[Milton-L] The Son's knowledge

[Richard Durocher]

Dear Larry,

   PL III.372-389 shows the angels celebrating the Father, first, as
"Omnipotent, / Immutable, Immortal, Infinite, / Eternal" and the Son,
second, as "of all Creation first, / Begotten Son, Divine Similitude."
Indeed, the Son seems to me, by implication, NOT to possess the Father's
omnipotence, immortality, infinitude.  But "omniscience" is not mentioned in
those lines as being, as one might expect, a property of the Father's; nor
is that divine quality there excluded from the Son.  That's precisely where
I am stuck.

   Thanks for helping me think through this tangle.

   Rich



On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Larry Isitt <isitt at cofo.edu> wrote:

>  Rich,
>
> The key lies not in III.80ff which have to be pressed to fulfill any sense
> of omniscience on the part of the Son, but instead is to be located in the
> angels' hymns in III.372-75, 84-89 which argue strongly for Milton's
> Arianism. I think there remains a very strong case to be made among
> Miltonists for his heterodox Son because of the inferior names Milton
> reserves for him as compared with those he reserves solely for the Father.
> At no point in the epic, for example, is the Son ever unambiguously called
> Almighty, Omnipotent, Infinite, a step Milton might easily have incorporated
> had he been truly orthodox. Or he might even have begun the hymns with
> "Thee, Father and Son" and then follow with the list he includes and
> reserves for the Father. The reason the key lies with the angels' hymns and
> not elsewhere is because these descriptions are explicitly those one finds
> in theological works of the day and which are components of the descriptions
> of the Trinity as found in the major confessions of faith of the
> Reformation, e.g., Augsburg Confession 1530, Articles of Faith 1662,
> Westminster Confession 1647, to name a few. What Milton in his epic reserves
> solely to the Father are there explicitly said to be the properties of F, S,
> and Spirit.
>
> Larry Isitt
>
>
>
> *From:* milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu [mailto:
> milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu] *On Behalf Of *Richard Durocher
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2008 1:51 PM
> *To:* John Milton Discussion List
> *Subject:* [Milton-L] The Son's knowledge
>
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
>     I wonder if you might be inclined to respond to a question that
> troubles me.  How is the Son's knowledge in PARADISE LOST best described?
> Is it full and complete omniscience, equal to God's?  The alternative, is,
> simply put, anything less than that– though limited knowledge might occupy a
> wide range.
>     For many years I thought I had a fixed position on this question,
> thanks to Tom Corns's REGAINING 'PARADISE LOST' (arguing that the questions
> the Father asks before the Son in III.80 ff.  imply their equal knowledge)
> and Hugh MacCallum's MILTON AND THE SONS OF GOD and Irene Samuel's classic
> essay on drama versus dogma.  Now, recent discussions with students lead me
> to re-open the question.  Responses on- or off-list gratefully welcomed.
>
>    Best wishes,
>
>   Rich DuRocher
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20081023/278807af/attachment.html