[Milton-L] "As by his Word . . ."

richard strier rastrier at uchicago.edu
Sun Feb 13 17:33:02 EST 2011


Much as I love Harold, I think his pronuciamento is too strong.  There is a 
problem with the announcement, and calling anyone who thinks so a "tyro" 
doesn't help matters.  The "solution" of seeing the word as a metaphor, 
suggested by John L from Grierson -- and endorsed, presumably, by the 
principle of charity -- is only, as John L goes on to note, partially satisfying.  
Dramatizing the Exaltation of the Son is part of what makes the whole 
presentation of life in heaven "weirdly political," as Empson says, and as I have 
argued in "M's Fetters."  Milton often wanted to take biblical phrases literally, so 
I don't think that the resort to metaphor is automatic.  If one wants the problem 
simply to go away, then this is the way to go.  But should one want this?



---- Original message ----
>Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 17:12:08 -0500
>From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu (on behalf of "Harold Skulsky" 
<hskulsky at smith.edu>)
>Subject: Re: [Milton-L] "As by his Word . . ."  
>To: "John Milton Discussion List" <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>
>   It's clear from DC that the Father "performs
>   everything in all things in [the person of] the Son
>   and the Spirit" ("[Deus] agit omnia in omnibus etiam
>   in Filio et Spiritu"), that the Son's unique office
>   is to be the Demiurge, or agent of the Father's
>   external acts ("Filius duntaxat est per quem omnia
>   [fiunt]").  In PL, when the moment arrives for the
>   physical universe to be created, the Son is shown
>   performing this office at the Father's command
>   (7.162-67). This order of creation is common
>   doctrine, on account of the locus classicus at Heb.
>   1:2.  According to this conception, being the agent
>   of creation is an essential part of what it is for
>   the Son to be God's Word, and for the Word to be
>   present at the beginning.
>    
>   God's announcement to the angels (already created)
>   that he has just begotten the Son is inconsistent
>   with this doctrine only if taken literally, in
>   violation of the usual hermeneutic principle of
>   charity.  (In M's tradition violation of this
>   principle is the mark of a tyro, with the matching
>   degree of credibility; that is, none.) In the
>   context of the announcement, "beget" (like "create")
>   means "appoint."
>    
>   >>> Horace Jeffery Hodges <jefferyhodges at yahoo.com>
>   2/13/2011 3:13 PM >>>
>
>   I've been convinced of Milton's Arianism by Michael
>   Bauman and other scholars, but I do wonder what to
>   make of this passage in PL 5.833-838, where Abdiel
>   maintains that the begotten Son made the angels
>   (even though God had earlier announced the begetting
>   of his Son to the assembled angels):
>
>    
>
>     Thy self though great and glorious dost thou
>     count,
>     Or all Angelic Nature joind in one,
>     Equal to him begotten Son, by whom [ 835 ]
>     As by his Word the mighty Father made
>     All things, ev'n thee, and all the Spirits of
>     Heav'n
>     By him created in thir bright degrees,
>
>     [Thomas H. Luxon, ed., The Milton Reading Room,
>     February 2011.]
>
>    
>
>   I speculate a bit on my blog:
>
>    
>
>   http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/2011/02/john-milton-word-
unbegotten-and.html
>
>    
>
>     The begotten Son was the one "by whom / As by his
>     Word the mighty Father made / All things." This
>     line can be read as distinguishing between two
>     states of the Word of God: a pre-sonship state and
>     a sonship state, differentiated by the event of
>     being begotten. If so, then for Milton, 'divine
>     sonship' is a role taken on by the eternal Word of
>     God in the act of being begotten by God Himself,
>     who (I presume) becomes the Father at that point.
>     This reading of Milton raises the question as to
>     what Milton thought the act of begetting to mean.
>     I haven't looked into that yet, but perhaps Milton
>     thought that the Word was a power of God that
>     became hypostasized through an emanation of God's
>     own substance, but I'm merely guessing
>
>    
>
>   Could somebody clarify this for me?
>
>    
>
>   Jeffery Hodges
>________________
>_______________________________________________
>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/




More information about the Milton-L mailing list