to which Milton’s poem belongs, and to exercise themselves in feeling as if they believed it.”
I think this is a bit too black and white. As I tried to indicate in an earlier post about Satan as Leader, there is much to be gained from PL apart from the theological frame. However, I am now determined to work at reading with the imagination Lewis argues for in refuting the Doctrine of the Unchanging Heart.
Thanks for the effort Zeke. I think that approach is a useful tool for some of us to use in understanding PL. As a nitpicking note, you have a hanging slash code at the end of para. 4 on part 1 that you might want to edit :)
Zeke wrote: "Part two of a two part post.The next chapter attempts to summarize what Lewis believes Milton believed. Using quotations and citations from both PL and Augustine he offers a schematic. I will sk..."
Great contribution, Zeke.
Thanks Zeke- sterling work!I do not agree with either of Lewis' solutions for non-believers. If we do not believe in God we can still appreciate PL as an epic poem and enjoy all the myths and allegories it contains. Just as we can appreciate the Bible or the Koran or any other literary work. We do not have to believe in the Greek Myths to appreciate Virgil or Homer. I suppose it is like reading a recipe book without ever intending to cook or eat the food:).
Like Milton, C S Lewis was a devout christian (Anglican) and anti-catholic. However, Milton was far less orthodox in his beliefs than Lewis. Lewis had some interesting ideas about Purgatory, which is a catholic idea that Milton would not have supported:-
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/0...
BTW Milton's paternal grandfather was a staunch Roman Catholic who expelled and disinherited his son (Milton's father) from the family home for reading a Protestant Bible! Lewis had long and famous quarrel with the catholic poet T S Eliot, whom he called 'one of the enemy' and whose work he called 'evil' - such intense religious feelings seem to cause a lot of trouble, as the Puritans found:(.
Zeke wrote: The first (aside from prominent use of an acronym I couldn’t decipher –L.C.M.—suggests a way to approach the poem.I had trouble with that, too, Zeke. It is evidently lowest common multiple, which I think might be the same as least common denominator. My math classes are almost completely forgotten.
Roger wrote: Great contribution, Zeke. Right-o. Here's a link to the first chapter referenced. It will probably not give you the entire chapter. http://books.google.com/books?id=o9e-...
You can read Lewis's book at Questia if you sign up for a free trial: http://www.questia.com/googleScholar....
If you have an iPhone or iPod Touch, you can read the Questia library on that.
MadgeUK wrote: Lewis had long and famous quarrel with the catholic poet T S Eliot, whom he called 'one of the enemy' and whose work he called 'evil' - such intense religious feelings seem to cause a lot of trouble, as the Puritans found:(. T.S. Eliot was Anglo-Catholic, Madge. That's not Catholic, but something close to High Church of England, making him very close to C.S. Lewis in faith. Lewis said of Eliot: "I agree with him about matters of such moment that all literary questions are, in comparison, trivial." Also, after the lectures which became A Preface to Paradise Lost, Eliot came to agree with Lewis on Milton's work.
Thanks Laurel. Yes it is called High Church, to distinguish it from the Low church, where catholic rituals like communion are not practised. It is a tradition which arose out of the Victorian Oxford Movement, which we have discussed elsewhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Ca...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_church
There is a similar schism in the CofE at the moment
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comm...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comm...
Zeke wrote: "C.S. Lewis in A Preface to Paradise Lost has two chapters that I have found both informative and, in a relatively gentle way, admonishments. ..."A very valuable post, Zeke. I haven't gotten to those chapters in the Preface yet, but you've encouraged me to get back to the Preface in addition to all my other support reading.
MadgeUK wrote: "I do not agree with either of Lewis' solutions for non-believers. If we do not believe in God we can still appreciate PL as an epic poem and enjoy all the myths and allegories it contains...."That's a valid point, but I think that reading the poem without belief in the underlying truth of what he's talking about makes it a quite different poem. It becomes, essentially, on the same level (though still of much higher literary quality) as, say, the Narnia stories, the Harry Potter books, or the Star Wars movies -- a work of pure fiction, though also containing valuable messages and comments about the human condition.
The difference, perhaps, is that the other works are intended to be fiction, and Paradise Lost is intended to be based on truth, though Milton certainly invented many of the descriptions and events (more equivalent, perhaps, to modern historical fiction).
And Milton was certainly speaking directly of actual religious controversies and referring to actual historical events. To that extent, even for non-believers, it has perhaps more interest and value than pure fiction.
Everyman wrote: "That's a valid point, but I think that reading the poem without belief in the underlying truth of what he's talking about makes it a quite different poem..."
I was wondering about this yesterday. Is there any useful commentary on PL from a non-western, non-christian source? Or does this poem intrigue only us as part of the ongoing dispute between Christianity and European philosophy that started about the time of Milton and PL?
I was wondering about this yesterday. Is there any useful commentary on PL from a non-western, non-christian source? Or does this poem intrigue only us as part of the ongoing dispute between Christianity and European philosophy that started about the time of Milton and PL?
MadgeUK wrote: "Thanks Laurel. Yes it is called High Church, to distinguish it from the Low church, where catholic rituals like communion are not practised. It is a tradition which arose out of the Victorian Oxfo..."Holy Communion is practiced by all Christian churches, high and low, Catholic and otherwise, without exception, by the express command of Christ Himself (Luke 22:19). The celebration may be called the Lord's Supper, Holy Communion, the Eucharist, or the Mass, but the essentials are the same.
Everyman wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "I do not agree with either of Lewis' solutions for non-believers. If we do not believe in God we can still appreciate PL as an epic poem and enjoy all the myths and allegories it c..."Milton seems to be elaborating on the Christian story like Homer elaborated on the story of the Trojan War. I imagine that Homer had heard many stories about the Trojan War and believed that they were more or less historical, but felt free to fill in a lot of details out of his own imagination in order to tell a good tale.
This is my first reading of an epic poem and I am very glad to be reading it with others! I think all art is open to multiple interpretations and that is why it is so fascinating and wonderful!
Dianna wrote: "This is my first reading of an epic poem and I am very glad to be reading it with others! I think all art is open to multiple interpretations and that is why it is so fascinating and wonderful!"And this group is a particularly interesting group to be reading it with, isn't it? Such a great range of beliefs and points of view exchanging thoughts with candor but friendliness.
Yes it is Everyman! I guess since I read Faust I should have really said this is only my second reading of an epic poem but I don't really count Faust because I didn't get anything out of it. I think I will never try to read an epic poem again unless it is with a group like this that can help me understand.
Dianna wrote: "Yes it is Everyman! I guess since I read Faust I should have really said this is only my second reading of an epic poem but I don't really count Faust because I didn't get anything out of it. "Well, maybe Faust will come up as an option for our group's discussion sometime in future!
Hopefully not the too near future though...
Dianna wrote: "Hopefully not the too near future though..."I agree, Dianna.
On Faust. This is certainly a relevant comparison for PL, no? I think that many of us have a false impression of Faust as a result of operas and other popularizations of it. Many seem to think Faust is seeking youth and the seduction of Magaurite. If I am not mistaken, he is actually seeking knowledge. One of my favorite Mahler symphonies is the eighth which takes the text of its final movement from Book II (seldom read) of Goethe's Faust. Accompanied by gorgeous music, one gets the impression that the act of creativity is, in fact, divine, as Faust is redeemed by the "eternal feminine."
But, like Dianna, I am in no rush to read it either!
But, like Dianna, I am in no rush to read it either!
In another thread Everyman brought up Ovid. He is certainly a strong influence on Shakespeare, but seems to be less of an influence on Milton. Obviously, Ovid's cosmology and creation story is different than Milton's. does anyone know Milton's thoughts on him? (Madge?)
Why is Metamorphoses not considered an epic? Is it just because it doesn't conform to the structure? (Everyman?)
Why is Metamorphoses not considered an epic? Is it just because it doesn't conform to the structure? (Everyman?)
Zeke wrote: "In another thread Everyman brought up Ovid. He is certainly a strong influence on Shakespeare, but seems to be less of an influence on Milton. Obviously, Ovid's cosmology and creation story is diff..."There is a reference to Ovid in Book 4, when Eve awakens and sees her reflection in the lake. I expect Milton took from Ovid what served his purposes, just like he does from the other classics.
Zeke wrote: "Why is Metamorphoses not considered an epic? Is it just because it doesn't conform to the structure? (Everyman?) "I'm no expert here, but my view is that it's more a series of short stories sometimes loosely connected, whereas an epic I think has to have a coherent story line and one or a few main characters.
Thomas wrote: "Zeke wrote: "In another thread Everyman brought up Ovid. He is certainly a strong influence on Shakespeare, but seems to be less of an influence on Milton. Obviously, Ovid's cosmology and creation ..."Ovid was one of Milton's favourite writers (which I find a bit ironic given how much beautiful love poetry Ovid wrote and how Protestant Milton was). He is even credited by some for an English translation of Metamorphoses. You can read it here.
Zeke wrote: "On Faust. This is certainly a relevant comparison for PL, no? I think that many of us have a false impression of Faust as a result of operas and other popularizations of it. Many seem to think Faus..."Like Pooh, he is seeking BOTH. I love the Faust Symphony!
Thomas wrote: There is a reference to Ovid in Book 4, when Eve awakens and sees her reflection in the lake. I expect Milton took from Ovid what served his purposes, just like he does from the other classics. Right. He probably considered him to be a dirty old man. :)
Everyman wrote: "Zeke wrote: "Why is Metamorphoses not considered an epic? Is it just because it doesn't conform to the structure? (Everyman?) "I'm no expert here, but my view is that it's more a series of short ..."
Yes. I would not classify Metamorphoses as an epic.
I don't recall anybody posting links to the Blake illustrations of PL. He did two sets, which are generally similar.Here are two links.
One to the 1808 set:
http://www.pitt.edu/~ulin/Paradise/Bl...
and a Wikipedia article which includes links to both sets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_...
One thing I find interesting is the number of angels who are clearly feminine or have feminine features. And Satan isn't portrayed as a terrifying, obviously evil figure, but as a quite good looking young man with an almost cherubic face.
The deviation from Ovid's story of Narcissus at the lake --discussed above-- was certainly appropriate. But I thought the "talking lake" was going a bit overboard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArchangelI should probably have posted this link here and not where I posted it originally. I am also going to post some info regarding the demons that are listed in book 6.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jophiel
Demons listed in Paradise Lost book 6:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adramelech
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arioch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramiel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisroch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belial
Roger wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Thanks Laurel. Yes it is called High Church, to distinguish it from the Low church, where catholic rituals like communion are not practised. It is a tradition which arose out of th..."Have just seen this. Not 'all'! Part of the Anglican church rejected transubstantiation in favour of consubstantiation long ago and I have never seen communion practiced in an Anglican Low church at any event I have been to - christenings, marriages deaths etc. Indeed I have met many Anglicans in my lifetime who find the idea abhorrent and associate it with catholicism and papacy. The first mass was taken in the Church of England in 1840 at the time of the Oxford Movement which sought to catholicise the CoE. It was very controversial and those which retained such practices became 'High' Church (see link above). My mother's people were Methodists and they did not practice communion either. Luther also rejected transubstantiation and not all Lutherans celebrate mass. These practices vary enormously from diocese to diocese sometimes being dependent upon the priest's own belief. The history of the UK is steeped in opposition to catholic rites and bloody conflict about them:(.
MadgeUK wrote: "Fascinating! Thanks Dianna."You are confusing high-church-type rites and ceremonies, and the doctrine of transsubstantiation, with Holy Communion. Go ask you Anglican friends and you will find that their parish church celebrates Holy Communion at least once a month. It is not normally celebrated along with special events like baptisms. The CofE liturgy used is here:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/worship/...
In High Church celebrations it is done with pomp, ceremony, vestments, incense, bells, music, and so on. This kind of celebration of Holy Communion is often called a Mass, especially among Roman Catholics. It is these ceremonies that some Low Churchmen have found abhorrent. Low Church celebrations are much simpler, and almost always include a sermon. But all Anglicans celebrate Holy Communion. So do all Methodists and all Lutherans. Some call it the Lord's Supper.
Transsubstantiation is a unique Roman Catholic teaching about what exactly happens to the bread and wine at consecration. It is rejected by Anglicans, Lutherans, and every other Christian denomination as far as I know.
I am very puzzled here Roger. The Eucharist is surely part of Holy Communion and that includes the taking of 'bread' and wine. Some High Church Anglicans do accept transubstantition, it was one of the sticking points of the Oxford Movement. Does Communion always mean the taking of bread and wine? I thought that sometimes it meant 'Word and Sacrament', which can be a rite or symbol of some kind. I have never seen wine taken in Low Church or in the Methodist church my maternal grandmother frequented. But then, I only go to other people's churches on high days and holidays so may have missed it. I associate all 'bread and wine' services with transubstantiation - doesn't the Last Supper infer that it is the body and blood of Christ? But I may be wrong because the few practising christians I have known have been low church or what is sometimes called 'primitive' methodists, who are very anti papist rites of any kind, including the residues of those in the CofE. I am unhappy with your use of 'all' with regard to Christian doctrine since my experience is that these things vary from church to church and country to country. What is laid down by the various church authorities is not necessarily practiced at the grass roots. Look at the way both homosexuals and women are being used as priests/bishops in one diocese/country and not in another, for instance. The Church of England looks likely to split over this - they certainly have no 'all'!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/te...
Edit for latest news on CofE - will it be Rome next?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/...
MadgeUK wrote: "I am very puzzled here Roger. The Eucharist is surely part of Holy Communion and that includes the taking of 'bread' and wine. Some High Church Anglicans do accept transubstantition, it was one of...""Eucharist" is another name for Holy Communion, the Lord's Supper, the Mass (RC usage), the Liturgy (Eastern Orthodox). It always involves partaking of bread and wine (some low churches use grape juice), in accordance with Christ's commandment. He used the words "This is my body," "This is my blood," but not all Christians interpret that literally. The celebration is very simple in low churches, very elaborate and ritualized in high churches, but it is still Holy Communion. "Word and Sacrament" means Bible reading and preaching (Word) and HC (Sacrament). Some very low churches (e.g. Baptist) may celebreate HC only a few times a year, Anglican churches at least once a month, Catholic churches weekly or more. Low churches may regard it as a memorial rather than as a "sacrament," i.e. means of grace.
Madge, on further research I find that you are correct that some High Church Anglicans believe in transubstantiation. As far as I know they are unique among Protestants. And as you say, individual beliefs can vary quite a bit from what is officially taught.
I use the term "all" advisedly. I realize that it is a bit of an exaggeration, because there are loads of small splinter groups and a few well-known denominations with doctrines outside of the mainstream. I use it to stress the fact that there are core beliefs and practices common to all mainstream Christian denominations: Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Congregationalist, etc.
Thanks Roger - it is very complicated:). I still find the use of the word 'all' somewhat didactic. I find the schisms are too many to warrant the use of the word and over here at least there are, and always have been, too many dissenters. We do not call Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist and Congregationalist etc 'mainstream' churches - they are Nonconformist and outside of the mainstream CofE and Catholic, just as in Milton's time. Here are some amusing caricatures of some Dissenters of Milton's time:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cat...
We now have 'Fresh Expressions' and how far some of these enter into established doctrines I do not know but I suspect many 'dissent':-
http://www.freshexpressions.org.uk/ab...
MadgeUK wrote: "Thanks Roger - it is very complicated:). I still find the use of the word 'all' somewhat didactic. I find the schisms are too many to warrant the use of the word and over here at least there are, ..."I guess "mainstream churches" is an Americanism.
Roger wrote: "I guess "mainstream churches" is an Americanism.
..."
Yes, it's hard to remember the monarch is head of the CoE and its bishops sit in the House of Lords.
..."
Yes, it's hard to remember the monarch is head of the CoE and its bishops sit in the House of Lords.
So true Kate - hopefully the bishops will be gone in the next reforms and then.....:):)
I'll start with a few.
John Rogers superb Yale course on Milton can be seen in its entirety, here, with the handouts and transcripts also available. What a gift from Yale!
I had posted elsewhere links to the Geneva Bible that Milton presumably used: One in the original spelling here, and one with modern spelling here.
Laurel had earlier posted a recommendation for David Lowenstein's book Milton: Paradise Lost - A Student Guide.
Laurel and Madge are Internet Link Gurus, and will probably be able to post many excellent links. But of course anybody else who has found sites or materials of interest should definitely post about them here.