[Milton-L] De Doctrina Christiana
Michael Bryson
michael.bryson at csun.edu
Fri Jan 9 23:12:48 EST 2009
jonnyangel (whoever you actually are...)
You appear not to have engaged with any..and I do
mean any...of my actual points. And as you refer to
yourself as a scholar, I would think that such
engagement would be important to you.
You and I are not talking about the same thing. No
matter. I look forward to reading your work.
All best,
Michael Bryson
P.S. And to suggest that I take Paradise Lost, which
is indeed a poem which declares its intention to
justify the ways of God to men, lightly, is merely
risible. I do some work on the importance of that
very line, in fact.
---- Original message ----
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:40:31 -0500
From: jonnyangel <junkopardner at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [Milton-L] De Doctrina Christiana
To: John Milton Discussion List
<milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>On 1/8/09 11:05 PM, "Michael Bryson"
<michael.bryson at csun.edu> wrote:
>
>> So Paradise Lost "is" a "Christian" poem?
>>
>> Good to know there's no debate on that point.
Honestly, this is the kind of
>> thing that keeps too many students thinking
that Milton is someone they do not
>> want to read (go check the number of times
Milton is offered as a
>> single-author course in most English
departments--once a year is on the high
>> side, while every other year is all too
common). I am lucky enough to be able
>> to teach a Milton course every semester here at
CSUN, but that is a highly
>> unusual circumstance. I deal with theology (and
philosophy and history and
>> genre and...and...and...) quite a bit in that
course, but never do I insist
>> that students (or colleagues, for that matter)
simply check their judgment at
>> the door and genuflect before a
not-to-be-questioned pronouncement such as the
>> one above.
>
>Yes, PL "is" a "Christian" poem. And there is
_always_ room for debate, but
>there has to be something to debate first. You
suggest that PL isn't a
>Christian poem (which is absurd). From the
beginning of the poem ("till one
>greater Man/Restore us, and regain the blissful
Seat") all the way to the
>end, it's a Christian poem. Who do you think the
"one greater Man" was/is?
>Achilles? Mohammed? Santa Claus?
>
>
>
>> I first read the poem in the Escondido, CA
public library, and I found in it
>> (at the age of 13) a refuge from the oppressive
fundamentalist cult in which I
>> had been raised. Does that make the poem
"anti-Christian" (or, more
>> specifically, "anti-20th-century-American
cult"?) No. Neither does the
>> experience of reading the poem in the Vatican
make it Catholic, or at
>> Westminster Abbey make it Anglican, or at
Wrigley Field make it doomed.
>
>What does an oppressive fundamentalist cult have
to do with Christianity? If
>your oppressive fundamentalist cult was based in
Christianity, then the two
>had nothing in common (outside of a word). There
will always be a vast
>disparity between humanity and divinity (which
Milton fully addresses in PR
>when the "one greater Man" resists the material
temptations of fallible
>humanity). So while I'm sorry to hear about your
bad experience with (I
>assume) Christianity, it doesn't change the fact
that PL is a "Christian"
>poem. Milton was attempting to create a Christian
epic on par with -----
>(and succeeded and then some).
>
>
>> Paradise Lost is a poem (a staggeringly great
poem at that) which makes much
>> use of themes, characters, questions, dilemmas,
cruxes of thought, etc. that
>> are at work in the various branches of
"Christianity." But it also engages
>> with many/most of the same things that are at
work in Judaism(s). Does that
>> make it a "Jewish" poem? There are points of
contact that can be established
>> between the concerns of Paradise Lost and those
of Zoroastrianism, and even
>> Hinduism. No one, I trust, will be pronouncing
that Milton's poem is therefore
>> either Zoroastrian or Hindu. (Of course, that
might be a rather interesting
>> pronouncement, valuable at least for its
freshness. The same old gets to be
>> rather, well, same old.)
>
>I think I mentioned the various branches of
Christianity in my previous
>post. The important thing isn't that there are so
many varying branches: the
>important thing to take note of is that all of
the branches are of the same
>tree, and from the tree all the way to the roots
of the tree is the belief
>that Jesus (aka "The Son") was the intercessor,
and Son of God the Father -
>in short, "Christianity".
>
>
>> A poem that deals with "themes" (for want of a
better word) that appear in
>> "Christianity" (whatever the variation), is
not, due to that fact, a
>> "Christian" poem. Paradise Lost deserves better
than to be treated so
>> reductively as one might treat the kind of
garishly printed (and poorly
>> written) pamphlets that American door to door
evangelists peddle on weekend
>> mornings. Those are, indeed, "Christian"
publications. Paradise Lost is not so
>> monumental and sub-literate a bore as that.
>
>I would say that Milton deals a little more with
Christianity in PL than
>merely a few thematic tips of his hat. A poem in
which the author claims
>that his purpose is to justify the ways of God to
men (and asks the Heavenly
>muse for assistance in doing so) shouldn't be
taken lightly.
>And how, exactly, is stating that PL is a
Christian poem reductive? And
>setting up a straw man argument that doing so
reduces PL to the level of
>Jack Chick Tract stuck in your windshield wiper
really isn't working either.
>In fact, I think it was Milton himself that first
argued for a free press.
>
>Your entire post reeks of your own bias of
Christianity (in all of it's
>various forms) and I think Milton and PL deserve
more than a biased,
>"reductive" rejection of his own religion and
work.
>
>
>> P.S. And what, exactly, is "the religion of
Christ" much less the "gospel of
>> Christ"? (Let's let the Greek Orthodox and
Roman Catholics and Anglicans and
>> Southern Baptists and Presbyterians and
Lutherans and Mormons and Jehovah's
>> Witnesses hash that out for a while, shall we?)
>
>You're missing the point here: you're missing the
tree (and roots) because
>you're too focused on the tangled branches.
>
>
>
>> Who, exactly, was this
>> "Christ" person, anyhow? (Let's get John
Dominick Crossan and Rick Warren to
>> debate that one...) These are serious
historical questions, and I think Milton
>> took them seriously. And precisely what
relevance does "Christ" (whoever that
>> may have been outside the pages of the texts,
both canonical and
>> non-canonical) have in a poem where the name
does not appear even once?
>
>You _cannot_ be serious here. The reason "Christ"
doesn't appear in PL is
>because he hadn't taken human form - he was "The
Son". It would be kinda
>strange for The Son to have the "human" name of
Jesus (or Christ, etc) in
>heaven wouldn't it? "The Son", however, has major
relevance in PL, because
>he was to become the "one greater Man" Milton
brings up by Line 5 in PL
>(which was, incidentally, "Jesus" - see PR,
although it's not necessary).
>
>
>> All
>> too many of us refer to "Christ" in published
work on Milton, without, it
>> seems, ever bothering to acknowledge that
Milton seems allergic to the word in
>> his later poetry. This, among other reasons, is
why I wrote (in the Tyranny of
>> Heaven) that Milton studies have often
threatened to turn into Milton
>> ministries.
>
>I agree and disagree with this. I disagree as a
Christian, but I agree as a
>scholar. I think when speaking of PR, it's unwise
to mention "Christ";
>_simply_ because it's nowhere in the 4 books (I
checked when I wrote my
>paper). "Jesus" is in there, as well as various
other monikers, but never
>"Christ". The earlier poems are a different
story: you can say Christ
>because Milton wrote it. And as I stated earlier,
the reason there are no
>references to Christ, Jesus, etc in PL is because
"The Son" (the one greater
>"man") wasn't in human form (oh, kenosis...).
>
>
>
>> I sincerely apologize to the members of this
list if the polemical tone here
>> is too much. But this is something I believe is
a crucial point. Academic
>> study of a poem that engages with theology,
mythology, politics, etc. should
>> not be an opening to bring one's weekend
devotionals (or lack thereof) into
>> the classroom (or the journal). But with the
study of this author, and this
>> body of work, the temptation seems impossible
for many of us (on either end of
>> the spectrum) to resist. I am not without sin
here, and I am not trying
>> (despite what may appear in these
hastily-written paragraphs) to cast the
>> first stone. But when does enough become
enough?
>
>First of all, it's NOT a "temptation": it is what
is. Do you think it's a
>300+ year coincidence that people see PL as a
"Christian" poem? And as for
>your question of "when does enough become
enough?", I'm not sure what your
>(possibly rhetorically) asking. If you're asking
when is seeing PL as a
>Christian poem enough, then the answer is never.
>
>And I would refer you to the author, but A: he's
dead, and B: it's not
>necessary: it's all right there in the text and
the author's life and
>religious beliefs.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Jonny (standing 6'6", and always at eye level
with the soap boxers)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> </soapbox>
>>
>> ---- Original message ----
>>> Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:35 -0500
>>> From: jonnyangel <junkopardner at comcast.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] De Doctrina Christiana
>>> To: John Milton Discussion List
<milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/8/09 4:01 PM, "Peter C. Herman"
<herman2 at mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if perhaps we could try for more
precise
>>>>> terminology than "Christian," since the
>>>>> definition of that term for Milton (and
others)
>>>>> was very much in dispute. Catholicism, for
>>>>> example, is for Milton (and others)
"popery," and
>>>>> not to be tolerated in the well-regulated
>>>>> commonwealth. And I remember that Calvin's
>>>>> Catholic antagonists called him an
"atheist." To
>>>>> call PL a "Christian" poem, therefore,
implies an
>>>>> ecumenicism that I do not think is warranted
by
>>>>> either the times or the text itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter C. Herman
>>>>
>>>> "Christians" are simply those who believe in
the religion of Christ (just
>>>> like the Catholics). I read "Areopagitica"
last semester and Milton wasn't
>>>> an ecumenist by a long shot: he left the
Catholics out (not to mention
>>>> supporting regicide, the two handed engine
ready to smite the blind mouths,
>>>> etc).
>>>>
>>>> I guess if one were to define PL as a
"Christian" poem they would have
>>>> define "Christian" by Milton's views in DDC.
I certainly think the text of
>>>> PL is supported by Milton's view of the
religion of Christ (Christianity)
>>>> that he expressed in DDC.
>>>>
>>>> I understand what you're saying in reference
to calling PL a "Christian"
>>>> poem and its implication of ecumenism, but
there has never been (nor will
>>>> ever be) a standard definition of what
"Christian" is because it's always
>>>> changing. But the one thing Christianity (in
all of its various forms) has
>>>> always shared is the belief in the religion
and gospel of Christ.
>>>>
>>>> For instance, C.S. Lewis was a Trinitarian,
and in his brilliant work "Mere
>>>> Christianity" he tackles the complexities of
the Trinity with the genius
>>>> that Milton tackled PL and Einstein tackled
Relativity. And Lewis loved the
>>>> Christian theology of PL, even though there
were some obvious theological
>>>> differences separating Milton and Lewis.
>>>>
>>>> Whatever the differences over the centuries,
make no mistake: PL "is" a
>>>> Christian poem. After all, I first read it as
a child in a private Christian
>>>> elementary school that was completely
Trinitarian. I have friends in the
>>>> priesthood (one still at the Vatican) and
they all have read it (and
>>>> continue to read it) and absolutely love it.
>>>>
>>>> Peace Shalom,
>>>>
>>>> Jonny
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Some things are too hot to touch/the human
mind can only stand so much..."
>>>> -Bob Dylan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
_______________________________________________
>>>> 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/
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20090109/56d7e660/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Milton-L
mailing list