[Milton-L] De Doctrina Christiana
junkopardner at comcast.net
Sun Jan 4 14:44:00 EST 2009
I'm inclined to ask Michael's questions on Kim's post: if PL isn't
Trinitarian nor Arian, then what is it?
The reason I asked the question of DDC authorship is because I've been
reading the controversy and just wanted to get the lists opinion and see
what the consensus was regarding this issue. I've recently started reading
DDC because I wanted to save it for last, thinking it might unlock some
doors in Milton's writing, but it seems Milton was theologically all over
the road and was never truly static.
There are elements of Arianism in there for sure, but I also read in some
old crusty book in the library that he was (to some degree) a Socinian which
I can see to a very small degree. When speaking with my Milton professor
last semester about Milton's shifting theology, the line from Areopagitica
where Milton states that " Truth is compar'd in Scripture to a streaming
fountain; if her waters flow not in a perpetuall progression, they sick'n
into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition." kept coming up time and time
It seems (to me) as though his theological views in particular were flowing
in "perpetual progression", and he's hard to pin down. DDC frustrates me
because it could just be where Milton was at the time he wrote it, and who
knows precisely about before, after and all the points in between. It seems
like he was always reaching for the "truth" (objective truth) in a
I'm not closed off to Kim's idea that PL is "something else entirely"
because Milton's theology seems to fit that description very well.
Thanks for all the responses and I look forward to hearing (and thinking)
more about DDC and how it fits/doesn't fit with Milton's body of work.
On 1/3/09 12:18 PM, "Michael Bauman" <mbauman at hillsdale.edu> wrote:
> I'm interested to hear precisely what PL is if it is "neither Trinitarian nor
> Arian, but something else entirely." What theological category are you
> invoking with "something else entirely"?
> I wonder what you mean when you say that an epic poem designed to "justify the
> ways of God to man," one that deals with things like creation, temptation,
> heaven, hell, angels, demons, Satan, predestination and the fall, and that
> contains a lengthy and detailed summary of the entire Bible, "is not doctrinal
> at all," to some unspecified "degree." I'm confused about how PL is not
> doctrinal at all -- to some degree.
> I'm puzzled about why you say that the notes to Carey's translation are a
> better guide to PL and De Doctrina than Kelley since, if I remember correctly,
> the notes to the Yale Prose version of De Doctrina are almost all by Maurice
> Kelley, and in them he teaches the same points in almost always the same
> fashion that he did earlier in his This Great Argument.
> The Son is not "the sole cause of Creation" in PL. See 3:167, 5:836, 7:163ff,
> Michael Bauman
> From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu
> [milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu] On Behalf Of Kim Maxwell
> [kmaxwell at stanford.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 9:40 AM
> To: John Milton Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] De Doctrina Christiana
> Another point of view.
> In his latest work on the subject, Michael Lieb suggests the word
> ³conversation² as the academic relationship between PL and DCC, one that
> admits inconsistencies between them but resists sorting either out in terms of
> the other. Given what has happened since Kelly, it is hard not to read his
> book as Procrustean and selective. I personally find the footnotes in Carey¹s
> translation in the Yale Prose to be a better introduction to how DCC and PL
> converse than Kelly. Furthermore, I would defend the word on the grounds that
> DCC provides means of understanding the degree to which PL is not doctrinal at
> all, rather than the means by which either might improve our understanding of
> the other¹s doctrine. For example, in DCC Milton makes it clear that God is
> unitary and unchangeable, and hence cannot duplicate himself or transfer all
> of his powers to a second, inferior God (the Son). To work around the obvious
> complications such a view entails regarding the Creation and the openi!
> ng of John, he makes a careful distinction between ³creation by² and
> ³creation through² in his DCC chapter on the subject, allocating to the Son
> only the formal cause of the universe. Whether this works or not is not
> important to its read on PL, where the Son does have all the powers of God
> (³second omnipotence²) and is the sole cause of the Creation, said explicitly
> to be ³by² the Son, a position only possible on a Trinitarian or polytheistic
> account of the Godhead, both of which DCC denies. I think DCC helps see the
> many ways in which PL is both Trinitarian and not Trinitarian, and hence is
> neither Trinitarian nor Arian, but something else entirely.
> Kim Maxwell
> Milton-L mailing list
> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
> Manage your list membership and access list archives at
> Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
More information about the Milton-L