[Milton-L] Justify God?

[Campbell, W. Gardner]

Ah, write twice, post once: I should remember that.... I should have
written "challenged *aspects of* Dennis's argument." Apologies for the
two posts!

 

Gardner

 

From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu
[mailto:milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu] On Behalf Of Campbell, W.
Gardner
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 1:08 PM
To: John Milton Discussion List
Subject: RE: [Milton-L] Justify God?

 

Peter Herman writes:. 

 

"One further point. Prof. Gardner is of course right to bring up Dennis
Danielson's work, but as Prof. Hodges (and others on this list) know,
there have been challenges to Danielson's sense that Milton conducts an
entirely successful theodicy in PL. See for example Michael Bryson's
work. "

 

To clarify my response: I did say Dennis Danielson covers this ground
("why would Milton want to justify the ways of God to men?"), but I did
not mean to suggest that his answers are exhaustive or that he has
proved that Milton conducts an entirely successful theodicy. I don't
myself think such a thing can be proved; I'm not sure Milton thought
that such a thing could even be done-but then, I also don't think that
Milton's theodicial project of "justification" was the same as proving
conclusively that God's ways are just. (It is interesting to consider
what would constitute definite proof of such a thing. Would it be like
conclusive proof of a spouse's fidelity, or a judge's fairness?) For
Milton, God's ways definitely were just, and he wanted to communicate
his own certainty, but that communication was not like solving an
equation (unless it's whatever QED an "eccentrical equation" might
yield). My own sense is that it had to do with the relationship between
Law and the God-given "empyreal conceit" he discusses in ROCG, two
things that do not appear to go together. For the record, though I
admire his work very much, I myself challenged Dennis's argument a
decade ago in an MLA session where Peter also presented. 

 

Gardner Campbell

 

From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu
[mailto:milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu] On Behalf Of Peter C.
Herman
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 11:10 AM
To: John Milton Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Justify God?

 

At 07:52 AM 10/8/2008, you wrote:

Jeffery Hodges asks:
 
As everyone knows, Milton gives this reason for composing Paradise Lost:
 

That to the highth of this great Argument

I may assert Eternal Providence,

And justifie the wayes of God to men. [PL 1.24-26]

 

(Luxon, Thomas H., ed. The Milton Reading Room,
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton, October, 2008.)

 

For one reason, Jeffery, because, as Empson would much later, people
then were questioning why a just and benevolent God would have made
Lucifer and the reprobate angels and Adam and Eve susceptible of falling
in the first place--in Empson's terminology, why God was in effect
"playing with a stacked deck"? Theological issues were to the 1640s what
politics and the economy are to today's world--topics of vital
importance, over which people tortured and maimed and burned one another
at the stake. 


I have to quibble with Carol Barton's statement above. Theological
issues in the 1640s (and earlier) were not like politics, they were
politics. To paraphrase Clauswitz, religion was politics by other means,
and politics was religion by other means. Thus King James VI/I could
say,"No bishop, no king," and he was right. Attacking church hierarchy
was the same as attacking political hierarchy. 

Milton's assertion that he intends to "justifie the wayes of God to men"
also needs to be seen in the context of the Revolution's collapse, which
Milton and many others previously regarded as enjoying divine approval. 

One further point. Prof. Gardner is of course right to bring up Dennis
Danielson's work, but as Prof. Hodges (and others on this list) know,
there have been challenges to Danielson's sense that Milton conducts an
entirely successful theodicy in PL. See for example Michael Bryson's
work. 

Peter C. Herman



The Yahweh of the Old Testament was a very harsh, very unforgiving
deity, who (like his Greco-Roman predecessors) often seemed to behave in
arbitrary ways . . . which didn't square at all with the New Testament's
perception of a benevolent and merciful Logos. Milton could not accept
the notion of God's culpability in human frailty or sinfulness . . . so
on one level, the purpose of PL is to debunk such concepts.
 
Hope that quick, superficial response is helpful. The full answer is a
much deeper one, of course, and a subject large enough for a full
doctoral dissertation. (Believe me . . . I know!)
 
Best to all,
 
Carol Barton
_______________________________________________
Milton-L mailing list
Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
Manage your list membership and access list archives at
http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20081008/eebfc532/attachment.html