Don't you want to do something about it?
Ira Clark writes, "Repeatedly, 's narrators declare their problems of telling caused by problems of knowing" ( 183). These problems exist between God and the angels, between angels and humans, between Adam and Eve, and finally, between the poem and the reader. As Clark explains, the fallen reader has no way to understand Paradise, let alone Heaven and Hell, and Milton's method of describing them involve metaphors, similes, and negatives. But if the fallen reader cannot know Paradise, does it then follow that the unfallen Adam and Eve cannot know evil? Many critics, including Michael Lieb, argue that the significance of God's command not to eat the fruit lies in its very ambiguity: if Adam and Eve do not understand evil or death, the consequences of eating the fruit, their only reason to obey God is their faith, which should be reason enough (). But Clark disagrees, writing that the climax of the work "depends on Eve and Adam's having a competent sense of knowledge" (201). These opposing views are wrapped up in Milton's depiction of a Paradise in which Adam and Eve have instant knowledge of everything they can name, and are simultaneously too pure to know unhappiness or recognize evil when they see it.
TODD Neil, how are you gonna do this?
You can't blame the host for being angry when he hears of this rude affront and unanimous rejection by his social peers. He is livid! So he tells his servant to do what would have been social suicide had he not have already been rejected -- invite the lower classes. But now it is an act that says, "I'll show them!" The host will NOT have an empty house at his feast. He will have guests!
John Milton's epic of theology and politics, heaven, hell, creation, free will, and redemption features a human relationship at its center. Paradise is lost after Adam chooses to disobey God, choosing, in Milton's imagination, Eve instead. Milton's Adam exclaims to Eve: "How can I live without thee, how forgoe / Thy sweet Converse and Love so dearly joyn'd" . In response to this choice, the Son demands: "Was shee thy God" ? Why and how Milton chose to tell this story of human love challenging God's claim to unquestioning human obedience reveals the domestic sphere's emerging centrality to seventeenth century society and the extent to which theology mapped the course of its development.
Neil looks to his mother and then back to his father but saysnothing.
During the seventeenth century in England there was much discussion about aspects of Protestant theology, in which debates about the doctrine of the trinity "rapidly took the religious centre stage" (Tyacke, 305). According to John P. Rumrich, "at least eight antitrinitarian heretics were burned at the stake from 1548 to 1612" ( 86). One of the most prominent antitrinitarian sects was , named after the fourth-century Bishop Arius, who preached against the trinity. Rumrich discusses why disbelief in the trinity "provoked authorities as no other heresy could," and explains, "Perhaps the impulse toward demystification expressed in Arianism was dimly perceived as a threat to the ideological basis of monarchical power" (87). Many intellectuals, including Isaac Newton and John Locke, believed in Arianism, and now scholars are generally agreed that Milton did as well. Much of the basis for this belief is derived from Milton's theological treatise , in which Milton relied solely on the text of the Bible to formulate his ideas, even at the risk of denying commonly accepted Church doctrine. He discusses the trinity at length, using biblical quotations to demonstrate that "the Father and the Son are certainly not one in essence," and that "the Father is greater than the Son in all things" (Flannagan 1172-1174). Milton's beliefs about the relationship between the Father and Son, therefore, may have led him to describe in a Son who is neither of the Father's essence nor equal in status to the Father.
You do admit to being a part of this Dead Poets Society?
One way to explain the begetting of the Son in Book 5 is by "distinguishing between the existence of the divine Logos or Word, which had been in existence "in the beginning" and which had created everything, including the angels, and the recognition of the Word as Son at this later point in time" (W. B. Hunter, 116). When God is saying that he has "begotten" the Son, therefore, he is not saying that he has created him, because the Son already existed as the Word; he is instead acknowledging the Son as the "Messiah King anointed" (). But this still does not explain the way that the Son can be read as a lower being than the Father.
The equations are called Lame's equations
Chronologically, the very first scene that Milton describes in occurs when "As yet this world was not," when God announces to the angels that he has begotten the Son (). God says, "This day have I begot whom I declare / My onely Son your Head I him appoint" (). This declaration is the occasion of Satan's rebellion and the start of the War in Heaven, the result of which is the expulsion of one third of the angels from Heaven, and, ultimately, God's creation of Eden. But what has God really done in this scene? The Nicene Creed states that the Son was "born of the Father before all ages." (See the New Catholic Encyclopedia's site on the .) Milton, however, echoing , uses the phrase "this day," as if God had begotten the Son in actual time. This idea threatens the Christian belief in the holy trinity: how can the Son be a begotten being — begotten in time after the angels — and yet be God? Moreover, why, if the Son is of the same essence as the Father (as Christian orthodoxy proclaims), does he obey him as if the Father were a superior being? Like Adam and Eve, the Son has his own free will, choosing freely to obey the Father: he says, "Father Eternal, thine is to decree, / Mine both in Heav'n and Earth to do thy will / Supream" (). These are not the words of an equal. And is the Son even of the same essence as the Father? At one point the Father tells the Son, "Into thee such Vertue and Grace / Immense I have transfus'd, that all may know / In Heav'n and Hell thy Power above compare" (). If the Son were of the same essence as the Father, why would the Father need to transfuse virtue and grace into him? The Son seems to have his own being separate from the Father, as in Book 3 when he "takes the part of Mercy more than Justice in that he appeals to his father's sense of compassion," and finally, when he volunteers freely to die for man's sins (Flannagan 421, note to ). Is Milton, then, describing a trinity in which the Father and Son are not of the same essence and not equal?