Classics and the Western Canon discussion

As promised, I'm opening the Book 8 discussion early, so that those who want to can get into an integrated discussion of books 7&8, or even 5-8.

Early on, Zeke posted that by book 8 he had gotten disenchanted with Raphael. I've been waiting patiently to hear why -- okay, Zeke, let's have it!

I wonder if Zeke has been thinking about the comments made about Raphael at the end of Professor Roger's Lecture on Book VII and VIII, which is about the relations between the two sexes. Does anyone have any ideas about this? From what I have read about Milton's, he did not seem to treat the women in his life very well but does he express a different, perhaps theological a la Augustine/Aquinas, p.o.v. about the role of women in PL?:-

'Of course, by the mid-seventeenth century the jury was still out as to whether the universe was heliocentric or geocentric, and Milton wasn't alone in expressing some uncertainty. You could say, and it has been said, that it was wise of him to hedge his bets; but there's a lot more going on in the discussions of astronomy than just a serious desire to get to the bottom of a difficult contemporary scientific question. There's way too much made of Raphael's confusion here and his uncertainty about cosmic hierarchy. The sun and the earth, or the sun and the moon, are deliberately gendered here. Milton uses the traditional gender assignments of these heavenly bodies that he inherits from the Latin language, and he holds to them scrupulously throughout the poem. The sun is always masculine, and the earth and the moon are always feminine. The controversy about the priority of the heavenly bodies is, in some way, Milton's reformulation of the controversy about the priority of the sexes. The field of astronomy provides Milton with something like a scientific discourse about the sexes, an alternative source of knowledge that permits him to counteract the more traditional and more theological account of the sexes, assimilable from his culture but also from the Bible.

Look at page 366 in the Hughes. Raphael's certainty about sexual hierarchy in the human sphere seems to give way to nothing but doubts and uncertainty as soon as that hierarchy is extended to the cosmic sphere. Science provides a different kind of space: this is a discursive space for a more liberated, a more open-ended discussion of sexual politics. It provides Milton with an opposing source for the knowledge about the sexes, a knowledge that seemed so complete and so sewn up from the theological point of view implicit in the Genesis account. [In:] Book Eight, line 148. Raphael is beginning to grow exceedingly speculative here, and he dares to conjecture that there may exist out there in the cosmos other suns and other moons:

[O:]ther suns perhaps
With their attendant moons thou wilt descry
Communicating Male and Female Light,
Which two great Sexes animate the World,
Stor'd in each Orb perhaps with some that live.
The two great sexes here that communicate their light do so with an equal brilliance. The greatness of one isn't emphasized here, at least in these lines, at the expense of the other. You'll remember with Adam and Eve in our first description of them in their naked majesty -- they were lords of all and, presumably, equally lords of all. When Raphael conjectures that some creatures might actually live on these infinitely distant other suns and other moons, he's pointing to an alternative conceptual world in which the relation of the two great sexes might be configured altogether differently.

Raphael concludes the discussion at line 159, and he suggests essentially to Adam that it's not Adam's place -- Adam should just cool it -- it's not his place to pursue these grand questions of heavenly organization. So this is Raphael: "But whether thus these things, or whether not, / Whether the Sun predominant in Heav'n / Rise on the Earth; or Earth rise on the Sun..." Raphael's just telling us it simply doesn't matter, and he suggests a decisive -- if such a thing makes sense -- a decisive uncertainty about whether the predominant sun rises on the earth or whether the predominant earth rises on the sun. One Milton critic, John Guillory, has been absolutely right, I think -- he's the best reader of this, the whole problem -- in suggesting that we can hear behind these lines the brooding question of sexual hierarchy. Is the man on top or is the woman on top? Is the masculine sex predominant, or could it be that the feminine predominates? When speaking about the sexes in the language of human relations, Raphael is utterly definitive about who predominates over whom, but when he's speaking the language of science he seems baffled -- and it's lovable. His confusion in the scientific realm can be seen to force us to reconsider his certainty about relations in the human realm, in the ethical realm.

Now none of this is to say that Milton is a feminist or even that Milton is a proto-feminist. The question of what Milton actually believes about the priority of the sexes is really, I think, too difficult to discover or extract simply from a reading of the text. This poem is far too filled with contradictions to give us anything like a clear road map to Milton's own beliefs, if it could even be said that he or any of us actually have firm and fixed beliefs about such huge and consequential matters as the relation between the sexes. But it is, I think, possible to see that Milton is struggling in some way to keep in suspension the competing sources of knowledge that address this crucial question in Paradise Lost, the question of the relation between the sexes. Milton's poem is -- we can't deny this -- is a far more theological poem than it is a scientific one, but Milton will nonetheless use the language of natural philosophy, the language of science, to open up some of the pressing questions that his theology seems to have closed down. You can see Milton willingly placing himself in the role of Raphael at just those moments when the archangel is discussing astronomy. It's as if Milton, just like that affable angel -- and don't you love it that Milton lets us know that Raphael is the affable angel, quite unlike the Michael that we will meet in the last two books? -- as if Milton, just like Raphael, were throwing his hands affably up in the air in complete uncertainty and telling us, the readers, "I don't know. I don't know the answer to these big questions. You decide." Okay.'

On the astronomy issue: I can't speak with anywhere near Madge's comprehensive knowledge. But i was struck by a couple of smaller things--

1. It's Eve who first raises the question, but she withdraws when Raphael starts "explaining" to Adam. I thought the reason was rather charming and fleshed out her character a bit. She wants to wait and have the pleasure of hearing Adam tell her the answers knowing he: would intermix/Grateful digressions, and solve high dispute/With conjugal caresses; from his lips/Not words alone pleased her.

2. I'm still confused as to why Galileo is the only human mentioned by name in epic.

3. I'm reading the Modern Library edition. It has a note that picks up on line 78 and the implication that God sits in heaven laughing at humans perplexity at difficult cosmic questions. A critic named A.O. Lovejoy finds this makes God a "singularly detestable being." I disagree. But I do want to state strongly that I do not think it is "playing God" to want to understand God's creation and God's ways.

4. This whole issue can be broadened to other seemingly incongruous issues in science. I don't want to set off another theological debate. But this seems the appropriate place in the poem to note how Creationists cite the complexity of the eye (for example) as "evidence" that only a creator could have designed it. While Evolutionists cite the same organ as evidence that no sane creator would devise something so inelegant.

Zeke wrote: "On the astronomy issue: I can't speak with anywhere near Madge's comprehensive knowledge. But i was struck by a couple of smaller things--

1. It's Eve who first raises the question, but she withdr..."

Alas, it wasn't my comprehensive knowledge Zeke, it was Prof Roger's:O.

Do you think he might have specifically mentioned Galileo, whom he greatly admired, not only because he (reputedly) visited him but because he was imprisoned by the Vatican authorities at the time which maybe Milton, the political pamphleteer, wanted to draw attention to? Or is he just drawing attention to the fact that he looked through Galileo's telescope at the moon, of which he was very proud? Or both?

I wondered if the phrase 'not words alone pleased her' were based on personal experience? From what I have read of Milton's marriages and love life, and of his temperament, I find his descriptions of Eve and their conjugal bliss somewhat idealistic. I also wondered if this idealisation was one of the reasons his marriages were less than happy? They reminded me of Ruskin, the poet, whose notion of female beauty was formed by statues of Greek goddesses who did not have any bodily hair. When he married he therefore thought his wife was 'deformed' and it rendered him impotent.

Zeke wrote: "1. It's Eve who first raises the question, but she withdraws when Raphael starts "explaining" to Adam. "

I find this passage troubling.

So spake our Sire, and by his count'nance seemd
Entring on studious thoughts abstruse, which Eve [ 40 :]
Perceaving where she sat retir'd in sight,
With lowliness Majestic from her seat,
And Grace that won who saw to wish her stay,
Rose, and went forth among her Fruits and Flours,
To visit how they prosper'd, bud and bloom, [ 45 :]
Her Nurserie; they at her coming sprung
And toucht by her fair tendance gladlier grew.
Yet went she not, as not with such discourse
Delighted, or not capable her eare
Of what was high: such pleasure she reserv'd, [ 50 :]
Adam relating, she sole Auditress;
Her Husband the Relater she preferr'd
Before the Angel, and of him to ask
Chose rather: hee, she knew would intermix
Grateful digressions, and solve high dispute [ 55 :]
With conjugal Caresses, from his Lip
Not Words alone pleas'd her.

The phrase that gets me is "lowliness Majestic." Eve is making a sensible choice to leave a discussion of cycles and epicycles (which God quite rightly finds amusing) for the garden. And Milton takes care to tell us that she is leaving not because she doesn't care, nor is it because she isn't capable of understanding the conversation. So why the oxymoron? There doesn't seem to be anything "lowly" about her. Adam certainly doesn't think so.

Zeke wrote: I do want to state strongly that I do not think it is "playing God" to want to understand God's creation and God's ways.

I agree. It was wanting to understand God's creation and God's ways that led to modern science in the hands of Newton, Kepler, Galileo, etc., at least according to their statements.

Thomas wrote: "...lowliness majestic...I find this passage troubling...."

Is it to do with the hierarchy Milton has previously described where Eve is figuratively 'beneath' Adam in rank? eg: 'For contemplation he for valour formed/For softness she and sweet attractive grace/He for God only, She for God in him'. (Book IV L297-299). Lowly also means modest/unpretentious/humble and this could have been the primary meaning in Milton's time.

Milton's descriptions of Eve so far have reminded me of The Stepford Wives.

Good description - I think that was how he expected wives should be, but willingly submissive.

ugh! That's all I have to say about that lol

LOL. Just as you are willingly submissive to God, so you should be willingly submissive to your mate, is the theory:). Here is a good, short article about the A&E relationship in PL:-

http://ayjw.org/print_articles.php?id...

Book IX goes more into all this.

I keep flunking Submission 101...I really hope I don't have to pass that class in order to get my "life" degree. ;)

One day you will meet Mr Right and all will become clear........:D.

LOL Thanks! ;p

Raphael advises Adam not to concern himself with unknowable things like celestial motions, but only with his duties. It's ironic that only 20 years after the publication of Paradise Lost, Newton published his Principia that made celestial motions perfectly knowable. But the weightier matters of man's duty to God and salvation remain just as debatable as they were in Milton's day.

I wonder if Milton knew that Newton was writing the Principia? He had taken his degree at Christ's College and kept in touch with colleagues there, although I understand that he did not meet Newton. Apparently Newton first spoke of his findings on optics around 1668, which was six years before Milton's death, so the ideas may have been in circulation amongst intellectual circles for some time. Just a thought. Like Milton, Newton was a critic of of Trinitarian dogmas and thought that Christianity had gone astray after Apostolic times. In his scientific works he expressed a strong sense of God's providential role in Nature, which was close to the Monism Milton 'flirted' with.

Milton reveals his familiarity with discoveries made about the surface of the moon and mentions 'optic glass', a reference to Galileo, and Raphael postulates that there may be life there:

her spots thou seest
As clouds, and clouds may rain, and rain produce
Fruits in her soften soil, for some to eat
Alloted there [Book 8:145]

And in Book 7:620 Angels sang:

Numerous and every star perhaps a world
Of destined habitation.

In Paradise Regained Milton ascribes to to Satan 'the clever manipulation of the laws of optics, using the principles of telescope and microscope, to create a panoramic X-ray image'. (cfJohn Milton by John Barclay Broadbent.) It would seem that Milton was well up on the scientific discoveries of his time although he dealt with them poetically in PL, rather than scientifically.

I wonder if Raphael (Milton) advises Adam not to concern himself with unknowable things like celestial motions because astrologers of Milton's time were given to prophecies, which he may have thought was 'second guessing' God?

Roger wrote: "Raphael advises Adam not to concern himself with unknowable things like celestial motions, but only with his duties. It's ironic that only 20 years after the publication of Paradise Lost, Newton p..."

The real irony to me was that Milton had Raphael spend the first 160+ lines of Book VIII conjecturing on all these points, speculating on beings of light who live on the moon, etc. I mean it felt like this whimsical fun diversion into science fiction that Raphael was enjoying to the hilt. It was incredibly seductive. And then he tells Adam not to be bothered with all these curious matters that are beyond human knowledge and to just focus on his own mundane lot in life.

So Milton does a couple things here. In the first part he shows the fascination of unraveling the unknowable and finding things out (science). Then he has Raphael tell Adam that too much curiosity about such things is unbecoming and obscures more important truths (God's will). Apparently godly life is meant to be mundane. Too much curiosity and knowledge will seduce man into reaching above one's station in life.

Sollicit not thy thoughts with matters hid;
Leave them to God above; him serve, and fear!
Of other creatures, as him pleases best,
Wherever placed, let him dispose; joy thou
In what he gives to thee, this Paradise
And thy fair Eve; Heaven is for thee too high
To know what passes there; be lowly wise:
Think only what concerns thee, and thy being;
Dream not of other worlds, what creatures there
Live, in what state, condition, or degree;

And Adam replies:

But apt the mind or fancy is to rove
Unchecked, and of her roving is no end;
Till warned, or by experience taught, she learn,
That, not to know at large of things remote
From use, obscure and subtle; but, to know
That which before us lies in daily life,
Is the prime wisdom:What is more, is fume,
Or emptiness, or fond impertinence:

Who's he trying to convince here? Himself? Book VIII was one of those times when Blake's quote on Milton seemed absolutely spot on:

“The reason Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of Angels and God, and at liberty when of Devils and Hell, is because he was a true poet, and of the Devil's party without knowing it.”

! I agree with Blake so far. Not that being of the Devil's party is really all that bad...in my opinion.

MadgeUK wrote: "Lowly also means modest/unpretentious/humble and this could have been the primary meaning in Milton's time.
"

That makes perfect sense in the context of the passage (and the rest of Book VIII.) Thanks.

Dianna wrote: "! I agree with Blake so far. Not that being of the Devil's party is really all that bad...in my opinion."

Me too. And I'm not seeing the downside of being "of the Devil's party" either ;)

Thomas- I think "lowliness" in that passage means humility, as Madge mentioned, but I'm not sure.

In general- I've thinking about the differences in the way Milton talked about astronomy vs. the way he talked about the relationship with the sexes. When Prof. Rogers says, "His confusion in the scientific realm can be seen to force us to reconsider his certainty about relations in the human realm, in the ethical realm," I'm not sure I agree.

Maybe it's simplistic, but Milton knew he wanted to be famous for hundreds of years to come, yes? He wanted to be greater than Homer, possibly even greater than the Bible. He knew contemporary notions of astronomy were in flux. Could it be he was simply hesitant to commit himself, not wanting to tie his epic to the intellectual equivalent of a sinking ship?

In contrast to the rapidly changing views of astronomy, the relationship between the sexes must have appeared fixed and immutable. On the other hand, how much of what Milton puts on Adam's lips is the poet's own thought, and how much is the character?

"For well I understand in the prime end / Of nature her th'inferior, in the mind / And inward faculties, which most excel, / in outward also her resembling less / His image who made both, and less expressing / the character of that dominion giv'n / O'er other creatures"

Seems surprising after he goes to pains to point out that Eve has no trouble understanding and enjoying all Raphael's philosophizing in lines 48-50.

Oh, and aside from gender, I was struck by this passage: "That not to know at large of things remote / From use, obscure and subtle, but to know / That which before us lies in daily life, / Is the prime wisdom; what is more, is fume, / Or emptiness, or fond impertinence"

What, Milton says this? In the middle of PARADISE LOST? How hypocritical can you get?

This is Adam speaking, again. I wonder whether after the Fall, his point of view changes.

S. Rosemary wrote: "Thomas- I think "lowliness" in that passage means humility, as Madge mentioned, but I'm not sure.

In general- I've thinking about the differences in the way Milton talked about astronomy vs. the ..."

I have trouble with Rogers connecting the astronomical with the ethical as well, but I think he's right to ask all the things he does about the role of science in the poem. Why did Milton choose Urania for his muse, rather than the muse of poetry, Calliope?

My working theory (which might turn out wrong) is that Milton is showing us the difference between different types of knowledge: the "prime knowledge" of the mundane that is natural and given to Adam and Eve as part of their evironment, the heavenly knowledge of "the obscure and subtle", to which the angels are privy but which makes God laugh when men try to understand it, and the "knowledge of good and ill." That's the bad stuff. Not being able to distinguish these forms of knowledge is what gets Eve into trouble.

Although delving into things which do not concern us or not changing our status in life, is not something we are taught by the church or anyone else to avoid (usually!), this was quite a strong belief in years gone by. It accounts for the verse in the 1848 hymn which was later removed, to suit quite modern, enquiring minds:-

The rich man in his castle
The poor man at his gate
GOD made them high or lowly
And ordered their estate

http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/a/l/al...

Man was forbidden to eat of the Tree of Knowledge after all. Milton wrote in Aeropagitica: 'When there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making' and in Book IV of PL:-

And all amid them stood the tree of life,
High eminent blooming ambrosial fruit
Of vegetable gold; and next to life,
Our death the tree of knowledge grew fast by,
Knowledge of good bought dear by knowing ill'
[My emphasis.:]

http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/a/l/al...

It is also possible, to answer Rosemary's point about hypocrisy, that Milton thought his blindness was inflicted by God because he was not obedient enough about these heavenly rules - that he was 'impertinent' and is therefore castigating himself.

I'm having a bit of confusion that I would like to try to clear up before we get to the eating of the forbidden fruit and its consequences. At this point in the story, before Eve eats the apple, what is Adam and Eve's understanding of "death?"

The word is used frequently in their presence --and possibly even by them; I can't recall-- and they have been admonished that death will be the consequence of eating the fruit. But do they even know what it means? (Presumably, what it means to the reader is that they will join Satan's misery in Hell unless redeemed by the Son.)

I've also variously heard the Tree described as the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Knowledge of Life and Death. Which is it?

Ernst Becker wrote a very interesting book titled Denial of Death. My reading of it was that Becker believes that humans are the only animal that knows death is inevitable. And in our fear of this, he locates modern neuroses. This would fit well with the fruit of the tree being knowledge of life and death.

S. Rosemary wrote: "He knew contemporary notions of astronomy were in flux. Could it be he was simply hesitant to commit himself, not wanting to tie his epic to the intellectual equivalent of a sinking ship? "

This was my take on it. How much had to with it being a sinking ship and how much had to do with avoiding a controversy that he would see as a distraction from the poem's intent, I'm not sure, but from a writer's standpoint, it seems a likely way to put aside the speculation, close the scene and send Raphael on his heavenly way.

Zeke wrote: "
I've also variously heard the Tree described as the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Knowledge of Life and Death. Which is it?"

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It's also important to make the distinction between this and the (unfortunate) truncation to "Tree of Knowledge," which gives the false impression that knowledge itself is forbidden.

I've been trying to decide if Milton was wrestling with this misapprehension or not. He uses both terms in the poem. If he thought it was a restriction on knowledge, he would have been conflicted by his own scholarly curiosity, in which case he might well have thought there were realms of scientific knowledge into which man should not delve.

On the other hand, to recognize that there are some thing which mankind cannot know or comprehend isn't the same thing as saying that knowledge is forbidden. And neither is recognizing the wisdom of attending to the issues of everyday life. Speculation is pleasant as long as one keeps it in perspective and knows when it is fruitful and when it's an excuse to escape the parts of our life that require our attention.

I do wish I had more time to read some of the biographical material on Milton. I might have a better idea of his beliefs about this.

Zeke wrote: "I'm having a bit of confusion that I would like to try to clear up before we get to the eating of the forbidden fruit and its consequences. At this point in the story, before Eve eats the apple, what is Adam and Eve's understanding of "death?"
"

In Book IV Adam doesn't seem to know what death is, but knows it is "some dreadful thing." It is difficult to see how fear of punishment could be a deterrent when the nature of the punishment is unknown.

not to taste that onely Tree
Of knowledge, planted by the Tree of Life,
So neer grows Death to Life, what ere Death is, [ 425 :]
Som dreadful thing no doubt; for well thou knowst
God hath pronounc't it death to taste that Tree,
The only sign of our obedience left
Among so many signes of power and rule
Conferrd upon us, and Dominion giv'n [ 430 :]
Over all other Creatures that possess
Earth, Aire, and Sea

Aranthe wrote: "Zeke wrote: "
I've also variously heard the Tree described as the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Knowledge of Life and Death. Which is it?"

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Ev..."

Thanks for straightening me out on the Tree of Knowledge Aranthe, I had not picked up on the 'good and evil' bit.

Looking at Milton's ideas on education and possibly tying them to knowledge in general, this Dartmouth link suggests that his pamphlet Of Education underlies the teaching Adam enjoys from the angels Raphael and Michael and even in his conversation with the Father (Book 8:326-451). In Books 11 and 12, it is suggested that Milton leads Adam 'through an education that exactly parallels, down to the smallest details, the "methodical course" that Milton had delineated with such precision in his educational tractate' (Coiro). 'In his essay "Divine Instruction: Of Education and the Pedagogy of Raphael, Michael, and the Father," Michael Allen argues that Raphael and Michael serve as foils for the Father, who is "the ideal schoolmaster." He sees the two angels as representative of Milton's "paradoxical teaching method... whereby teachers offer 'lectures and explanations' so as to 'lead and draw' their students 'in willing obedience, inflamed with the study of learning and the admiration of virtue." It is the Father who "combines left and right" as the "embodiment" of Milton's educational principles (Allen).' His views on education were radical for his time and went against church teaching, especially that of the catholic church (as you might expect).

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/read...

Thanks for clearing up my confusion about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. (I still think that it may be our knowledge of our own mortality that causes us the most problems, since we seem to be pretty adept at ignoring the evil around us, but that is for another discussion.)

However, this raises additional issues for me. If Adam and Eve are ignorant of evil, what is the value of giving them free will: it is demanding blind obedience for its own sake. It can't be a choice between better or worse options (good and evil).

Also, their innocence makes Raphael's mission impossible. His warnings can't compete with the "logic" of Satan's seduction.

In a way it reminds me of the futility of trying to warn young kids about the dangers of various activities. Their brains haven't yet developed to the point that they can make responsible judgments.

I realize that this is all distorting the poem into modern, postlapsarian logic. God's "plan" is to have Adam and Eve fall, to expel them from Eden and to offer redemption through his Son.

Zeke wrote: "Thanks for clearing up my confusion about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. (I still think that it may be our knowledge of our own mortality that causes us the most problems, since we seem to..."

Very true Zeke. Prof Rogers in his Book IV lecture mentions the difficulties that Milton had in reconciling these arguments. Children are a good analogy, for they too are 'innocent' of death and cannot understand it until, perhaps, a pet dies. Human being are the only species who comprehend their own mortality and this has given rise to many problems, not least the ones posed by their more 'mysterious' religious beliefs. I am quite happy to comprehend my corpse being eaten up by worms or my ashes fertilising a tree:).

Almost the first thing Adam does on awakening is to acknowledge his Maker:

. . . . Thou Sun, said I, faire Light,
And thou enlight'nd Earth, so fresh and gay,
Ye Hills and Dales, ye Rivers, Woods, and Plaines, [ 275 :]
And ye that live and move, fair Creatures, tell,
Tell, if ye saw, how came I thus, how here?
Not of my self; by some great Maker then,
In goodness and in power præeminent;
Tell me, how may I know him, how adore, [ 280 :]
From whom I have that thus I move and live,
And feel that I am happier then I know.

Note how different this is from Satan's speech in Book V, where he argues differently from similar evidence:

We know no time when we were not as now;
Know none before us, self-begot, self-rais'd [ 860 :]
By our own quick'ning power, when fatal course
Had circl'd his full Orbe, the birth mature
Of this our native Heav'n, Ethereal Sons.

MadgeUK wrote: "Aranthe wrote: "
The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Ev..."

Thanks for straightening me out on the Tree of Knowledge Aranthe, I had not picked up on the 'good and evil' bit."

It wasn't aimed at you, but at the hundreds of references I've seen over the years and the many old library bookplates that picture Adam and Eve in the Garden. It's quite a common truncation, but it significantly distorts the meaning.

Triche

Roger, I am not sure of the point you are making here? Adam seems to be acknowledging a vague 'Maker' of whom he has no knowledge and is ready to give obeisance to it, even though it may turn out to be a monster. This could be akin to idolatry. Satan seems to be adopting a more reasoned approach. What do you suppose Milton meant by this?

Folks might (or might not!) be interested to know that I have just purchased a new copy of The Holy Bible. An NKJV Gift Award edition published by Nelson. I have been wearing out my old school Bible whilst reading PL so thought I would update myself:).

MadgeUK wrote: "Roger, I am not sure of the point you are making here? Adam seems to be acknowledging a vague 'Maker' of whom he has no knowledge and is ready to give obeisance to it, even though it may turn out ..."

Adam apparently wants to adore his Maker because he is happy. I guess he is thankful. He has good evidence that the Maker is not a monster: the joy and beauty of creation. There are no idols anywhere about.

The interesting contrast is that Adam knows that he somehow came to be, and immediately concludes that he had a Creator. Satan also knows that he came to be, but claims illogically to be "self-begot." How could he beget himself before he was in existence to do the begetting?

Zeke wrote: "Thanks for clearing up my confusion about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. ... However, this raises additional issues for me. If Adam and Eve are ignorant of evil, what is the value of giving them free will: it is demanding blind obedience for its own sake. It can't be a choice between better or worse options (good and evil)."

Thought experiment: If God exists as He is portrayed in the Bible (basis of PL), then He is eternal being, without beginning or end.

He decides to create everything—not merely the material universe but all of its systems, including time. He is external to it and defines everything that is in it.

So how would a human, who has no eternal perspective, no omniscient knowledge of the world in which he lives, a human that exists within and as a part of the system, have the ability to objectively determine what is ultimate right or wrong? What would he even know of right or wrong? Nothing. One must be external to the system to define it; otherwise, one is like the blind men and the elephant, groping about, defining only the narrow part of one's own existence.

God says His will is Good. Not merely good in the comparative sense (better or worse from the limited view of a single person's single point in space-time), but definitively Good—which only makes sense because who else can possibly define how the universe works other than the one who engineered it? So, yes, it is obedience for its own sake, but it isn't arbitrary because the choice isn't the fruit, it's the obedience to the one being who is in a position to define what is Good.

Yet it's hardly blind: They walked with Him. In the story, they're having conversations with angels, enjoying the most pollution-free, pristine environment man has ever seen and enjoying each other. They had every evidence of beneficence and kindness. They already knew Good. They saw it in everything around them. It was Evil with which they weren't yet acquainted.

MadgeUK wrote: "Folks might (or might not!) be interested to know that I have just purchased a new copy of The Holy Bible. An NKJV Gift Award edition published by Nelson. I have been wearing out my old school Bi..."

I am interested! I've been referring back to the first few chapters of Genesis while reading PL.

For Milton it might be better to use the Bible he used (starts with a G, can't remember), or at least the KJV/NKJV as you have done. I haven't been- I've been in among the Jewish Study Bible (which uses the NJPS and has great commentary), the Jerusalem Bible (my favorite), and occasionally the ESV (dedicated to note-taking).

Are other folks referring back? And what translations/editions are being used? And what made you choose the NKJV, Madge? Was it a Milton-related consideration?

"Zeke wrote: "I am interested......"

The Geneva Bible is expensive to buy and isn't the one I would normally use for reference purposes. The KJV is the one I was taught at school and I thought I would modernise:).

S. Rosemary wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Folks might (or might not!) be interested to know that I have just purchased a new copy of The Holy Bible. An NKJV Gift Award edition published by Nelson. I have been wearing out ...

Are other folks referring back? And what translations/editions are being used?"

I use different sources, depending on my aim: KJV/NKJV for sheer reading pleasure (especially for the Psalms, Gospel of John and Philippians), but a combination of versions for study: ESV Study, NIV, Ryrie Study and Life and Times Historical Reference Bible (great cultural, archeological and anthropological notes), plus the extra-biblicals Archeology & the Old Testament (Hoerth) and the multilinear and exegetical tools available at Biblos.com.

Also, I found an online copy of the Geneva Bible text, which I plan to read this afternoon, for comparison. For anyone else who'd like to read it, you can do so at StudyLight.org.

Roger wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Roger, I am not sure of the point you are making here? Adam seems to be acknowledging a vague 'Maker' of whom he has no knowledge and is ready to give obeisance to it, even though ..."

There are no idols but he is ready to worship something he hasn't seen, which may be an idol. I thought perhaps Milton was warning against idolatry.

Perhaps Satan was saying something like Descartes cogito ergo sum 'I am thinking, therefore I exist.' Like me, he doesn't acknowledge a begetter (except for a mother of course:)). Descartes was a contemporary of Milton so might have had an influence.

Just a thought.

Amanda wrote: "I think Raphael's response to Satan's claim of self-begetting shows Milton's views about the subject pretty plainly. He thought the idea was completely false and illogical. Didn't we come that conc..."

I don't think we've actually come to an agreement about who is Milton's mouthpiece in PL. That seems to change, depending on how controversial a statement is being made. What did Milton actually believe? People have been trying to figure that out for the last 350 years.

Kate wrote: "I don't think we've actually come to an agreement......."

So true Kate. M's mouthpiece seems to change from Book to Book. Adam has been cited as one, Satan as another. You pays your money and you takes your choice:). It is a 350 year old mystery.

William Blake said that Milton was in fetters when he wrote of Angels and God and at liberty when he wrote of Devils and Hell.

The critic Stanley Fish thought that Milton sought to imply that we are all fallen creatures and that in reacting favourably to Satan and Adam and Eve we are simply demonstrating that we are like them, too susceptible to earthly delights. 'Hence the poem is designed to trap the reader into a recognition of his or her fallen nature.'

William Empson thought that Milton found the Bible story at odds with Protestant doctrine and that PL was therefore a 'fascinating study of a divided soul'. (Empson did not think that Milton succeeded in 'justifying the ways of God to man'.)

I guess we all have our own preconceived ideas about the world and if we all thought the same thing what a boring world it would be!

The only conclusion I have come to is that Milton's Paradise Lost is much more interesting to me than I ever dreamed it would be.

Clearly, Milton's mouthpiece changes as the epic unfolds in ways others have noted. I am also interested in the narrator's voice. Never having read the poem before, I simply am not in a position to judge whether it is authoritative, deceptive or even consistent.

Amanda: Maybe I should make a chart identifying which angel is which. Except there's really only two at this point so..maybe not :)

Don't forget Michael! Get those colored pencils out! ;)

Aranthe wrote: "I use different sources..."

Yes, I use Biblos and the Geneva at Studylight - Biblos is very useful.

On my bookcase I have mixed up the Bible, the Book of Common Prayer, the Koran, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, The Communist Manifesto and Mao Tse Chung's Little Red Book in the hope that, after midnight, in fairytime, they might reach some common understanding.:)

Adam wakes, wonders at the world, wanders around for a bit, then falls asleep, supposing that his existence is at an end (ll. 287-291). Then he has a dream in which God appears ("One . . of shape Divine," 295), apparently anthropomorphic, for He takes Adam "by the hand" (300), and tansports Adam to Eden on a high flat mountaintop. Adam wakes to find himself in Eden indeed (309-311). Here God appears again, but only as a "Divine Presence" that is "among the trees" (313-314). God raises Adam again, but not by the hand (316); I think God is not anthropomorphic here. Later, during their conversation, God does not actually smile, but "the vision bright,/As with a smile more bright'nd, thus repli'd" (367-368). It seems that God is now a bright light with a voice.

I go over this because I am fascinated by how Milton visualizes God as a character. All the ways seem unsatisfactory, even ridiculous, to me.

Roger writes I am fascinated by how Milton visualizes God as a character...'

Why do they seem unsatisfactory/ridiculous Roger and how do you visualise God?

Roger wrote: "Adam wakes, wonders at the world, wanders around for a bit, then falls asleep, supposing that his existence is at an end (ll. 287-291). Then he has a dream in which God appears ("One . . of shape ..."

Interesting. He describes God as bright light a number of times in the previous books too, but then he intersperses that with descriptions that are a bit anthropomorphic. Do you think he is trying to describe him as BOTH this all encompassing light and trying to give him a human appearance? Or maybe Milton wants to see God as a bright light, but has to describe him as human-looking because angels and man are created in his image?

Frankly, I am wrestling with these beautiful lines of poetry.

Heav'n is for thee too high
To know what passes there; be lowlie wise:
Think onely what concernes thee and thy being;
Dream not of other Worlds, what Creatures there [175 :]
Live, in what state, condition or degree,
Contented that thus farr hath been reveal'd
Not of Earth onely but of highest Heav'n.

It bothers me that Adam shows so little inclination to pursue his intellectual curiosity. He just knuckles under. I prefer the Adam whose first words include: "How came I thus, how here?"

By accepting God's admonition against seeking knowledge, Adam is clearly not a mouthpiece for Milton at this point in the poem.

I am also troubled by God's conversation with Adam about Adam's request for a companion. Adam shows a very sophisticated understanding in making this request, but God toys with him and tests him. This seems capricious to me.