It would appear from what Carey is saying the argument of whether Milton’s character is above his God will not be resolved anytime soon. It seems that Milton feels strongly that Satan is real and the embodiment of evil. In that case I believe he would not consciously place Satan in a position higher than God, which would have been blasphemous on any level. It is what got Satan thrown from Heaven in the first place! There were some who even believed that Milton was on the side of Satan (I have done so much reading I can’t place the source right now), this idea is absurd to anyone who has read anything of Milton’s. Though I do find his idea, that one should push as far as they can into temptation in order to make an informed choice, treading on dangerous ground. There are some who are not as morally and intellectually strong as Milton and to investigate temptation would surely mean for them to fall. I believe that it is fairly easy for Satan to fool people into believing they have made the right choice. Sin is packaged alluringly, if it wasn’t people would know it was bad and not do it. Satan came to Eve as a beautiful serpent; if he had been ugly she would have known instinctively that he was bad news. This is the faultiness I see in Milton’s idea that everything is made by God therefore it is quite possibly a choice between two goods. If Satan puts forth sin in a pretty package, those of weak moral fiber will choose this “good” choice and feel they are making the right choice. I find it frustrating to see that Man is attempting to say that Isaiah is mistaken in thinking that Satan wanted to rise above God. Isaiah was a prophet of God, and knew what he was talking about. There is a reason Satan was thrown from heaven. It was because he was caught clipping flowers in God’s garden. There are cases on earth where men attempt to overthrow kings and governments even though the odds are heavily against them. Satan was an angel and was a very powerful and beautiful angel. Is it such a stretch to believe he thought he could overthrow God, if he had convinced other powerful angels to join with him? God had given them free will to choose to love and worship him, or not. Satan chose the later and was forced from heaven. Milton’s portrayal of Satan leads one to have sympathy for him, in this I feel Milton does a disservice to his God when he paints Satan as less than powerful and manipulative than he truly is. In saying that Satan could love Adam and Eve, he embodies him with feelings that would provoke sympathy for him. Humans will want to see good in something that loves them, it is natural. For example: if someone befriends a lion and it licks them, they think the lion likes them so they embrace him, but then the lion eats them. Was the lion showing love, or was it luring the person in for an easy kill?This is of course my take on Milton’s Satan, others may take a different view of things.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, July 3rd, 2008 at 9:12 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:44 am
I think the reason scholars debate Satan’s rebellion (the motivations, how it came about, its probability, etc.) is not that they don’t give credit to Isaiah where credit is due, it’s that there is so little concrete evidence in the Bible surrounding the issue. The particular passage in Isaiah that Carey cites, 14:14, comes right after the triumph of Israel over Babylon. So when critics suggest that Isaiah’s ‘Lucifer’ may actually be the King of Babylon, it makes sense; he has just been cast down into Hell. Isaiah’s cry of “How are thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,” etc. might, then, be metaphorical.
Carey also raises the point that Milton’s Satan is a fusion of three sometimes separate figures: Lucifer the Archangel, the Prince of Demons, and the serpent. Whether or not they’re supposed to be fused (in Christian tradition), I don’t know, but I imagine the compilation of all their various deeds and mentions could raise some interpretive confusion. Was Isaiah’s Lucifer really the same as Milton’s? Can Isaiah 14:14 be applied?
I don’t know if I’m making sense. What I’m hoping to do is help you feel less frustrated. (Also, it was kind of fun to dig out my Bible and look some things up, for a change. I should do that more often… carry it around for reference!)
July 6th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
I think I understand what you are saying; I am having a lot of trouble wrestling with Milton’s portrayal of Satan too. The picture Milton paints of Satan does seem very sympathetic at times, but I don’t think he downplays Satan’s evilness. Book one and book two describe and mention many instances of Satan’s sins and the reasons for his fall from heaven - it’s just tricky for the reader because it’s from Satan’s point of view. I’ve been wondering why Milton decided to do this for several days, as I know that he knows that Satan is “bad to the bone,” to use a terrible cliche…but why is he so darn likable then? It’s a good question to ask. I think you’re right when you say that sin can be disguised as something good, so why not apply that to Milton’s Satan? He’s playing off our emotions, playing to our sympathies and getting us to like him; us, as readers, are falling in to the trap. I do think it’s too simplistic to simply dismiss Satan as completely evil and irredeemable; if he repents, he too would be forgiven by God. I think we are meant to see a lot of ourselves in Milton’s Satan, observe where his actions and his personality got him, and then improve ourselves by not following his example. Let’s be honest: I feel sad and sorry for Satan, but I really don’t want to BE Satan or hang out with him. There is a difference between sympathy and agreement.
Also, I have enjoyed looking up things in my Bible too, and I have the really helpful notes in mine (it’s the Life Application Study Bible, New International Version,Tyndale House Publishers) and the note about Isaiah 13:12-14 might be helpful to you and everyone else too. It casts some doubt that Isa 14:14 is actually talking about Satan; it may not be that Man is trying to cast doubt over Isaiah’s words, he’s just probably not really talking about Satan anyway (so, Madeline, your instincts may be right about this).
My Bible’s note says:
“There are several interpretations for the fallen one in these verses. (1) He is Satan, because the person here is too powerful to be any human king. Although Satan may fit verses 12-14, he does not fit well with the rest of the chapter. (2) THis could be Sennacherib or Nebuchadnezzer, kings with supreme power. Their people looked upon them as gods. These kings wanted to rule the world. (3) This could refer to both Satan and a great human king, possibly Nebuchadnezzer, because Babylon is pictured as the seat of evil in Revelation 17:18. Pride was Satan’s sin as well as Babylon’s. Common to all three viewpoints is the truth that pride willfully opposed God and will result in judgment. Israel made the mistake of being too proud to depend on God, and we are vulnerable to that same mistake” (1100-1101).
I hope my two cents helped, maybe a little. Obviously my Bible skews things a certain way, but I figured it may be useful in the search for all this knowledge.