Paradise Lost
For my english class i am reading the dreaded Paradise Lost by Milton. By first impression this book is horrible. it is written in a fashion that only those of the PhD world can understand or have the time to sit around and read the damn thing five times to get what he actually meant. Despite my utter hatred for the unantecedented (word check?) use of pronouns it seems the more work i put into figure out what this guy was actually after, the more i find it actually explains spirituality in a way that is absolutely EASY to understand in comparison to modern evangelical practice. I rarely find the books i read for english classes worth blogging about but this semester has exposed me to a surprisingly enlightening view of medival spirituality.
The first thing that strikes me about Milton, is his presentation of satan. Modern American christianity presents Satan as resigned to loss at the hands of the almighty God, and being so resigned targets individuals as his form of avenging his loss. This however is not the perspective Milton presents. The satan Milton presents does not admit that he will ultimately by defeated. Milton's satan views "God" as not the person of Almighty God, but as a position that he, or any of his fellow compatriots (such as Beelzebub, his arch-demon [?]) may rise to if only they can defeat god (emphasis on the little g). Satan even goes on to justify his loss with the arguments that god (small g) had better thunder, and was so much stronger, as if to say that if only satan could gain that advantage he might just as well be god (small g). Milton presents Satan as more of a 'hamlet" than "devil" as he is presented more as a brooding, babbling idiot that just doesnt get it than the pure EVIL of modern christianity. However this doesnt mean that milton doesnt present Satan as evil, just not the same kind of evil.
so heres my question for all of you evangelical spirituality types...is there any evidence that the modern view of satan is more accurate than the medival view that is supported by both Milton and Dante?
Perhaps the concept of Satan has evolved more as a conversion tactic than anything else. Perhaps Milton suggests that we really give Satan more credit than he is actually do, and in doing so actually partially are giving satan the worship the person of almighty God should be getting. Milton suggests that satan actually fell in a similar manner to man, saying that they were all formed free and just and right. They have to stay free because if not God would have to change their nature going against eternal decree. their nature given by God "ordained their freedom (III:128)" but "they themselves ordained their fall (III:129). Then Milton's perception of grace is then explained in line 130-132ish. He says "The first sort [satan and comrades] by their own suggestion fell, self-tempted, self-depraved: man falls decieved by the other first: man therefore shall find grace, the other none: in mercy and ustice bothe, through heav'n and earth, so shall my glory excel, but mercy first and last shall brightest shine.' Undoubtedly Jesus is the ultimate representation of God's mercy and he himself in a much similar statement says "I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." Im sure there are other biblical supports for this but i thought the parrallel grammar here was interesting. also im blogging in public between classes and dont have a bible in my bag today, unfortunatly.
Looking beyond Milton's blantant abuse of the independant clause and unanticedented pronouns, he really presents a brilliant argument. if only he could become a jesuit and teach theology at marquette. Oh if only the paper topics for the class were this interesting. instead i must write a comparison of "A midsummer night's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet," the sappiest romantic plays in the entire universe. If anyone in my adoring (?) public becomes a college english professor please do not assign wuss papers that i will get bad grades on because i am not an insufferable romantic.
The first thing that strikes me about Milton, is his presentation of satan. Modern American christianity presents Satan as resigned to loss at the hands of the almighty God, and being so resigned targets individuals as his form of avenging his loss. This however is not the perspective Milton presents. The satan Milton presents does not admit that he will ultimately by defeated. Milton's satan views "God" as not the person of Almighty God, but as a position that he, or any of his fellow compatriots (such as Beelzebub, his arch-demon [?]) may rise to if only they can defeat god (emphasis on the little g). Satan even goes on to justify his loss with the arguments that god (small g) had better thunder, and was so much stronger, as if to say that if only satan could gain that advantage he might just as well be god (small g). Milton presents Satan as more of a 'hamlet" than "devil" as he is presented more as a brooding, babbling idiot that just doesnt get it than the pure EVIL of modern christianity. However this doesnt mean that milton doesnt present Satan as evil, just not the same kind of evil.
so heres my question for all of you evangelical spirituality types...is there any evidence that the modern view of satan is more accurate than the medival view that is supported by both Milton and Dante?
Perhaps the concept of Satan has evolved more as a conversion tactic than anything else. Perhaps Milton suggests that we really give Satan more credit than he is actually do, and in doing so actually partially are giving satan the worship the person of almighty God should be getting. Milton suggests that satan actually fell in a similar manner to man, saying that they were all formed free and just and right. They have to stay free because if not God would have to change their nature going against eternal decree. their nature given by God "ordained their freedom (III:128)" but "they themselves ordained their fall (III:129). Then Milton's perception of grace is then explained in line 130-132ish. He says "The first sort [satan and comrades] by their own suggestion fell, self-tempted, self-depraved: man falls decieved by the other first: man therefore shall find grace, the other none: in mercy and ustice bothe, through heav'n and earth, so shall my glory excel, but mercy first and last shall brightest shine.' Undoubtedly Jesus is the ultimate representation of God's mercy and he himself in a much similar statement says "I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." Im sure there are other biblical supports for this but i thought the parrallel grammar here was interesting. also im blogging in public between classes and dont have a bible in my bag today, unfortunatly.
Looking beyond Milton's blantant abuse of the independant clause and unanticedented pronouns, he really presents a brilliant argument. if only he could become a jesuit and teach theology at marquette. Oh if only the paper topics for the class were this interesting. instead i must write a comparison of "A midsummer night's Dream" and "Romeo and Juliet," the sappiest romantic plays in the entire universe. If anyone in my adoring (?) public becomes a college english professor please do not assign wuss papers that i will get bad grades on because i am not an insufferable romantic.
posted by Stina | 4:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home