[Milton-L] Epic narrative vs. theological treatise (was The Son's Knowledge)

[Campbell, W. Gardner]

Not to be quarrelsome, and not to abolish genre as either a heuristic or a heuristic Milton cared about, but the distinction here looks a bit reductive to me. For Milton, like his "great original" Spenser, theology was most precisely or effectively conveyed by means of epic--and romance--even lyric. That's always been part of the thrill for me, to watch Milton enact rigorous argument and analysis through "apt numbers" and "fit quantities" and "sense variously drawn out." A poetic rigor: a higher rigor than any treatise could attempt, in my view, but no less concerned with getting to the truth of things. An empyreal conceit that singing in its glory moves. Not just an argument, and not just a Grecian Urn--rather, teasing us out of thought so that we may be more deeply teased into thought and action along our shared journey, guided *and* solitary *and* hand-in-hand.
 
Maybe I'm also responding to the phrase "bent primarily toward theological purposes," since that too implies a distinction between theology and artistry that I don't think Milton would recognize or encourage. 
 
To be clear, I'm *not* claiming that the poetry is merely an encoded *De Doctrina* in the organ music of a lovely pentamenter line. I'm merely saying that I agree with what Wally Kerrigan once said: "Milton is Philosophy-Plus." This leviathan stirs whole seas as he swims! There go flukes!
 
Gardner

________________________________

From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu on behalf of John Rumrich
Sent: Sat 10/25/2008 11:40 AM
To: John Milton Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Milton-L] The Son's knowledge


Agreed.  It's an epic narrative, not a theological treatise. 

John


On Oct 24, 2008, at 7:25 PM, James Rovira wrote:


	I'm not going to argue with the issue of Milton's Arianism, but once settling this point we're still left with decisions about how best to read specific passages, which I think are misread if bent primarily toward theological purposes.  
	Jim R  
	
	
	On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 7:49 PM, John Rumrich <rumrich at mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
	

		For what it's worth, Larry Isitt's posts are spot on.  The Son is not omniscient, and Milton in his epic and his theological treatise is decidedly and unambiguously antitrinitarian (and, as Prof. Skulsky says, Arian, categorically Arian).  
		


	_______________________________________________
	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/