Creation and Destruction in Paradise Lost
“Words are power. Read a banned book” (Carolyn Martin). Paradise Lost, an epic by John Milton about the creation and fall of man written with the purpose to “justify the ways of God to men” (Book I, Lines 1-26), has been banned internationally yet, has been translated “more than three hundred times into at least 57 languages” (Panko). Paradise Lost was banned in Germany for “writing about Biblical events in ‘too romantic’ a manner” (Panko) yet, is “viewed in the Middle East as a text of rebellion, opposition, and revolution, leading to its influence on figures opposing regimes dating back as far as the Ottoman Empire” (Milton masterpiece ‘Paradise Lost’ may have been influenced by the Quran). That being said, I will be exploring the transgression of boundaries in Paradise Lost. I will be using the Ethics Theory to discuss the shifting ethical boundaries portrayed by Milton in the poem. I will be using the theologies of Calvinism and Arminianism to discuss the controversy between free will and predetermination. I am working on the boundary Milton breaks with the contradiction of intentionally making the fruit forbidden, consequently allowing for God’s creation to be testified. Milton projects his theology to the opposition between the angel’s submissive thought and Satan’s transgressive, unlimited thought. I am working on how Milton’s intentional romanticized and sensual portrayal of Satan brings rise to such provocativeness. In doing so, Milton deconstructs the boundary between God’s superiority and infinitude. Milton ultimately deconstructs the boundary of the infinite being worshipped in God’s case, and feared in Satan’s case, and characterizes Satan’s infinitude with glorification. I will be arguing the significance of Milton’s fearlessness in representing Satan with the same infinitude as God consecutively, questions God’s ultimate capability.
Theology of Free Will and Predeterminism
One of the greatest controversies in religion and literature is between free will and predestination in justifying the values of God to man. Milton writes,
“The first sort by their own suggestions fell,
Self-tempted, self-depraved: man falls deceived
By the other first: man therefore shall find grace,
The other none”
(Milton Book III, 103)
When God discusses Satan and his angels’ fall, he states that Satan and the angels were created with free will and if God were to control the angels and prevent the angels’ sin and consecutive fall, God would have controlled their natural inclinations. In illustrating God’s thought as such, Milton proclaims his belief in free will and disregards the theology of John Calvin, a theologian known for his theology of Calvinism which is primarily focused on the inevitability of predeterminism and the denial of free will because all things are in God’s will. Calvin theorizes that God foresees the salvation of humankind and destines their fate accordingly. Milton is in agreeance that God foresees the salvation of humankind, but that we have the choice to submit or disobey God’s order. In contrast to Calvinism, the theologian, James Arminius is known for his theology of Arminianism, which “[opposes] the absolute predestination of strict Calvinism and [maintains] the possibility of salvation for all” (Arminian). God clarifies man’s free will and ability of salvation. He then goes to states:
“All he could have; I made him just and right,
Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall”
(Milton Book III, Lines 98-99).
Hanford writes, “We must remember that for Milton, all temptation was in a sense external, a direct suggestion of the devil. He would so interpret a conflict of conscience within himself and he so interprets the experience of Christ. He may well have believed in the physical appearance of Satan in the biblical temptation scene, but such belief does not impair the spiritual meaning of his treatment of the event in its wider application” (190). In opposition to Hanford, there is a contrast between Milton’s consciousness and his intentions with the tempters in the poem. In that, out of their pursuit for self-awareness, they were made conscious of their looming sins. It is interpreted that the fall was inevitable, as Milton depicts the consequence of their fall on the “external” influence and seduction of sin. This crosses the boundary set between the readers who feel justified in believing in predeterminism and how this defies their assumptions. However, it is inherent that “reason” and Milton’s interpretation is clarified.
Temptation and Sensuality
Milton’s interpretation of temptation is ambiguous, allowing for the possibility of free will and disobedience. Bell states, “For all possible temptations—those traditionally offered and any we might add—appeal to impulses characteristic of fallen mankind. Between perfection and imperfection, the unimaginable and the familiar, the fable constructs the bridge. This bridge is temptation, an event which could not understandably occur before the Fall, an event which must actually be explained by motivations characteristic of men as we find them now—ambition, curiosity, vanity, or lust” (Bell 863). Milton emphasizes that “ curiosity” and “lust” tempts their fall and compels the reader to assume that man was subject to temptations because it is in their fate. However, Milton’s application of this principle raises some important questions of interpretation. Milton attempts to justify the controversy behind the belief that “it is God’s will” with his assurance in man’s destined fall. In doing so, Milton challenges the theology of free will. However, the correlation of temptation and justification brings rise to questioning the validity behind Milton’s rationalization. Bell states, “That whereby God tempts even the righteous for the purpose of proving them, not as though he were ignorant of the disposition of their hearts, but for the purpose of exercising or manifesting their faith or patience…or of lessening their self-confidence, and reproving their weakness, that…they themselves may become wiser by experience” (Bell 840). Milton rationalizes temptations to the inability to control inclinations and presents the readers with the evidence of our fallibility. In turn, he fools the readers with the self-consciousness of their inability to control their fate. Milton forces this a false sense of self-reflection and defies the ethics of justification.
In his illustration of temptation, Milton’s intentional romanticized and sensual portrayal of Satan brings rise to such provocativeness. Milton demonstrates that without temptation, humankind would not gain self-knowledge and true free will. Fish relates temptation with self-knowledge and argues that the subject of John Milton’s poem is the reader, who is forced to undergo spiritual self-examination when led by Milton down the tempting path of God’s angels. Fish argues that Paradise Lost is a poem about how its readers came to be the way they are, fallen, and the poem’s lesson is proven on a reader’s impulse every time he or she finds a sinful action attractive or a godly action dismaying. Surprised by Sin: the Reader in “Paradise Lost”, Fish places an emphasis on “good temptation” which he defines as “that whereby God tempts even the righteous for the purpose of proving them, not as though he were ignorant of the disposition of their hearts, but for the purpose of exercising or manifesting their faith or patience…or of lessening their self-confidence, and reproving their weakness, that…they themselves may become wiser by experience” (40). The temptation is good because by means of it, corruption within is exposed, and consequently we are better able to resist the persuasion. Milton compels this duty by fitting temptations to our inclinations and the confronting us immediately with the evidence of our fallibility and in the process, he fosters the intense self-consciousness which is the goal of spiritual self-examination. In The Fallacy of the Fall in “Paradise Lost” by Millicent Bell, Bell argues, “For all possible temptations—those traditionally offered and any we might add—appeal to impulses characteristic of fallen mankind. Between perfection and imperfection, the unimaginable and the familiar, the fable constructs the bridge. This bridge is temptation, an event which could not understandably occur before the Fall, an event which must actually be explained by motivations characteristic of men as we find them now—ambition, curiosity, vanity, or lust” (863). Again, the significance of temptation is evident and without temptation, there cannot be free will.
Boundary of Infinitude
There is great significance of Milton’s fearlessness in representing Satan with the same infinitude as God consecutively, questions God’s ultimate capability. With my conceptual framework of breaking the boundary of infinitude, I claim that in “justifying God’s ways to men”, Milton forces his readers to question God’s ultimate capabilities. However, in trying to define “justification”, Milton’s meaning is ambiguous. As Webber argues, Milton “Has consciously justified God simply by reminding us of the available tradition: from the beginning, men, when they thought seriously about life, chose to keep it; therefore, life must be valuable,” (Webber 518). One of the most controversial arguments is why “the world is the way it is” and in his effort to provide an answer, Milton defies this traditional justification with the idea by creating this poem and force the readers to relive the fall of man. The reader is left to question the interpretation behind Milton’s intention to provide a “justification of God’s ways”. In doing so, “The contradictoriness of Milton's description of God … points to an idea of a God who exists both in and out of time: in this sense, God is both in process and perfectly realized; a producer and/or neighbor of chaos, and the essence of eternal, unapproached light. Thus, in a sense, God himself is … essentially a creator, God must create in time, and time subjects him to limitations like those which make men tragic heroes. But like the epic form itself, neither God nor his creation is static, and both move toward an envisaged ideal. Since process is so important, it will be useful to consider the poet's comments on the beginnings (or on the eternal existence) of thing” (Webber 520). This breech in infinitude coincides with my other theoretical framework, which proves the provocativeness of this poem and crosses one of the greatest boundaries in religion, the depiction of God. With Milton’s portrayal of God, the reader is forced to question whether or not the boundary between good and evil is infinite. Milton toys with the idea of rationalizing the ambiguity of God into a definite portrayal. Milton’s God plays the role of creator and maintainer of boundaries yet, limited in infinitude. Not only does this transgress the traditional role of God, Milton then forces the readers to also question, contrary to Webber, if “justifying God’s ways to men” is not in creation, but in justifying God’s limitations. Consequently, it is important to contrast and question the significance of breaking this boundary.