Aaron Pharr
Gardner Campbell
11/24/19
ENGL 403
Of all the characters to boldly compare to Milton’s God, perhaps the most unlikely would be Darth Vader, for the two seem nothing alike at face value. It was in a 1982 essay on Star Wars that David Wyatt made this comparison, which brought forth dozens of questions not on the topic of the popular films but on Milton’s epic and the story of creation. Wyatt noted that “The fascination with Vader is that he is, like Milton’s God, a self-limiting power.” (Wyatt 614) A fundamental question that will be tackled in this essay is: How is God self-limiting within Paradise Lost, and why is it significant? This concept doesn’t stand in isolation, as it is closely connected to much of creation and the theology present within the story, as well as Milton’s own creation of the poem. The microcosm of the first stanza in Book I not only outlines what is to come in the story but also emphasizes the major themes that Milton addresses within it. God is a central theme. That famous introductory line, “Of Mans First Disobedience, and the Fruit” which leaves the reader hanging with its enjambment, is equally significant to the concluding line, which brings finality with punctuation to its phrase, and the ending of the stanza itself. Milton writes, “I may assert Eternal Providence, / And justifie the wayes of God to men.” Did Milton truly justify God’s ways, or did he fail one of his main purposes in the creation of Paradise Lost? Understanding the complete nature of how Milton portrays God and his ways will be significant in not only understanding God as a character in the story but also Milton’s theology and Milton’s own creation.
It is within Book VII that the self-limitation of God becomes fully apparent to the reader, alongside the dimensions of Milton’s creation theology. In dialogue with the Son, God says,
My overshadowing Spirit and might with thee [165]
I send along, ride forth, and bid the Deep
Within appointed bounds be Heav’n and Earth,
Boundless the Deep, because I am who fill
Infinitude, nor vacuous the space.
These “appointed bounds” are the space that God has allotted for his creations, demonstrating that there is a limit to what he has made, yet it is a self-imposed boundary because it is “appointed” and only God himself could lay such a restriction on his creative potential. Whether or not it is a true boundary is debatable. In the footnotes of this passage, Alastair Fowler notes that this is “far from circumscribing God” and instead highlights God’s freedom and preference to not create further into the deep. (Fowler 399) Regardless of what meaning these bounds imply, a heightened complexity is brought to creation in Paradise Lost because of them. In the essay “Milton’s Empyreal Conceit” by Gardner Campbell, it is argued that God’s creation has connections to Milton’s “capacity for his own acts of creation.” (Campbell 78) This is a very interesting viewpoint when intersected with the methodology Milton used while creating Paradise Lost, specifically the heavy use of enjambment in the epic.
In “Vision and Resonance: Two Senses of Poetic Form,” John Hollander reminds us of Milton’s unpleasant view of conventional rhyme. Milton called it “a troublesome and modern bondage.” This suggests that Milton was against such limitations on his own creativity, and Hollander notes that it is “poetry itself, lines handcuffed together, rather than the poet’s creative faculty, which he specifically wished to liberate.” (Hollander 93) Something about poetic creation for Milton is inherently restrictive and must have been highly limiting when attempting to illustrate God’s ultimate creation of Heaven and Earth. It is interesting that while poetry itself offered challenges, Milton rejected the parameters of rhyme and favored enjambment, a limitless mode of poetic creation that let lines blend together without end. When compared to God’s creation, which is given “appointed bounds,” it seems fascinating that the almighty would make an attempt to confine its creative potential, while man must liberate his own from bondage.
However, similarities can be drawn between Milton’s creation of the poem and God’s creation of Heaven and Earth in that they are both somewhat unconventional. When it came to Milton’s time, it appears that rhyme was the common poetic convention, and he argued “against the notion that only rhyme is musical.” (Hollander 94) With this in mind, his systematic use of enjambment throughout Paradise Lost becomes unconventional. Likewise, God’s ex Deo creation in Paradise Lost goes against the traditional theology of creation. In the essay “Milton’s’ Theological and Literary Treatments of The Creation”, Gordon Campbell highlights the fact that the ex Deo view stands in contrast to the creatio ex nihilo viewpoint, which was the “orthodox opinion” in Milton’s time. (Campbell 129) The ex Deo viewpoint has God as the cause and material for creation, effectively creating Heaven and Earth out of himself over the orthodox position where he creates it from nothing, the creatio ex nihilo position. Campbell analyzes Milton’s logical thinking, which brought him to this theology that is evident within Paradise Lost as well as Milton’s other writing, De Doctrina Christiana. There has to be a cause for creation, and nothing isn’t a cause. In De Doctrina, Milton claims that there are four causes: efficient, material, formal and final causes, and that God has within him all four because he “is the first, absolute, and sole cause of all things.” (Campbell 128) Built upon this theological understanding and a structured view of causes, the God within Paradise Lost is able to fill creation with himself, as he is the material in Milton’s eyes.
The ex Deo position on creation within Paradise Lost is strongest in Line 168 of Book VII, where Milton writes, “Boundless the deep, because I am who fill” which ends without finality and proceeds into the next line with enjambment, “Infinitude, nor vacuous the space.” Within these lines, God asserts that he is the cause and material for creation, reflecting Milton’s theology. Fowler makes note of the “I am” in the phrase, which highlights the divine name, and Isabel MacCaffery claims fill “aligns the plentitude of God against the emptiness of opposing forces.” (Macaffery 1959) There is something to be said about this filling that God is doing during creation, and it is intimate with the poetry itself. “I am who fill” falls at the end of the line and seems to be this final and declarative statement by God himself, yet it isn’t final and needs to be filled in and promptly completed by the following line. There is a natural pause at the end of “I am who fill” even without punctuation. “Fill” is a stopping point yet also a transition into “Infinitude,” and this is notable when infinitude and the filling are both God. This use of enjambment on Milton’s part is extremely significant here, and it can be interpreted that God is filling the next line of his speech as it is read.
God creates, yet the “bounds” are a perplexing factor when it comes to fully understanding his creations. Two of Milton’s most significant lines again read, “Within appointed bounds be Heav’n and Earth, Boundless the Deep because I am who fill.” When looking at the bounds and how they confine Heav’n and Earth, it seems paradoxical that they outline infinity at the same time. Gardner Campbell notes in his essay, “One boundary marks both finitude and infinitude.” (Campbell 94) When analyzed in this way, perhaps it could be effectively argued that God isn’t self-limiting and is taking more of a creative preference, as Fowler suggests. For scholars and readers of Paradise Lost, there is a blur between “bounds” and “boundless,” and these words that Milton uses are inherently significant. The appointed bounds are a limitation of sorts, but Milton doesn’t describe them as one. They’re not parameters, restrictions, or constraints. Choosing “bounds” is etymologically interesting because of the various definitions of the word and the responses it can elicit. While bounds are directly related to boundaries when a noun, bounds exceed limitations as a verb and have the connotation of overcoming or leaping. While it isn’t a verb in God’s speech, the connections between “bounds” and “boundless” are stronger when both words are inversions of one another, yet paradoxically the same depending on their interpretation or use. It is important to note that these lines are subject to the enjambment that Milton so often uses. Repetition of words or similar pronunciations across lines through enjambment highlights the ideas that Milton is directly emphasizing, and we see that here with “bounds” and “boundless.” At face value, it doesn’t mean much that it is enjambed; however, it is fascinating and just as paradoxical as God’s infinitude. Enjambment isn’t structured like rhyme poetry and makes lines feel limitless when they blend together. However, there is a pause when reading an enjambed line, and this pause can accurately be described as a “Word Boundary.” (Hollander 99) So the poetry itself is bounded and boundless with enjambment in the same way that God outlines his own creation. Creation is ambiguous for both poet and Creator, further blending the roles of Milton and God when it comes to Paradise Lost and the events within it.
God’s character is seen throughout the passages in Book VII, and some interesting details come out of them. When talking about creation, referring to it as the “Acts of God” in the 3rd person, God expresses that it is a complicated concept and not easily understood by humans. He says, “but to human ears, Cannot without process of speech be told, So told as earthly notion can receave.” Fowler notes that in these lines, 176-179, God is “implying that his creation narrative will be mythic.” (Fowler 399) What’s interesting about this is that God’s creation is described as “immediate,” yet there is a lengthy narrative behind it for mankind’s limited understanding. Fowler’s notion of God’s own creation narrative highlights many possible questions, such as the reliability of said narration; however, the fruitful point of interest would be the direct connection to Paradise Lost itself, which is a creation narrative. In the first stanza of Book I, Milton recognizes this with, “In the Beginning, how the Heav’n and Earth Rose out of Chaos.” Milton is fulfilling what God prophesied and telling the creation story in a way suitable for mankind. Yet the task of tackling what God created instantly is complex with ‘earthly notion’ and, as Gardner Campbell illustrates, Milton wasn’t interested “in merely bringing his vision down to earth and packaging it in metaphorical terms suited to the limitations of a human reader.” (Campbell 80) For God and Milton alike, there is a recognition of the limitations of human cognition when it comes to the conception of creation.
Another interesting aspect of God’s character and Milton’s theology intersects with the role of the Son in Paradise Lost. Unlike traditional theology, which sees the Christian Father and Son as one entity, Paradise Lost paints them a little differently. While they are both God and divine, there seems to be a distinction even at face value. This distinction is prominent in Book X when God tells the Son to give judgment on Adam and Eve, and the Son agrees but acts independently as well by saying “Justice with Mercie.” (X. 78) Gordon Campbell highlights that there is a theological distinction between God and the Son within Paradise Lost, yet “without deprecating the role of The Son.” (Campbell 136) The primary distinction comes to the matter of creation and mirroring Milton’s thoughts in De Doctrina. God is the primary efficient cause of creation, while the Son is the secondary cause. Hierarchies are very prominent in Paradise Lost, from Adam naming the beasts to Satan’s desire to climb the hierarchical ladder. The distinction between God and the Son on the matter of creation opens up questions of possible subordination and affirms God as the supreme.
The notion of God as the undeniable center of the epic poem and not merely a character or side story stems from William Empson, the author of Milton’s God. His work is 20th-century literary criticism and follows the history of “visual criticism” of Paradise Lost by William Blake and Henry Fuseli. (Furman-Adams, Tufte 258) The extensive discourse on Paradise Lost and its many aspects show the significance of the work overall; however, the intriguing, controversial, and all-encompassing nature of God makes for the most complex discussions, as understanding this creative and powerful being is immensely difficult. Understanding and explaining God was one of Milton’s purposes, as with his introductory statement of “justifie the wayes of God to men.” Scholars have noted the criticisms of Milton’s God that Empson brings forth, as he calls God “eerily and profoundly wicked” as well as “mean-minded” and argues that God’s “only intelligible motive… is a sadistic one.” (Furman-Adams, Tufte 258) This is a negative outlook and would prompt questions about Milton potentially failing to justify God’s ways, if this perception can be read from Paradise Lost. It would appear that, for example, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil being in the close vicinity of Adam and Eve is somewhat sadistic on God’s part when it is forbidden at the threat of punishment. This is easily refuted by God’s statement of, “I made him just and right, Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall.” (III. 99) The phrase itself is enjambed from the subject in the previous line, but the meat of the meaning when it comes to man’s sufficiency and the freedom to fall is final in how it is written. These critical concepts fall into a singular line and show a complete and perfect thought, as they aren’t separated with enjambment like much of Paradise Lost. The period punctuation emphasizes that completion. While the forbidden fruit’s placement could still be questionable and God’s true intentions are debatable, Adam and Eve’s sufficiency of self and emphasized free will are immediate rebuttals to any potential desire of God to see them fall.
However, a real argument about God’s possible intentions must intersect with Satan and his rebellion against God. Empson’s understanding of Satan is that his “passionate loathing for God… [and] determination of escape from him at all cost, is one of the chief pieces of evidence the poem gives us about [God’s] character.” (Furman-Adams, Tufte 262) While there is validity in saying that how an individual reacts to another says something about the latter’s character, I believe the strongest evidence would be on the one reacting’s character, and in this case Satan. One of Milton’s strongest thematic tools in Paradise Lost is free will. It is highlighted in Adam and Eve with their sufficiency to stand and freedom to fall, and even in God with his creative potential to have bounds for himself, whether by artistic preference or self-limitation of power. Satan has an equal amount of free will, and this is demonstrated multiple times in the epic. A particular moment of interest is when he is on the stairway to heaven and takes in the beauty of the world below in Book III, starting with “Satan from hence now on the lower stair.” (III. 540) It feels like a moment of possible redemption for the fallen angel, and arguably Paradise Lost has many possible redemptions for Satan, which could lead to a sympathetic perception towards him in a reader and even a tyrannical impression of God. After all, Hell appears democratic at the start of Book II with the fallen angels taking votes, and Heaven resembles more of a monarchy that Milton himself didn’t agree with. But ultimately, Satan doesn’t use his free will to redeem himself in the same way that Adam and Eve do, and that fault falls onto him, not onto God.
A final examination of the God from Paradise Lost lies in his depictions within and without the poem. The visual criticism and responses to Paradise Lost are fascinating in their own way, for they bring a new dimension to the events and characters within the story and allow for new interpretation and understanding. In Henry Fuseli’s painting, “The Triumphant Messiah,” we are given the scene of the Son’s triumph over Satan in the war in heaven; however, the image’s preoccupation and foreground is the fallen and defeated Satan. The Godhead takes the background and is illustrated as small and somewhat imprisoned. It is noteworthy that the “pale, cramped figure is a remarkable diminution of Milton’s God.” (Furman-Adams, Tufte 260) When it comes to God within Paradise Lost, his appearance isn’t focused on, and he is often hidden or mysterious, making this representation understandable. Following some Christian tradition of having God be depicted in a cloud, Milton utilizes this in Book X by writing “Eternal Father from his secret Cloud.” (X. 33) While it may be easy to diminish God because he isn’t physically present in an understandable way in the poem, his central nature cannot be understated, and Milton emphasizes that this omnipotent being is present at all times.
God is visible at a point in the story, and it is interesting because it removes the cloudy veil readers have been exposed to before. In Book XI, the Father appears “without Cloud’ to the Son. (XI. 45) God has this duality within the poem of being visible and being hidden, and likewise being present and removed at the same time. This paradox is similar in nature to the bounds and boundlessness that structure God’s own creation of Heaven and Earth and the fine lines between obedience and disobedience to him from his creations, such as Satan, Adam, and Eve. The connected relationship between opposites, yet their significant distinctions, are of the utmost value in Paradise Lost when it comes to God and creation. Furthermore, understanding the epic as its own creation is powerful, as it stands as a testament to man’s creative potential, while the content within it does the same for God’s own. Creation in a human sense isn’t to diminish or take something unique away from God, but “to respond obediently to the provocation of being made in God’s image.” (Campbell 109) God’s creative power and intentions are in no way sadistic, as they gift the same creative potential to mankind for their own free purposes. In “Areopagitica,” Milton stresses the fundamental power of writing and books, one of the rawest forms of human creation. He says, “Who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, God’s Image; but hee who destroys a good Booke, kills reason it selfe, kills the Image of God, as it were in the eye.” Milton tackled the story of creation and arguably succeeded in justifying God’s ways to men. Paradise Lost demonstrates the complexities and wonders of Milton’s God and validates them by connecting man’s own creativity to that of the first Creator. God is hidden for most of the epic, yet is visible to the Son near the end, and Milton shows us throughout the poem that to see God in the same way, you only need your own reason and to look upon the creations of other humans’ reason and potential.
-Citations-
Campbell, Gordon. “MILTON’S THEOLOGICAL AND LITERARY TREATMENTS OF THE CREATION.” The Journal of Theological Studies, vol. 30, no. 1, 1979, pp. 128–137. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23961675.
Campbell, Gardner. “Milton’s Empyreal Conceit.” To Repair the Ruins: Reading Milton, edited by Mary C. Fenton and Louis Schwartz, Dusquesne University Press, 2012, pp. 77-113.
Hollander, John. “Sense Variously Drawn Out: On English Enjambment.” Vision and Resonance: Two Senses of Poetic Form. Oxford University Press, 1975, pp. 91-116
Furman-Adams, Wendy, and Virginia James Tufte. “Anticipating Empson: Henry Fuseli’s Re-Vision of Milton’s God.” Milton Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 4, 2001, pp. 258–274. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24465257.
MacCaffery, Isabel G. (1959) ‘Paradise Lost’ as ‘Myth’. Cambridge, MA.
WYATT, DAVID. “‘STAR WARS’ AND THE PRODUCTIONS OF TIME.” The Virginia Quarterly Review, vol. 58, no. 4, 1982, pp. 600–615. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26436687.
Milton, John. “Areopagitica.” The John Milton Reading Room, https://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/areopagitica/text.html Milton, John. Paradise Lost, Edited by Alastair Fowler, Second Edition, Longman 1998
Photo by Kaushik Panchal on Unsplash