Appropriateness of "Paradise Lost"

[Reformed Fox]

Hello all. I was wondering if I could have some appraisals as to the appropriateness of "Paradise Lost". The issue I have is that the epic seems too speculative for my tastes. Milton (who is a peerless writer) fills in quite a bit of the Genesis narrative with material of his own imagination. I have no problem with fiction (even Biblical fiction) but my impression is that Milton adds too much editorializing for the story to be any good.

I spoke with a past pastor about this issue (speaking of good Christian literature generally) and was told that I should treat "Paradise Lost" essentially as a well-constructed myth operating within a Christian world-view. This is not an issue with such stories as "The Silmarillion", for example, but when the characters are Satan, Adam, Eve, and the like I am a bit more wary.

Any thoughts?

 

[bookslover]

Milton used what is known as "artistic license" to paint his picture (the same is true of historical novelists). It's not necessary to take it all literally in order to enjoy that great poem. Enjoy it for its use of language!

 

[Reformed Fox]

But does he not push this license too far? Milton comes very close to contradicting scripture.

 

[RamistThomist]

As long as he isn't using it for doctrine I don't see the problem. Now, I think Milton was quite aware of numerous occultic and magical grimoires but that is another story. On the other hand it is probably the greatest poem in the English language.

 

[Reformed Fox]

Anyone else?

 

[Captain Picard]

I would say it should not be treated as a source of doctrine or orthodoxy, but as a great work of English poetry, and that both can be done without self-contradiction. I believe First Maccabees to be a first-rate work of historical literature (one could debate accuracy separately) without approving of canonical inclusion. I believe PL can be treated as a great poem without being treated as "how the Genesis narrative happened".

However, when I say Milton should not be used as a source of doctrine, I mean that in the most firm sense. The man was a functional Arian.

 

[bookslover]

I would say it should not be treated as a source of doctrine or orthodoxy, but as a great work of English poetry, and that both can be done without self-contradiction. I believe First Maccabees to be a first-rate work of historical literature (one could debate accuracy separately) without approving of canonical inclusion. I believe PL can be treated as a great poem without being treated as "how the Genesis narrative happened".

However, when I say Milton should not be used as a source of doctrine, I mean that in the most firm sense. The man was a functional Arian.

This.

 

[bookslover]

I haven't read this, but you might find it helpful (because the author always is): The Apocalyptic Vision in "Paradise Lost" by Leland Ryken (1970). If nothing else, Ryken will help you find your way around the text from a literary point of view, as taught by a Christian (Ryken was Professor of English at Wheaton College for nearly 50 years).

 

[chuckd]

It's like Oliver Stone's JFK or Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. They are false representations of historical events where uninformed readers come out thinking they are true. Or even informed readers who think something false because they can't remember the source.

 

[RamistThomist]

It's like Oliver Stone's JFK or Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. They are false representations of historical events where uninformed readers come out thinking they are true. Or even informed readers who think something false because they can't remember the source.

But certainly people know that the re-presentations aren't meant to be historical. Dante's Inferno has pretty ruined the popular doctrine of the afterlife, but I wouldn't say we shouldn't read it any more.

After Shakespeare Milton is the greatest English poet of all time. I wouldn't put Dan Brown and him in the same sentence.

 

[Reformed Fox]

Where my worry comes from is that "Paradise Lost", unlike "The Da Vinci Code" or "The Silmarillion" includes Satan, Adam, and other biblical figures as literary characters. Works like "Pilgrims Progress" are clearly allegorical and have a different purpose in mind. "Paradise Lost" veers close to scripture and if taken as something other than literature would likely be heretical. Of course I am not looking for doctrinal guidance but it strikes me as iffy.

I suppose, on this point, I must be rather paranoid.

 

[RamistThomist]

I guess I just don't see the problem. If someone is tempted to see Paradise Lost as veering close to Scripture, then other issues are at play. If you open any page of Thornwell and Dabney, you can see the influence of Milton's rhythm and diction. In fact, if you opened any page of Milton and began reading, Thornwell could finish the passage for you.

 

[bookslover]

As it happens, there is a good (and lengthy) biography of Milton. Read it here: www.oxforddnb.com/public/lotw. It'll be up at the site for a few days.