For me, Book VII initially proved to be less provoking than previous Books. In short, I found the familiarity harder to overcome here. I think a large part of that is down to the slight change of approach. Until this point—for the most part, at least—Milton has drawn upon great swathes of Scripture, amalgamated them into his own narrative, added some imagery from classical literature for good measure, and then incorporated his own interpretation. In the first couple of pages of VII, he continues this trend, before turning to Genesis I and then simply* illustrated that narrative as he went. That change was necessary here, I think, but less stimulating.
All of that to say, I went away from this with two different takeaways, one negative, one positive. The negative in short was, I missed some stuff. In Books I-VI, I knew that I needed to be looking out for those extra layers, whereas here I could feel myself just moving with the motions of the movie playing out in my head. More than I few times I felt myself thinking, "I know this already." I saw certain allusions to other scriptures and stories, but those were washed away by the next wave of creation before I had much to think or say about them.
However.
By the end of VII—sitting with Adam at Raphael's feet—I began to feel the weight of that familiarity. "I know this" became, "Adam knew this!" and then, "If you know this, Adsum, do you live like it?"
God, having drawn the borders of the universe, took time to draw creatures out of the depths of our planet, us included! That should astound me, but I'm so used to it. Days can pass by without my thinking about it. If God created a lamb out of the nothingness next to me right now, I'd be beside myself, but the enormity of creation feels normal.
I think you are exactly right about how this book is different, Adsum. Your experience of reading it vs reading the others rings true.
Isn't it interesting how familiarity works? It can be a comfort and solace, and yet it can become a veil that obscures things we should see and notice and pay attention to.
158-160, specifically, "under long obedience tried"; imagination goes straight to "For change to occur, 'we need a long obedience in one direction'", attributed to F. Nietzsche, but later employed by E. Peterson as a title for one of his books, "A Long Obedience in the Same Direction."
225 - "He took the golden compasses" -- Is it reasonable to suppose that this is the source for the title of one of Philip Pullman's books in "His Dark Materials"?
Finally, 569-570 -- "for God will deign to visit oft the dwellings of just men." Ever since I read "The Home of God" by M. Volf and Ryan McAnnally-Linz I see and hear this promise everywhere. Delightful.
Peter, I did not know that Nietzsche used that phrase. I did think of Peterson's use in reading this.
Great question about Pullman! I have that book on my TBR list, and I am going to keep that question in mind. It is a very possible connection, I think.
And that promise really is delightful. Thank you for pointing it out.
I'm bogged down with grading this week, so my comments are minimal, but I really enjoyed your discussion of the words and images. I'm finished up a unit on narrative writing and we've spent a decent amount of time discussing how word choice can completely alter how the reader experiences a piece of writing. Such power in words!
I've never noticed how the scripture uses the image of a compass, so thank you for pointing that out. That's completely fascinating!
Lines 208-505 are the most beautiful so far. Milton is dealing with very familiar matter here, just using his imagination to fill in the details as many visual artists have done. I have a beautiful little book that uses just the words of the first chapter of Genesis, illustrated by Norman Messenger with gorgeous full page paintings in meticulous detail - I've read the book to multiple small nieces and nephews, and they always enjoy looking at all the different fish and birds and animals. Another wonderful children's book is the board book 'Let There Be Light: An Opposites Primer' which pairs opposite words with the Creation story, such as Quiet and Loud for before and after God first speaks to create. The most meaningful pairing is Alone, for Adam's creation and Together, for Eve's creation.
It is odd that Milton doesn't expand on Adam and Eve's creation - Eve barely gets a line. Having the animals being birthed out of the earth matches the language of birthing in God's command - "Let the earth bring forth" in the KJV. But Adam is 'formed out of the dust of the earth' - I always envisioned him being molded by God's hands, and the Spirit of God breathing life into him in a kind of mouth to mouth resuscitation. Eve, of course, is even more strange - the first surgery with the first anesthetic was performed for her creation. And the first marriage ceremony, with the Creator himself giving the bride away, the first song sung by the bridgroom. So many wonderful details missing.
I think I always imagined animals and Adam being made the same way (being molded by God's hands), but the finer distinction made in the biblical text and made more dramatic to be my Milton made me re-imagine it.
I have never heard Eve's creation describes as a surgery! That is very cool.
Wow! I'm so glad I read this now because I needed a good dose of God's greatness, power, love, and creativity. One of my favorite things to read is the creation account of Narnia in "The Magician's Nephew." I never thought about animals coming out of the ground until I read that book in my 30's. It was fun to read it in this book too.
I cried at 192:
"....................: meanwhile the Son
On his great expedition now appeared,
Girt with omnipotence, with radiance crowned
Of majesty divine, sapience and love
Immense, and all his Father in him shone."
What a beautiful word-picture of Jesus.
At book six I began to read this out loud and it really came alive for me. I loved saying line 303 "on the washy ooze deep channels wore;"
It is odd that the most striking thing appears to be this introduction. Who is Urania? On the face of it, many have asserted this is the last muse who is associated with astronomy; but Milton appears to hint that she is more of a composite sketch than a simple person. In looking into this I was helped by "Mediating the muse: Milton and the metamorphoses of Urania" by MK Dolloff and "Milton's Urania: 'The Meaning, Not the Name I Call'" by Stevie Davies, William B. Hunter. A preliminary sketch yields three composite characters.
Firstly, there is the name as a stand in for a role and not an identity. Milton is explicit when he declares:
The meaning, not the Name I call: for thou
Nor of the Muses nine, nor on the top
Of old Olympus dwell'st, but Heav'nlie borne,
Before the Hills appeerd, or Fountain flow'd,
Thou with Eternal wisdom didst converse,
Wisdom thy Sister, and with her didst play
In presence of th' Almightie Father, pleas'd
With thy Celestial Song.
In this way he wishes to distance Urania from her character in Greek Mythology, but have her be the one who represents the particular role. In other words, she is the representation of Astronomy. The early moderns had a complicated relationship with astronomy. On one hand they had inherited an understanding of the heavens as a place of wild power which could create or destroy. Many innovations in the Middle Ages centered around searching and discerning the heavens. However, new discoveries being made moved astronomy away from a mythological mystery and into a scientific puzzle. It has been noted that modernism didn’t end magic, but rather changed how we think about magic. Instead of just being a part of it, we can now control and use it. It is not impossible that astronomy would also be reimagined in such a way. After all, isn't that what Milton is doing with the Greco-Roman historical epic here in "Paradise Lost."
The second facet that we see in Urania is that of "Aphrodite Urania." While there is some speculation that this was understood by some Middle Easterners as "Queen of Heaven," I was unable to find citations to back up that claim. The best guess is that this is the character mentioned in Plato's "Symposium." "In Twin Venuses: A Diachronic Approach" by Achilleas A. Stamatiadis from "Discentes: [Univerisity of] Penn[sylvania]'s Classical Studies Publication," the author analyzes a portion this dialogue from Plato. (Stamatiadis uses the Roman moniker for Aphrodite of Venus.) The author posits that Plato states that there are two kinds Venus Urania and Venus Pandemos as follows:
Venus Urania: Associated with heavenly love, honoring a partner's soul and wisdom. It encourages honorable love and is aligned with the Angelic Mind. Philosophers are encouraged to pursue this type of love.
Venus Pandemos: Represents base or profane love, where the lover seeks only sexual gratification. It is associated with the World-Soul.
Utilizing the first Aphrodite, Milton obviously sees these characteristics as being shared with the Urania which he imagines. This is especially true given Milton's affinity to Neo-Platonism. Nicholas McDowell, in "Poet of the Revolution" says this about Milton:
The rather commonplace nature of these Neoplatonic ideas of the Italian Renaissance by Milton’s time has perhaps obscured just how vitally they nonetheless shaped his sense of himself as an aspiring ‘universal scholar’ and poet. Milton never fully left behind this early conviction of the capacity of human beings to make themselves more divine through the attainment of virtuous knowledge. (That virtue is knowledge is the key moral principle of Plato’s Socratic dialogues, and the Socratic ethos will suffuse Milton’s most concerted exercise in ethical argument, Areopagitica). This capacity for ascent into a more purely spiritually refined existence is fundamental to the order of creation described in Paradise Lost, while the cosmic journey of Satan in pursuit of his ambition to dominate the Earth and dethrone God replays the Neoplatonic vision of self-deification in a parodic key.
Thus, in calling for Urania, Milton is underscoring his beliefs in the Neo-Platonic order of the universe that can ascend or descend vis-a-vis freedom in the service of virtue and obedience to God.
This brings us to the final composite in Milton's Urania, that of Wisdom as seen in the Old Testament. This is the sister wisdom of the book of Proverbs. Davies and Hunter point out that it would not be hard to see how Milton has syncretized Aphrodite Urania with the Old Testament Wisdom. More than that, strains of Christian thought believed that Wisdom of the Old Testament was actually the Holy Spirit. This would have been an easy thing for a non-trinitarian like Milton to have readily accepted. (One might also speculate that such a female composite would have been more acceptable to anti-Catholic such as Milton who looked to downgrade the "Queen of Heaven" Mary or replace her with something more theoretical; but that is merely stray speculation on my part.) This makes more sense when we read Milton declare:
Thou with Eternal wisdom didst converse,
Wisdom thy Sister, and with her didst play
In presence of th' Almightie Father, pleas'd
With thy Celestial Song.
Davies and Hunter imply that Milton has created a way to explain the Trinitarian Creation narrative without having to have the three persons of the Trinity.
On the face of it, the line about Urania seems like an odd throw-away line, but its obscure reference only seems to hint that Milton finds it incredibly important. He explicitly tells us we should not see Urania as a one-to-one reference to the Greek mythological character, but instead imagine a composite of they the forces behind the personifications of Greek Myths, Neo-Platonic representations, and the Wisdom of the Old (and perhaps New) Testament. Such an invocation is more than a flourish, but instead an extra bit of authority for what he will say next and a declaration of Milton's non-Trinitarian and Neo-Platonic beliefs.
Philip, this is exceedingly helpful and insightful. I suppose there might be a throwaway line or phrase here and they’re in Milton—but not often and not usually! This was a keen eye and keen analysis n
I have been late in my comment this week too, but thoroughly enjoyed the post, including the focus on structure as well as the pictures from Rafael and Martin and the image of “conglobing.” Plus, Teri’s compass picture was a treat. I noticed the end of the book ends in an interesting way. Is Milton speaking directly to the reader? See lines 635 to 640. P.S. Give my best to Ruby!
Thank you for noting the “conglobing”—endlessly fascinating and beautiful image!
Good question about the end of the book. Some additions add helpful quotation marks and some don’t. The ending lines are actually the conclusion of Raphael’s explanation to Adam answering Adam’s question about creation. So the “you”’addressed is Adam, by Raphael.
I think another interesting line of questioning would be dealing with the so-called theory of preformationism which speculated that all creatures were mini versions of themselves which grow. This has been used by past Christians to speak of all the Saints crowded into the earlier patriarchs.
In any case, when I heard of the animals popping out full formed from the ground, that is where my mind goes.
I am so glad you mentioned the creation of the animals straight out of the earth. I laughed at the lion’s emergence:
“The tawny lion, pawing to get free
His hinder parts, then springs as broke from bonds,
And rampant shakes his brindled mane;”
That is so visual, and so exactly lion-ish!
This part of was the most delightful for me! Milton portrayed these images so well.
For me, Book VII initially proved to be less provoking than previous Books. In short, I found the familiarity harder to overcome here. I think a large part of that is down to the slight change of approach. Until this point—for the most part, at least—Milton has drawn upon great swathes of Scripture, amalgamated them into his own narrative, added some imagery from classical literature for good measure, and then incorporated his own interpretation. In the first couple of pages of VII, he continues this trend, before turning to Genesis I and then simply* illustrated that narrative as he went. That change was necessary here, I think, but less stimulating.
All of that to say, I went away from this with two different takeaways, one negative, one positive. The negative in short was, I missed some stuff. In Books I-VI, I knew that I needed to be looking out for those extra layers, whereas here I could feel myself just moving with the motions of the movie playing out in my head. More than I few times I felt myself thinking, "I know this already." I saw certain allusions to other scriptures and stories, but those were washed away by the next wave of creation before I had much to think or say about them.
However.
By the end of VII—sitting with Adam at Raphael's feet—I began to feel the weight of that familiarity. "I know this" became, "Adam knew this!" and then, "If you know this, Adsum, do you live like it?"
God, having drawn the borders of the universe, took time to draw creatures out of the depths of our planet, us included! That should astound me, but I'm so used to it. Days can pass by without my thinking about it. If God created a lamb out of the nothingness next to me right now, I'd be beside myself, but the enormity of creation feels normal.
This morning, I have two questions to ask myself.
- How much have I missed?
- How much more will I miss, if I'm not careful?
Grace and Peace,
Adsum Try Ravenhill
*As simply as Milton was able...
I think you are exactly right about how this book is different, Adsum. Your experience of reading it vs reading the others rings true.
Isn't it interesting how familiarity works? It can be a comfort and solace, and yet it can become a veil that obscures things we should see and notice and pay attention to.
As W. C. Williams wrote:
so much depends
upon
a red wheel
barrow
glazed with rain
water
beside the white
chickens
What a wonderful poem. I've never come across Williams before, I'll have to seek out more of his work.
🥰
Here is another image from the Gothic period that portrays God as the architect of the world.
https://images.app.goo.gl/FyqZGDtv6opXQqY28
Oh, that is an arresting image! Thank you, Teri!
Just a few simple observations -
158-160, specifically, "under long obedience tried"; imagination goes straight to "For change to occur, 'we need a long obedience in one direction'", attributed to F. Nietzsche, but later employed by E. Peterson as a title for one of his books, "A Long Obedience in the Same Direction."
225 - "He took the golden compasses" -- Is it reasonable to suppose that this is the source for the title of one of Philip Pullman's books in "His Dark Materials"?
Finally, 569-570 -- "for God will deign to visit oft the dwellings of just men." Ever since I read "The Home of God" by M. Volf and Ryan McAnnally-Linz I see and hear this promise everywhere. Delightful.
As is ‘the dark materials’ a direct quote as well of course, so ‘the golden compass ‘ must be from Paradise Lost too . I’m sure you are right
Ah! Yes. @TonyWatkins needs to read this thread!
More than likely on the Pullman front, he has said of himself, "I am of the Devil’s party and know it", in direct reference to Milton's work.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150104090429/http://zoamorphosis.com/2010/04/zoapod-10-his-dark-materials-transcript/
Bingo!
Peter, I did not know that Nietzsche used that phrase. I did think of Peterson's use in reading this.
Great question about Pullman! I have that book on my TBR list, and I am going to keep that question in mind. It is a very possible connection, I think.
And that promise really is delightful. Thank you for pointing it out.
I was reading online yesterday and the author attributed that quote to Nietzsche; I just searched for the source but can't find it.
I'm bogged down with grading this week, so my comments are minimal, but I really enjoyed your discussion of the words and images. I'm finished up a unit on narrative writing and we've spent a decent amount of time discussing how word choice can completely alter how the reader experiences a piece of writing. Such power in words!
I've never noticed how the scripture uses the image of a compass, so thank you for pointing that out. That's completely fascinating!
Ah, grading! So much grading, such little time.
Thank you so much for reading and keeping up as you can. I’m glad you enjoyed this discussion!
Lines 208-505 are the most beautiful so far. Milton is dealing with very familiar matter here, just using his imagination to fill in the details as many visual artists have done. I have a beautiful little book that uses just the words of the first chapter of Genesis, illustrated by Norman Messenger with gorgeous full page paintings in meticulous detail - I've read the book to multiple small nieces and nephews, and they always enjoy looking at all the different fish and birds and animals. Another wonderful children's book is the board book 'Let There Be Light: An Opposites Primer' which pairs opposite words with the Creation story, such as Quiet and Loud for before and after God first speaks to create. The most meaningful pairing is Alone, for Adam's creation and Together, for Eve's creation.
It is odd that Milton doesn't expand on Adam and Eve's creation - Eve barely gets a line. Having the animals being birthed out of the earth matches the language of birthing in God's command - "Let the earth bring forth" in the KJV. But Adam is 'formed out of the dust of the earth' - I always envisioned him being molded by God's hands, and the Spirit of God breathing life into him in a kind of mouth to mouth resuscitation. Eve, of course, is even more strange - the first surgery with the first anesthetic was performed for her creation. And the first marriage ceremony, with the Creator himself giving the bride away, the first song sung by the bridgroom. So many wonderful details missing.
I think I always imagined animals and Adam being made the same way (being molded by God's hands), but the finer distinction made in the biblical text and made more dramatic to be my Milton made me re-imagine it.
I have never heard Eve's creation describes as a surgery! That is very cool.
Wow! I'm so glad I read this now because I needed a good dose of God's greatness, power, love, and creativity. One of my favorite things to read is the creation account of Narnia in "The Magician's Nephew." I never thought about animals coming out of the ground until I read that book in my 30's. It was fun to read it in this book too.
I cried at 192:
"....................: meanwhile the Son
On his great expedition now appeared,
Girt with omnipotence, with radiance crowned
Of majesty divine, sapience and love
Immense, and all his Father in him shone."
What a beautiful word-picture of Jesus.
At book six I began to read this out loud and it really came alive for me. I loved saying line 303 "on the washy ooze deep channels wore;"
It’s is interesting to encounter one of Lewis’s chief influences, isn’t it?
And now I had to say that line, too. It is very fun. I’m so glad you are reading along!
"Descend from Heav'n Urania, by that name
If rightly thou art call'd, whose Voice divine
Following, above th' Olympian Hill I soare,
Above the flight of Pegasean wing."
It is odd that the most striking thing appears to be this introduction. Who is Urania? On the face of it, many have asserted this is the last muse who is associated with astronomy; but Milton appears to hint that she is more of a composite sketch than a simple person. In looking into this I was helped by "Mediating the muse: Milton and the metamorphoses of Urania" by MK Dolloff and "Milton's Urania: 'The Meaning, Not the Name I Call'" by Stevie Davies, William B. Hunter. A preliminary sketch yields three composite characters.
Firstly, there is the name as a stand in for a role and not an identity. Milton is explicit when he declares:
The meaning, not the Name I call: for thou
Nor of the Muses nine, nor on the top
Of old Olympus dwell'st, but Heav'nlie borne,
Before the Hills appeerd, or Fountain flow'd,
Thou with Eternal wisdom didst converse,
Wisdom thy Sister, and with her didst play
In presence of th' Almightie Father, pleas'd
With thy Celestial Song.
In this way he wishes to distance Urania from her character in Greek Mythology, but have her be the one who represents the particular role. In other words, she is the representation of Astronomy. The early moderns had a complicated relationship with astronomy. On one hand they had inherited an understanding of the heavens as a place of wild power which could create or destroy. Many innovations in the Middle Ages centered around searching and discerning the heavens. However, new discoveries being made moved astronomy away from a mythological mystery and into a scientific puzzle. It has been noted that modernism didn’t end magic, but rather changed how we think about magic. Instead of just being a part of it, we can now control and use it. It is not impossible that astronomy would also be reimagined in such a way. After all, isn't that what Milton is doing with the Greco-Roman historical epic here in "Paradise Lost."
The second facet that we see in Urania is that of "Aphrodite Urania." While there is some speculation that this was understood by some Middle Easterners as "Queen of Heaven," I was unable to find citations to back up that claim. The best guess is that this is the character mentioned in Plato's "Symposium." "In Twin Venuses: A Diachronic Approach" by Achilleas A. Stamatiadis from "Discentes: [Univerisity of] Penn[sylvania]'s Classical Studies Publication," the author analyzes a portion this dialogue from Plato. (Stamatiadis uses the Roman moniker for Aphrodite of Venus.) The author posits that Plato states that there are two kinds Venus Urania and Venus Pandemos as follows:
Venus Urania: Associated with heavenly love, honoring a partner's soul and wisdom. It encourages honorable love and is aligned with the Angelic Mind. Philosophers are encouraged to pursue this type of love.
Venus Pandemos: Represents base or profane love, where the lover seeks only sexual gratification. It is associated with the World-Soul.
Utilizing the first Aphrodite, Milton obviously sees these characteristics as being shared with the Urania which he imagines. This is especially true given Milton's affinity to Neo-Platonism. Nicholas McDowell, in "Poet of the Revolution" says this about Milton:
The rather commonplace nature of these Neoplatonic ideas of the Italian Renaissance by Milton’s time has perhaps obscured just how vitally they nonetheless shaped his sense of himself as an aspiring ‘universal scholar’ and poet. Milton never fully left behind this early conviction of the capacity of human beings to make themselves more divine through the attainment of virtuous knowledge. (That virtue is knowledge is the key moral principle of Plato’s Socratic dialogues, and the Socratic ethos will suffuse Milton’s most concerted exercise in ethical argument, Areopagitica). This capacity for ascent into a more purely spiritually refined existence is fundamental to the order of creation described in Paradise Lost, while the cosmic journey of Satan in pursuit of his ambition to dominate the Earth and dethrone God replays the Neoplatonic vision of self-deification in a parodic key.
Thus, in calling for Urania, Milton is underscoring his beliefs in the Neo-Platonic order of the universe that can ascend or descend vis-a-vis freedom in the service of virtue and obedience to God.
This brings us to the final composite in Milton's Urania, that of Wisdom as seen in the Old Testament. This is the sister wisdom of the book of Proverbs. Davies and Hunter point out that it would not be hard to see how Milton has syncretized Aphrodite Urania with the Old Testament Wisdom. More than that, strains of Christian thought believed that Wisdom of the Old Testament was actually the Holy Spirit. This would have been an easy thing for a non-trinitarian like Milton to have readily accepted. (One might also speculate that such a female composite would have been more acceptable to anti-Catholic such as Milton who looked to downgrade the "Queen of Heaven" Mary or replace her with something more theoretical; but that is merely stray speculation on my part.) This makes more sense when we read Milton declare:
Thou with Eternal wisdom didst converse,
Wisdom thy Sister, and with her didst play
In presence of th' Almightie Father, pleas'd
With thy Celestial Song.
Davies and Hunter imply that Milton has created a way to explain the Trinitarian Creation narrative without having to have the three persons of the Trinity.
On the face of it, the line about Urania seems like an odd throw-away line, but its obscure reference only seems to hint that Milton finds it incredibly important. He explicitly tells us we should not see Urania as a one-to-one reference to the Greek mythological character, but instead imagine a composite of they the forces behind the personifications of Greek Myths, Neo-Platonic representations, and the Wisdom of the Old (and perhaps New) Testament. Such an invocation is more than a flourish, but instead an extra bit of authority for what he will say next and a declaration of Milton's non-Trinitarian and Neo-Platonic beliefs.
Quick citations:
"Mediating the muse: Milton and the metamorphoses of Urania" by MK Dolloff - 2006
"Milton's Urania: 'The Meaning, Not the Name I Call'" by Stevie Davies, William B. Hunter
"Twin Venuses: A Diachronic Approach" by Achilleas A. Stamatiadis
"Poet of Revolution: The Making of John Milton" by Nicholas McDowell
Excellent. Thank you for bringing this scholarship to the discussion!
Philip, this is exceedingly helpful and insightful. I suppose there might be a throwaway line or phrase here and they’re in Milton—but not often and not usually! This was a keen eye and keen analysis n
I have been late in my comment this week too, but thoroughly enjoyed the post, including the focus on structure as well as the pictures from Rafael and Martin and the image of “conglobing.” Plus, Teri’s compass picture was a treat. I noticed the end of the book ends in an interesting way. Is Milton speaking directly to the reader? See lines 635 to 640. P.S. Give my best to Ruby!
Thank you for noting the “conglobing”—endlessly fascinating and beautiful image!
Good question about the end of the book. Some additions add helpful quotation marks and some don’t. The ending lines are actually the conclusion of Raphael’s explanation to Adam answering Adam’s question about creation. So the “you”’addressed is Adam, by Raphael.
Ruby says hey! 🐶
I think another interesting line of questioning would be dealing with the so-called theory of preformationism which speculated that all creatures were mini versions of themselves which grow. This has been used by past Christians to speak of all the Saints crowded into the earlier patriarchs.
In any case, when I heard of the animals popping out full formed from the ground, that is where my mind goes.