Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T19:57:55.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Renaissance Commentaries on “Genesis” and Some Elements of the Theology of Paradise Lost

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Arnold Williams
Arnold Williams*
Affiliation:
Michigan State College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Throughout his prose works Milton shows familiarity with the theological literature of his time. In particular, he shows, by citation and reference, that he used on occasion, especially in the divorce pamphlets, certain commentaries on Genesis written in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. He mentions by name the commentaries of four authors: John Calvin, Paulus Fagius, Andreus Rivetus,and David Pareus. Because he knew their other theological works, he may also have been familiar with the commentaries on Genesis of Wolfgang Musculus, Peter Martyr (Pietro Martiro Vermigli), and Hieronymus Zanchius. He almost certainly knew the commentaries on the Old Testament, including Genesis, of Hugo Grotius and John Diodati.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , March 1941 , pp. 151 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1941

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Note 1 in page 151 “Milton and the Renaissance Commentaries on Genesis,” MP, xxxvii, 263–278.

Note 2 in page 152 Don Cameron Allen, “The Degeneration of Man and Renaissance Pessimism,” SP, xxxv (1938), 210, mentions the concern over the question. John Aubrey, Brief Lives, ed. Andrew Clark (Oxford, 1898), i, 289, tells us that Thomas Hariot, Ralegh's protégé, would not believe “the old stories of the creation of the World. He could not believe the old position; he would say ex nihilo nihil fit.”

Note 3 in page 152 H. E. Robbins, The Hexaemeral Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1912), pp. 8, 14; C. M. Walsh, The Doctrine of Creation (London: Unwin, 1910), p. 31 and passim.

Note 4 in page 152 Walsh, op. cit., p. 45.

Note 5 in page 152 Ibid., p. 34.

Note 6 in page 152 Walsh, op. cit., pp. 43–95.

Note 7 in page 152 To the Manichaeans, matter, the principle of evil in the world, was original. There is at least one interesting trace of Manichaeanism in Milton. In Christian Doctrine, ch. vii (Works, Columbia ed., xv, 17), Milton maintains that the original darkness which preceded the creation of light was an entity, not a mere absence of light, as the orthodox understood it. This is thoroughly Manichaean. See Robbins, op. cit., p. 68.

Note 8 in page 153 Historia Scholastica, Migne, Patrologia Latina, cxcviii, cols, 1055–56.

Note 9 in page 153 Robbins, op. cit., p. 74; Walsh, op. cit., p. 96.

Note 10 in page 153 I have not been able to see Eugubinus' In Cosmopoeia to ascertain for myself whether commentators do him justice. It is hard to believe that he could have been almost universally charged with an opinion which he did not hold.

Note 11 in page 153 A Commentarie of John Caluine upon . . . Genesis; tr. Thomas Tymme (London, 1578), p. 26.

Note 12 in page 154 Christian Doctrine, i, vii; Works (Columbia Edition), xv, 17–23. I quote, throughout this article, the Latin works of Milton in the English of the Columbia Edition. I have compared the Latin in every instance, and when it seems desirable to quote the Latin, I have done so.

Note 13 in page 154 Paradise Lost, ii, 912–914.

Note 14 in page 155 Petrus Martinas Verrailus, In Primum Mosis, qui Vulgo Genesis Dicitur, Commentarii Doctissimi . . . (Zurich, 1579), p. 2a. I quote Martyr only because of the adaptability of his statement to quotation.

Note 15 in page 155 Paradise Lost, ii, 898–900. Cp. the Morning Hymn, v, 180–184, where Milton speaks of “ye Elements, the eldest birth/ Of Natures Womb.”

Note 16 in page 155 Ibid., vii, 232–233.

Note 17 in page 156 In Genesin Mosis Commentarius in Operum Theologicorum (Venice, 1628), p. 27 [numbered 25 by mistake].

Note 18 in page 156 Christian Doctrine, i, vii (Works, xv, 17).

Note 19 in page 156 Expositio Quatuor Primorum Capitum Geneseos, in Critici Sacri [ed. John Pearson] 2nd ed. (Frankfort, 1646), col. 5.

Note 20 in page 157 Exercitationes in Genesin, in Opera Theologica (Rotterdam, 1651), Exercitatio i, p. 8. The first edition of the Exercitationes was in 1633. Rivetus adduces numerous examples from the classics of the use of the Greek and Latin verbs to mean “perfect from pre-existing material.” From the Scriptures he cites uses of the Hebrew verb in the same meaning.

Note 21 in page 157 Paradise Lost, vii, 168–173.

Note 22 in page 157 Milton, Man and Thinker (New York: Dial, 1925), pp. 287–288. Tillyard, Milton (London: Chatto and Windus, 1934), p. 274, accepts Saurat's explanation.

Note 23 in page 157 Milton's Use of DuBartas (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1934), pp. 29–41.

Note 24 in page 158 Op. cit., p. 27. The italics in the first passage are mine.

Note 25 in page 158 Cp. Paradise Lost, vii, 90–93.

Note 26 in page 158 Walsh, op. cit., p. 60.

Note 27 in page 158 Robbins, op. cit., p. 44.

Note 28 in page 158 Ibid., pp. 47–48.

Note 29 in page 159 Robbins, op. cit., p. 66; Walsh, op. cit., p. 61.

Note 30 in page 159 DuBartas His Diuine Weekes and Werkes; tr. Joshua Sylvester (London, 1633), First Day of the First Week, p. 1.

Note 31 in page 159 Op. cit., p. 24.

Note 32 in page 159 Christian Doctrine, i, vii (Works, xv, 35).

Note 33 in page 160 Paradise Lost, v, 577–583.

Note 34 in page 160 Ibid., vi, 4–8. There is not, of course, any time in Chaos: ii, 891–894.

Note 35 in page 160 Op. cit., p. 24.

Note 36 in page 161 De Operibus Dei in Operum Theologicorum (Geneva, 1613), torn. 3, col. 268–269.

Note 37 in page 161 Taylor, op. cit., p. 17.

Note 38 in page 161 Op. cit., p. 61.

Note 39 in page 161 Ibid., p. 62.

Note 40 in page 161 Op. cit., p. 33.

Note 41 in page 162 Op. cit., p. 48.

Note 42 in page 162 Pareus mentions this as one possibility, op. cit. p. 33. Musculus cites Augustine as supporting the identification of light with the angels, In Mosis Genesim (Basel, 1554), p. 9.

Note 43 in page 162 Christian Doctrine, i, vii; Works, xv, 33–35.

Note 44 in page 162 For instance, Rivetus, op. cit., pp. 47–49, cites these texts in his extended discussion.

Note 45 in page 162 Op. cit., p. 6.

Note 46 in page 163 Op. cit., p. 33.

Note 47 in page 163 “Spenser's Influence on Paradise Lost,” SP, xvii (1920), 337.

Note 48 in page 163 Op. cit., p. 35.

Note 49 in page 163 Op. cit., col. 70.—Rivetus, op. cit., Exercitatio xi, p. 48, has about the same list, adding Origen. He also (p. 49) notes the objection based on the text from Job, which, however, he finds clearly supporting the belief in an angelic creation at the same time as that of the world: “Unde id tantum squitur initio creationis coeli & terrae, stellos & Angeli laudasse, quia tum etiam stellae & Angeli fuerunt a Deo creati.” Musculus, op. cit., p. 16, merely notes that some Rabbinical commentators believe that the rebel angels fell on the second day and hell was created at that time, but he does not say when the angels were created.