
Milton's Morality: Fallen Man and the Fallen Stature of 'Paradise Lost' - lermontov
http://www.weeklystandard.com/miltons-morality/article/2011211#!
======
68c12c16
Milton's depiction of Satan is really against the established western
tradition in many ways...

For instance, in Homer's _The Odyssey_ , someone as great as Achilles would
say,

    
    
      By god, I’d rather slave on earth for another man
      some dirt-poor tenant farmer who scrapes to keep alive
      than rule down here over all the breathless dead.
    

But in a similar situation in _Paradise Lost_ , Satan says,

    
    
      we shall be free; the Almighty hath not built
      Here for his envy, will not drive us hence: 
      Here we may reign secure, and in my choice
      to reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
      Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.
    

If resolution, perseverance and a heart for liberty are some of the most
herioc characters desired in our human world, then in that, Milton's Satan is
even more heroic than Achilles...

[update: edited the line form for Milton's poem]

~~~
michel__
The problem with Milton's _Paradise Lost_ is that it's misinterpreted the way
you're currently misinterpreting it. Milton didn't seek to characterize a
Satan that is worthy of our admiration.

Indeed, there's an innate Libertarian core that resides within us all but
Milton sought to, like GRRM in the Games of Throne books, expose how morally
bankrupt some of us are for admiring an individual such as Satan merely
because of his desire to be 'free'.

We thus conveniently forget all of the evil that Satan commits because we see
something in him that resides within us: an innate desire to, as Rousseau
refers to extensively, to be freed of the shackles of tyranny from above.

~~~
taneq
I'm not super familiar with Christian canon but what specific evil did Satan
commit? (Both in Paradise Lost and in the original source material, I mean.) I
remember reading a bunch stuff where he's _called_ bad things (deceiver,
defiler, whatever) but I'd be curious to know what he actually did that was
bad (aside from the initial "refusing to bow to God" incident.)

~~~
dragonwriter
> I'm not super familiar with Christian canon but what specific evil did Satan
> commit?

In the canon and even much conventional theology, it's not clear, and not even
clear that Satan is a moral agent capable of doing good or evil. Plus, he
doesn't show up much in the canon; there's the bet with God over Job, the
test/temptation of Christ, some stuff in Revelation, and the fact that the
snake in the Garden of Eden is popularly (though not _canonically_ )
identified with Satan.

Milton's work is an artistic take on a popular old non-canonical story that
both is influential on shaping images of Satan in Christianity and hard to
reconcile some mainstream theology (Christian theology and Christian popular
mythology often have a problematic relationship.)

~~~
taneq
Thanks for this.

> not even clear that Satan is a moral agent capable of doing good or evil

This was what got me - as I understand it, the special thing about humans was
free will, which kind of emancipates any of the Heavenly Host from wrongdoing
(at least in the sense of personal moral responsibility).

~~~
abakker
In the Tanakh, Satan is "The Adversary". And to me, it always seems that he
almost necessarily existed by gods will and permission in order to provide god
with an agent. The Adversary almost seemed a force of nature, not moral, but
bound to provide humanity with something to choose _instead of_ god.

If on a spectrum of God <\--> !God, humans were supposed to turn their
interest toward god. But, rather than having God and Void apposed, there is a
personified force there that is "the adversary".

~~~
cholmon
I recall reading somewhere that the old testament "Adversary" view could be
interpreted as Satan being less of an antagonist who is directly opposed to
God, and more of a celestial prosecutor, whose role is to ensure that those
who are deemed faithful (by God) truly are. Prosecutors aren't evil people who
are opposed to the Judge, but rather are important instruments in ensuring,
perhaps imperfectly, that justice is applied.

Almost like a divine unit testing framework: if there are critical weaknesses,
please help me uncover them ASAP. Hence God's willingness to let Satan make
Job's life miserable.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Almost like a divine unit testing framework

Acceptance testing, surely.

------
keiferski
Paradise Lost has some incredible lines, even to the modern reader. Some of my
favorites (I keep them in Anki to periodically remind myself of them):

\- _No light, but rather darkness visible._

\- _Rather than be less, cared not to be at all._

\- _To sit in darkness here, hatching vain empires._

\- _The rising world of waters dark and deep._ (not sure why this has never
been referenced in a rising-sea-levels article - seems quite apt)

\- _Flowers worthy of paradise._

\- _And I feel that I am happier than I know._

------
bhewes
In the Poetry Milton is always there in juxtaposition to the Libertines such
as John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester. He has whole college English classes in
the USA devoted to him. And anyone who seriously studies English Literature
has to wrestle with Paradise Lost. So it is strange to see pop culture
celebrations and new book publications (three new books on a well known 350
year old book is amazing) as equal to fallen stature.

------
joshuahedlund
I would be really interested in a Jordan-Peterson-style analysis of Paradise
Lost.

------
gizzlon
You can, of course, find Paradise Lost online for free. But as a non-native
speaker (reader? :), I find the original English really hard to understand =/

~~~
AdmiralAsshat
Don't worry, even native English speakers find it difficult to understand. And
by that I mean that we can read it and tell you what each word means, but it's
so steeped in symbolic imagery and allegory that if you asked the average
person to read a stanza aloud and then ask them _what happened_ , they would
struggle to do so.

What really helps are having glosses or footnotes, where the references can be
explained. Unfortunately most commentaries are _not_ public domain, so you may
have to shell out some money for a good one. But they were invaluable when
reading Shakespeare and Dante, as it made the difference for me between
_reading_ Dante and _understanding_ Dante.

~~~
InitialLastName
Dante especially, as it's packed with references to people who were
famous/infamous in 13th century Italy, many of whose reputations didn't last
700 years. Without footnotes, none of those references get to add the color
that they deserve.

