[Milton-L] Knowledge, free will, etc.

[James Rovira]

I think Michael Bryson's post raises here, again, interesting points.  But
he seems to be trying to have it both ways so winds up having it neither.
We seem to be confronted with two options:

1. Milton's "God" is a character in a fiction, not to be confused with even
Milton's own conception of the real God.
2. Milton's PL is intended to be a theodicy defending the real God (as
understood by Milton -- which would include his acknowledgment of the
limitations of human knowledge).

But of course to uphold point two you have to compromise point one, and to
uphold point one you have to compromise point two.  If we stick to point one
-- that Milton's God is purely a fictional construct, with no certain
relationship to the real God, even as Milton understood him -- then we
cannot believe PL is a theodicy for anything but this fictiionally
constructed God.

However, if we believe PL is designed to defend the real God as Milton
understood him, then we have to believe the God of PL in some way accurately
represents the real God (again, as Milton understood him).

If we don't keep this tension firmly in mind, what we'll wind up doing is
emphasizing point one (the God of PL is fictional) when it's convenient to
our argument, and then point two when it's convenient at other points, never
acknowledging the fundamentally unsound, self-contradictory nature of our
argument.  I think this is to be guily to equivocation on the word "God" --
which comes to mean two things: a ficitonal construct, and a real deity.

I think the way through this kind of equivocation is to keep the specific
issue firmly in mind: does the God of PL, and/or the real God as understood
by Milton, actively desire Adam and Eve to fall?  The only answer possible
for Milton is, I think, no: an answer in the affirmative would be to defeat
Milton's theodicy by making God the author of sin, and it doesn't matter if
we're giving this answer for a fictional God of PL or the real God as Milton
understood him.  "God" cannot be guilty of sin either way, at least for
Milton.  Otherwise, what's the point of a theodicy?

Again, the elements of PL which seem to imply God desired Eve to fall are
easily dealt with and have been by my previous posts.  For that matter, most
of Michael Bryson's claims about the implications of some elements of PL
seem to me to be easily dismissed.  Yes, we can take a worst possible
reading of PL as we can of any text.  What's lacking is a reason for doing
so that lies anywhere other than the predisposition of the interpreter.  Can
you make the God of PL look bad?  Yes.  But then, you can make anyone and
anything look bad.  So what?  Does this give us any real insight into the
text or its characters?

Jim R

On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Michael Bryson <michael.bryson at csun.edu>wrote:

> Neither when I make a point about Yahweh, nor when I make a point about the
> Father in PL, am I making a point about "God." Who or what is "Milton's
> deity"? I do not know. In Milton's own words,  "God, as he really is, is far
> beyond man's imagination, let alone his understanding" (YP 6:133). What I do
> know is Milton's poetic creation, and to deny that that creation is at least
> partially modeled on "classical gods" (whether or not imagined in terms of a
> quote from *King Lear*) seems to me an untenable claim.
>
> And it is perfectly consistent with Milton's theodicy to say that the
> Father may (or does) want Eve to fall. The Father, a literary character
> after all, is not what is being defended in that theodicy.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20081108/9325db13/attachment-0001.html