Poetry of revolution : the poetic representation of political conflict and transition in Milton’s Paradise Lost and Marvell’s Cromwell Poems

Hele tekst

(1)Poetry of Revolution: The Poetic Representation of Political Conflict and Transition in Milton’s Paradise Lost and Marvell’s Cromwell Poems. Selene le Roux. Thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of English literature at the University of Stellenbosch.. Promoter: Mr Daniel Roux. December 2006.

(2) DECLARATION:. I, the undersigned, hereby declare that the work contained in this thesis is my own original work and has not previously in its entirety or in part been submitted at any university for a degree.. Signature: ………………………………Date:…………………………….

(3) Abstract. Seventeenth-century England witnessed a time of radical sociopolitical conflict and transition. This thesis aims to examine how two writers closely associated with this period and its controversies, John Milton and Andrew Marvell, represent events as they unfold. This thesis focuses specifically on Milton’s Paradise Lost and Marvell’s Cromwellian poems in order to show how these poets reinterpret established literary conventions and invoke traditional Puritan practices in order to explain and legitimise the precarious new dispensation of post-Civil War England. At the same time, their work produces ambiguities and tensions that threaten to undermine the very discourse that they attempt to endorse. Both poets’ work indicates an active involvement in the political embroilments of their time while retaining its aesthetic value. Therefore, these texts do not only function on an aesthetic level but also within the historical framework of political ideologies.. The focus of this thesis is a discussion of the relationship between politics and poetry, with the emphasis on poetry of conflict and transition in civil society. In other words, it is not only considered how different poetic genres reflect social and political change in different ways but also how these genres in turn contribute to political rhetoric. During the English.

(4) Revolution Milton and Marvell try to provide solutions for the political disturbance, even while remaining aware of the new conflicts produced in the attempt..

(5) Opsomming. Die sewentiende eeu in Engeland was ‘n era gekenmerk deur radikale sosiaal-politiese konflik en verandering. Hierdie tesis ondersoek hoe twee skrywers (John Milton en Andrew Marvell) wat aktief betrokke was by hierdie periode se omstrede omwentelinge gebeure verteenwoordig. Daar word spesifiek gefokus op Milton se Paradise Lost en Marvell se Cromwell gedigte. In hierdie werke herinterpreteer Milton en Marvell gevestigde literêre gewoontes en beroep hulle hulle op tradisionele Puriteinse gebruike om die onsekere nuwe stelsel te verklaar en te regverdig. Terselfdertyd toon hierdie tekste dubbelsinnighede en veroorsaak spanning wat dreig om juis die sienswyse wat hulle onderskryf te ondermyn. Beide digters se werke dui op ‘n aktiewe betrokkenheid by die politieke verwikkeling gedurende die sewentiende eeu; tog behou die werke steeds hul estetiese waarde. Dus funksioneer die tekste nie net op estetiese vlak nie, maar ook binne die historiese raamwerk van politieke ideologieë.. Hierdie tesis fokus op die verhouding tussen poësie en politiek met die klem op konflik-poësie gekoppel aan ‘n politieke oorgangstydperk binne ‘n burgerlike gemeenskap – met ander woorde hoe sosiale en politieke omwentelinge deur verskillende genres in poësie gereflekteer word en hoe hierdie genres weer.

(6) bydraes maak tot politieke retoriek. Gedurende die Engelse Rewolusie probeer Milton en Marvell oplossings bied vir Engeland se politieke onrus terwyl hulle steeds bewus bly van die nuwe konflikte wat veroorsaak word deur hierdie poging..

(7) Contents. Introduction – The Relationship Between Poetry and Politics in the English Revolution. ………………………. p. 1. Chapter 1 – Demystifying the Monarch: Milton’s Political Prose ………………………. p. 16. Chapter 2 – Paradise Lost: Reinterpreting Heroic Values and Power Structures. ………………………. p. 34. Chapter 3 – Panegyric Representations of Political Change: Marvell’s Cromwellian Poems. ………………………. p. 72. Conclusion – The Second Coming: Recycling Conflict in the Poetry of Revolution. ………………………. p. 94. Bibliography. ………………………. p. 97.

(8) 1 Introduction. The Relationship Between Poetry and Politics in the English Revolution. The English Revolution of the seventeenth century was a war fought to a large extent with the pen. In some respects, this can be ascribed to the fact that it was not land but political ideologies that became the source of contestation. This conflict not only provided ample material for writers to draw on but also necessitated a reworking of accepted literary models. Writers were instrumental in determining entirely new ways of thinking about accepted political and religious beliefs. Milton’s Paradise Lost and Marvell’s Cromwell poems are both important products of this turbulent time in English history.. This thesis attempts a close reading of these two poets’ texts in the context of their time in order to examine the relationship between poetry and politics. The historic and social conditions of texts’ composition, production and reception are foreground since this thesis re-examines these poems as an integral part of society’s ideological discourse..

(9) 2 Literary preoccupations of seventeenth-century England are inexorably linked to the massive social upheavals dominant in England at that time. Literature is inextricably entangled with our perceptions of our present and past experiences. The fact that writers inherit and engage with an established body of literature allows authors to draw on accepted modes of representation not only to validate their perceptions and arguments, but also to employ models with which their readers are already familiar in order to re-evaluate society’s present condition. According to Healy and Sawday “the past is remade by the present, just as the present is fashioned by the past” (5) and seventeenth-century English writers’ “post-revolutionary task [was] to authorise the present” (3). This view is based on an assumption that “literature does not act as a passive register of historical events but exists in dynamic engagement with its context” (Healy and Sawday 2). In other words, texts do not become mere mirrors of society’s political developments, but engage readers in a dialogue that challenges their perceptions about their norms and values.. During the English Revolution, poetry was an especially effective medium to use to comprehend and to naturalise the ramifications of the Civil War since, firstly, it drew on a literary history with which the warring parties were familiar and, secondly, it lent itself.

(10) 3 to politics as a medium to explore the values held by a society that admired classical texts. The poet, then, had the opportunity not only to participate in the war, but also to raise the different literary genres that were prevalent at the time “to something higher and more visionary” (Loewenstein 103) by reworking accepted classical models of literature.. This remodelling often led to a war of noise, “a linguistic riot of conflicting sound” (Healy and Sawday 9), and the outcome of this battle with words was then determined by the poet’s eloquence and ability to manipulate his audience through the medium of language. One tactic employed in this manipulation was to use accepted genres to create literary expectations in the reader. Subverting these expectations could then surprise the reader into rethinking previously held opinions. As Patterson notes (‘The very name of the game’ 34), the republican ideology “[c]alling for a return to the good old days sounds less alarming than calling for innovation”. In this way authors would create a sense of security for the reader by using accepted literary models, while simultaneously subverting some elements in their own texts to prompt the reader to re-examine the values advocated by these classical models within their contemporary socio-political surroundings..

(11) 4 When engaging in a form of discourse that requires the reader’s reevaluation of his or her norms and values, several problems emerge, not only for the poets of the English Revolution, but also for a historicist rethinking of this period of English history. One stumbling block relates to the seemingly simple act of naming. For instance, Milton and Marvell hardly ever employ the term ‘revolution’, preferring to call the upheavals a ‘civil war’. A possible reason for avoiding this term might be because the term ‘revolution’ calls to mind complete anarchy that threatens the very foundations of every established political ideology. The Oxford English Dictionary describes a revolution as “the forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system”, a change on a “fundamental” level. A civil war, although horribly destructive and traumatic, seems to be a more familiar term and therefore less threatening because it has the appearance of taking place within a physical space between clearly defined parties and, during the 1600s, suggested a material dispute, rather than an ideological one, between members of the aristocracy and their supporters. It seems not to carry the additional threat of an entire belief system placed in jeopardy.. Although Marvell and Milton prefer the term ‘civil war’, which suggests battles within England’s borders, physical battles were.

(12) 5 mostly fought between England and her colonies, such as Ireland, and some countries on the European continent, e.g. Spain.1 Conversely, the term ‘English Revolution’ tends to ignore the contribution that the battles with Ireland and Scotland made to the battles on English soil and the alteration of government in England. Although these various battles contributed to English citizens’ rethinking the nature of power, which eventually enabled the regicide, the war in England took place primarily on paper.. Even referring to the opposing parties as either ‘royalist’ or ‘republican’ causes problems. In the 1600s the term ‘royalist’ connoted upper class and the term ‘republican’ represented the common man. During the 1640s, “for almost the first time in English history, [Parliamentary] elections were contested on political issues” (Hill 119). At Great Marlow the candidate for the court was a “local landowner” and the opposition held the support of “shopkeepers and labourers” since “they “stood for the liberty of the commons in the election” (Hill 119).. Yet, this does not necessarily mean that royalists came only from the land-owning elite or that only ordinary citizens were republican. For the ordinary citizens to execute their king, support from the higher, power-wielding upper class was a necessity. 1. See chapter one..

(13) 6 Milton often presents the average English citizen as England’s liberator, but various individuals from higher classes contributed to and supported the regicide, even if they did not support a complete removal of the monarchical form of government. In A Second Defense, for example, Milton – who is often considered by critics to have been republican – continually advocates the average English citizen’s active involvement in politics but presents Bradshaw’s2 “noble line” as validation for Bradshaw’s position as judge in Charles’s trial (638).. Similarly, the royalists used stereotypes about class in service of their propaganda. Gross stereotyping of England’s classes could be used in favour of either party. Clarendon claimed that “‘gentlemen of ancient families and estates’ were ‘for the most part wellaffected to the King’ whilst ‘a people of inferior degree who, by good husbandry, clothing, and other thriving arts, had gotten very great fortunes … were fast friends to the Parliament’” (Hill 123). Chamberlayne “named as Parliamentarians ‘very many of the peasantry’” (Hill 123).. Royalists also tended to maintain iconography that kept the king separate from the people in attempts to counter the republican demystification of the monarchy. Examples of this are the 2. See chapter one..

(14) 7 frontispiece to Eikon Basilike (Patterson, Marvell and the Civic Crown 21) and the king’s refusal to defend himself publicly, even on the scaffold, shortly before his execution.. These difficulties in employing the terms ‘republican’ and ‘royalist’ did not affect only Civil War writers. An academic’s political sympathies can easily be spotted in analyses of Civil War texts. When analysing politically ambivalent texts by poets such as Milton and Marvell, one has immense difficulty avoiding imposing limited labels such as ‘republican’ and ‘royalist’ on the poets.3 The term ‘republican’ becomes difficult to define since it seems that it differs from writer to writer. Although Milton and Marvell both draw on classical texts for defining their political positions, they do so from different, sometimes even contradictory, sources. On the other hand, ‘royalist’ does not necessarily mean someone that supported Charles, as one could still prefer a monarchical government without considering Charles as fit to be a king. Critical considerations of Milton and Marvell’s body of literature are often used to argue their political affiliations. Yet it appears unlikely that either poet would ever have been completely satisfied with any form of government, since their concerns appear to be much more focussed on the threatening nature of power per se than. 3. With Milton even the connection to Puritanism is too limiting properly to address the complexities of his work..

(15) 8 concerned with proclaiming moral support for any political factions.. A second stumbling block that authors and readers appear to attempt to overcome when engaging with literature that challenges set norms and values, is the selection of genre and the social status of the poet. Milton was very aware of the connection between genre and subject matter. He saw the writing of political tracts as his obligation and therefore put his plans for writing his epic on hold. Yet his political prose is often filled with poetic passages drawing his reader’s attention to the link between the medium and the reader’s expectations. Norbrook explains that “[i]n drawing attention to the fact that he is choosing prose, Milton makes his reader think about the medium as well as the message, about social contexts” (Norbrook, Writing the English Republic 136).. As subject matter for his epic poem Milton initially wanted to use British history, which would have been much more obviously political in nature. His reasons for switching to a Biblical subject were never really revealed, although it might have been due to a combination of fear of the possible reaction of Restoration readers and the desire to link England’s turmoil to something more universal. Milton eventually chose the Fall as the subject matter of.

(16) 9 his great epic, taking the risk that his readers would mistakenly perceive poetry on a religious theme as remote from their contemporary socio-political turmoil.. In addition, Milton’s audience’s association of the author with republicanism could also have made a Restoration audience less inclined to read anything he wrote. The first copies of Paradise Lost sold very poorly until Milton’s name was removed from the title page. Subsequent copies not only sold well, but Milton’s exceptional skill as a poet was admitted by most readers, whether republican or royalist. It might be that Milton was trying to escape the realm of politics, but the very act of writing in English becomes a political act, with Milton favouring “bourgeois Protestant nationalism over classical and aristocratic culture” (M. Wilding, ‘Introduction’ 4).. Milton also had to break out of the Puritan humanist inclination “to hold the poet in a lofty esteem which is difficult to reconcile with the fall” (Sinfield 33). He does so by continually aligning himself with his readers, drawing attention to his own fallen state where he has to draw on divine inspiration and the language of accommodation to narrate the key moment in Western civilisation’s history. By writing in English and challenging the exalted position.

(17) 10 of a poet, Milton aims “to restore poetry and rhetoric to a wider public function, to open them up in a potentially sublime direction from the closed world of courtly images” (Norbrook, Writing the English Republic 208). Yet, Milton’s narrator from Paradise Lost often threatens to undermine his affiliation with mankind.4. The third obstacle facing poets during the Civil War and Restoration period was censorship. Because contradictory ideologies were at war with each other, text had to battle text. Examples are Milton’s polemical tracts and Marvell’s Cromwellian poems. Whoever claimed the role of ruler in England could attempt to defeat opposition by preventing their written work from being printed. Although both the king, with his Star Chamber, and Parliament, with their licensing order, tried this, political opinion still managed to be circulated.. What kept Marvell’s poems from being printed was his selfcensorship. Marvell was aware of the power that language wielded and kept himself from harm by either not printing his work or not adding his name to what he has written before circulation. In ‘An Horatian Ode’, Marvell draws on Horace’s odes “to defeat monarchism by denying the reader’s horizon of generic expectations” (Healy and Sawday 10). Marvell’s fear of being held 4. See chapter 2..

(18) 11 accountable for his readers’ interpretations prevented him from submitting this poem to the printing process. Even after his death, ‘An Horatian Ode’ was removed from most 1681 copies (Smith 267). Although ‘The First Anniversary’ was printed as a quarto edition in January 1655, it was done anonymously and also cancelled from most of the 1681 copies (Smith 281). ‘A Poem’ followed a similar fate. It was scheduled to be printed in a volume titled Three poems to the happy memory of the most renowned Oliver, late Lord Protector of this Commonwealth, by Mr Marvell, Mr Driden, Mr Sprat, but was withdrawn from the volume. Smith suggests a possible reason to be Marvell’s “political prudence” (300). In ‘A Poem’ Marvell expresses his faith in Richard’s abilities to succeed his father but “[b]y the time the poem was ready to appear in print, Richard had manifestly failed” (Smith 300).. Yet, in grappling with political ideologies and icons, Milton and Marvell were never really suggesting solutions to England’s conflicts. Milton saw the debates arising from the turmoil as absolutely necessary if English society was to continue as a free nation. This did not inevitably imply that Milton negated any monarchical form of government – he supported open discourse regardless whether a king or an elected individual headed the country. Marvell, on the other hand, remained suspicious of.

(19) 12 Cromwell as a ruler but did not deny him praise for a battle won and in the end shifted his focus to Cromwell as family man, remaining ambivalent over whether the qualities that help a man to win a war will prove beneficial to a country during peace.. Chapter one of this dissertation sketches the political environment in which Milton and Marvell created their literary works, and draws on selections from Milton’s prose to clarify his interpretation of the turbulent and critical period of seventeenth-century England that saw such fundamental and far-reaching transition in the political and social fabric of English life in which Paradise Lost was composed.. Healy and Sawday’s observations regarding the role that literature plays in linking and interpreting past and present events are used as the starting point for this discussion about the connection between poetry and the seventeenth-century English revolution. The historical background – dates, events, and key players involved – relies on the work of Christopher Hill. Morrill also provides historical background of this kind, but uses it to represent Charles as a weak king rather than a tyrant. The chapter also draws on Achinstein’s article on the role of the press – which became.

(20) 13 accessible to a much larger part of the populace – in the civil war, and Charles’s public trial and execution.. The second chapter explains how concerns highlighted in Milton’s political prose are embodied in his epic, Paradise Lost, with particular attention to his adaptation of heroic models in the characterisations of Satan, God, Christ and Eve as representations of political ideologies. Milton’s epic not only reflects the political turmoil of his country, but also tries to inform new ways of interpreting the conflict.. Loewenstein and Rogers form the basis for this discussion. Loewenstein provides an extremely thorough close reading of Milton’s Paradise Lost. However, my discussion attempts to link Loewenstein’s comments concerning the thematic framework of Paradise Lost to a more historically contingent understanding of how Milton engages with the nature of conflict and power. In other words, the dissertation attempts to avoid reading Paradise Lost either merely in terms of “universal” themes or as a simple allegorical representation of actual political figures. Ideas from Rogers regarding the ambivalent creative nature of chaos are incorporated into my argument regarding Milton’s view of conflict.

(21) 14 as a continuous movement between the destructive stagnation and creative potential.. The third chapter focuses on Marvell’s Cromwellian poems. The dissertation argues that these three poems provide a single, but fractured, perspective on Cromwell rather than three different representations of the same man at three different points in history. Marvell’s ambivalent treatment of Cromwell’s character reflects the turmoil of the period, and demonstrates Marvell’s reticence to proclaim a particular political allegiance.. Smith’s edition of Marvell’s poems is used as a primary source for the Cromwell poems. Although Smith provides highly detailed and useful commentary on the poems, he holds with the view that Marvell becomes increasingly uncritical of Cromwell, especially in ‘The First Anniversary’ and ‘A Poem’. This dissertation disagrees with such a reading. Similarly, Norbrook also simplifies Marvell’s political stance in his article ‘Marvell’s ‘Horatian Ode’ and the politics of genre’. Patterson, however, maintains that Marvell retains his ambiguity. Yet, she still considers the existence of a progression from Marvell being highly sceptical in ‘An Horatian Ode’ to becoming less wary. The third chapter of this dissertation argues that Marvell’s discomfort with Cromwell’s rule does not in.

(22) 15 fact decline, and that the only manner in which he is able to assess Cromwell’s identity as ruler is through a highly fractured perspective.. Whereas both Marvell and Milton contemplate the nature of power during especially violent confusions, using classical models of expression, Marvell is concerned about England’s political future based on the contemporary political climate, while Milton focuses on the maintenance of free and open debate..

(23) 16 Chapter 1. Demystifying the Monarch: Milton’s Political Prose. Oliver Cromwell’s rise to power and the execution of Charles I threw English society into social and political turmoil. The mere idea of the people executing their king contradicted the entire foundation of English religious and political structures. Moreover, Charles’s accession in 1625 was the most undisputed since the fourteenth century making the outbreak of “civil war … less likely than at any point in the sixteenth century” (Morrill 15). He was already twenty-one years old and his ascension to the throne was uncontested by any possible aristocratic candidates (14). Therefore it was not the legitimacy of Charles’s kingship that was questioned by English society, but rather the manner in which he ruled, throwing in dispute the validity and efficiency of the monarchical system itself.. Although Morrill describes Charles as “naturally authoritarian” (15), it was Charles’s inability to stand his ground against England’s adversaries that led to the people questioning their king’s competence as ruler. Shortly after Charles ascended to the throne in 1625, Parliament opposed Charles’s “granting of liberty of worship.

(24) 17 to Catholics in England” and his aid to Louis XIII, whose daughter he married, in “suppressing the Protestant stronghold of La Rochelle” (Hill 11). Parliament was disbanded in 1626 “without voting supplies” (11). “[N]ot even the customs dues” were paid to Charles who then “continued to collect them and also raised a forced loan” (11). Charles continued his simultaneous wars with the Spanish and the French Huguenots, ending in disaster for England because the battles proved too much of a drain on their manpower and finances (Morrill 15).. In addition to various failed battles Charles’s introduction of Catholic models for decorum in his court, under the influence of Queen Henrietta Maria (Charles’s wife),5 caused England a great deal of concern. The English were afraid that Charles might either deliberately or under the “cunning influence of others” (Morrill 16) bring about a Catholic revival.. To further add to this fear, Charles relied on loyal Scottish and Irish noblemen, all Catholic, during disputes (1639-1641) with the Scottish Parliament over titles to land and attempts at assimilation of Scottish government by England (18). It appears as if Charles was eventually forced into a truce with the Scottish Parliament. Being unable to pay his troops, Charles “had to sign the Treaty of 5. Hill calls her an “evil genius” (12)..

(25) 18 Berwick” (Hill 13) in June 1638, requiring him to “abandon every crown-sponsored church reform since the turn of the century” (Morrill 19). However, his refusal to “abolish episcopacy in Scotland”, introduced by his father, led to the end of negotiations (Hill 13).. In April 1640 Charles requested financial support from the English Parliament (Short Parliament) for a second war against the Scots but dissolved Parliament after only three weeks because, among other considerations, he did not want to “guarantee regular English Parliaments” (Morrill 19). Without financial support Charles again lost to the Scots who refused to “return home until their war costs were met and their Presbyterian religious reformation guaranteed by an English Parliament” (19). This created an English Parliament, called the ‘Long Parliament’, which could not be dissolved by the king. Under pressure from the occupying power, the ‘Long Parliament’ introduced several changes “to the government of both church and state” (19), leading to the exile of councillors in disagreement with Parliament and the passing of laws ensuring their continued power. For the first time in England Parliament “became a permanent part of the constitution” when they introduced “[a] Triennial Act [which] provided for regular meetings … with an.

(26) 19 automatic procedure if the King failed to summon them” (Hill 111). Long Parliament “sat for nearly twenty years” (14).. This paved the way for Charles’s execution and Cromwell’s succession as the leader of Britain. Weak attempts made by Charles to regain control over Parliament “radicalised many members” (Morrill 19) and when uncontrolled violence in Scotland spilled over into Ireland which “fed back into a growing sense of panic … in England” (21), the nation polarised into parties either supporting or denouncing the king. In an attempt to quell citizens’ anxiety the “Grand Remonstrance was adopted, a comprehensive indictment of royal policy” (Hill 112). Charles responded by dispatching armed men to the House of Commons in an attempt to arrest the leaders of the opposition, but failed to do so because London provided refuge and support to these men, causing Charles to lose control of the capital (Hill 112).. Since it was not the legitimacy of Charles’s claim to the throne that was in question but rather the manner in which monarchs ruled, the Civil War revolved around replacing the king as the symbol of authority with an alternative form of government. Because it was a war of conflicting ideologies and not simply a war over which.

(27) 20 aristocrat has the right to rule the land, Keeble calls this war “the first modern war in our history” (2).. The ideological nature of the conflict allowed these battles to be fought, not only through the literal clashing of armies, but also in the literary domain, which is the focus of this thesis. Because a strong tradition of seeing the king as divinely ordained created tensions around the legitimacy of Cromwell’s political power and affected the core beliefs of the entire English nation, it was not just the educated elite that took part in the debate. Almost everyone in the English nation was in the novel position to at least be able to gather information about this recent turmoil. For this reason English society needed literature in the vernacular to take part in discourses that attempted to affirm or negate traditional socio-political viewpoints. Educational and technological improvements made this possible.. Achinstein’s research establishes that in 1600, the output of the English press was 259 separate items. By 1642, that figure exploded to 2 968 … Although many of the books published were only short tracts and pamphlets, the frequency with which they appeared evinces a vital engagement with current events and a desire to rush ideas and opinions to print. (51) The reason that such a significantly larger part of the populace could take part in political debate in the mid-1600s was because of.

(28) 21 “substantial progress in reducing illiteracy amongst all social groups” (Achinstein 53). It was, however, not only political pamphlets that contributed to the advancement of different ideologies. Achinstein argues that “poetry no less than prose served in the civil warfare of the pen” (62).. It is therefore not surprising that the poet John Milton would add his voice to the socio-political transformation his society was experiencing – in both prose and poetry. While Milton was touring the European continent, civil war broke out in England and Milton cut his trip short because he considered it “base that [he] should be travelling abroad while [his] fellow-citizens at home were fighting for liberty” (Milton, A Second Defence 619). Although Milton never joined the army, he wrote a large volume of – stylistically quite poetic – political tracts in English prose.. In his political prose, Milton represents “political change [as] a recovery of lost sight” (Norbrook, Writing the English Republic 197). By demystifying the monarchy, Milton attempted to open debate surrounding the legitimacy and workings of power rather than simply siding with either royalists or republicans..

(29) 22 This complex process of political transition could be seen as having three chief elements or features:6 (a). a problem and its resolution, centring especially on, or associated with, the ideologies of a political figure or institution;. (b). a resolution fraught with conflicts – some creative (as in a dialectic), others destructive (as in a deadlock);. (c). unresolved conflicts concealed beneath the oversimplifying discourse of justified revolution.. Milton reinterpreted established literary conventions and invoked traditional Puritan practices in order to explain and legitimise the new precarious dispensation. At the same time his work produces ambiguities and tensions that threaten to undermine the very discourse that he attempts to endorse. He supported the removal of power from a weak king, but from early on was concerned over the possible misuse by Parliament of their new, increased power and the church’s involvement in political control.. Since the primary focus of this thesis is the relationship between poetry and politics during the English Revolution, and not political prose, this chapter will focus on only three key prose texts of Milton as background for the political themes found in Paradise. 6. It is not always possible to clearly separate these three aspects and they often draw on each other to explain the cycle of conflict and resolution..

(30) 23 Lost. These three texts are Areopagitica: A Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing, The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, and A Second Defence of the English People. These three texts were all written and published during especially tumultuous political events and provide the environment and background that led to the conception and composition of Milton’s Paradise Lost.. Areopagitica was published, without licence, in 1644 in response to Parliament’s decision that all books needed to be licensed, i.e. given permission to be printed, to “suppress the great late abuses and frequent disorders in printing many false, scandalous, seditious, libellous, and unlicensed pamphlets, to the great defamation of Religion and Government” (Cotterill xxv). Since the Civil War was not only reliant on armed combat but was also a “war of words” (Keeble 2), licensing of texts made Milton “aware of a new tyranny developing” (Cotterill xix) and he felt compelled to protest “against the misuse of authority” (xix). This was not what Milton had in mind when he decided to support Parliament rather than the king.. In The Tenure, published shortly before the regicide in 1649, Milton contemplates the dangers and responsibilities of all power structures, not just the monarchy. In his introduction to The Tenure, Dzelzainis notes that the “victorious Parliamentary coalition had.

(31) 24 largely been held together by war. Once peace came it disintegrated” (x). Within Parliament two opposing parties emerged in response to the New Model Army and the Self-Denying Ordinance. These were the Presbyterians (conservatives) and the Independents (radicals) (Hill 113). The Presbyterians wanted to disband the Army without pay, leading to a mutiny. Parliamentarian supporters of the Army “deprived [those who opposed the Army] of their commissions” (113). The resulting stalemate between the Presbyterians and the army was finally broken by ‘Pride’s Purge’ on 6 December 1648 (Dzelzainis, ‘Introduction’ xi). Although Milton supports the army’s decisions, he is cautious about all power and firmly places the right to resist corrupt power with ordinary citizens.. Similarly, in A Second Defence, published in 1654, Milton places political power in the hands of the people. Although Milton was incorrect about the creators7 of The Cry, his political ideology comes across strongly. While he defends Cromwell’s Protectorate to the whole of Europe, Milton still cautions his readers and those in power against any form of tyranny and displays some discomfort about Cromwell’s power.. 7. Milton, incorrectly, assumed that Salmasius, who wrote Defensio Regia, wrote The Cry as a counter response to Defensio pro Populo Anglicano. An Anglican priest, Peter Du Moulin, is actually the true author (Roberts 542543)..

(32) 25 In Areopagitica, Milton claims to be aware of the problems a religious political authority might have with texts not supportive of their ideals, but ironically – Areopagitica was neither licensed nor was Milton supportive of Parliament’s licensing regulations – positions himself and all writers as redeemers of English society. From the outset, he suggests that those who to states and governors of the Commonwealth direct their speech, High Court of Parliament, or, wanting such access in a private condition, write that which may advance the public good (1.1-4).. Milton’s proposed solution for Parliament’s concern over the negative influences books might have on society is to trust in God’s judgement and the readers’ discretion. He relates the tale of Dionysius Alexandrinus told by Eusebius. While Dionysius is struggling with what constitutes heresy, God sends Dionysius a vision in which he is told to “[r]ead any books … for [he is] sufficient to judge aright” (13.35-14.1). To strengthen this point that God wants man to be allowed to read everything, Milton quotes from Thessalonians 1.21 in the Bible which proposes that man should “[p]rove all things, hold fast that which is good” (Milton, Areopagitica 14.4). Milton uses established – and published – classical literary texts, as well as the same text – the Bible – and values remarkably similar to those used by Parliament to argue against licensing, thus strengthening his position..

(33) 26 This solution is in itself fraught with conflict, not unnoticed by Milton. Milton “den[ies] not that … books [could] demean themselves as well as men” (5.7-9) because books have “dragon’s teeth” (2.17) but he considers the death of books as tragic as the death of people because “he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself, kills the image of God” (2.21-23). This does not mean, however, that all books have a positive influence: however, Milton pleads that books should at least have the opportunity to exist before they undergo “in darkness the judgment” (11.23) of those in power. Milton argues that even the books of which Parliament disapproves fulfil some positive function, since the values that this Parliament holds so dear are futile when only exercised in isolation from temptation. He argues that man cannot possibly go back to a state of pure innocence and that man can now only “know good by evil” (15.34). The conflicts caused by evil books are necessary to add value to virtue. Through this Milton does not propose a solution that dissolves all tension and eliminate contradictions. He points out that this resolution, although potentially causing conflict, could promote fruitful discourse in an unconfined space, like literature, between a politically aware public and Parliament.. Therefore, Milton’s main problem with licensing is not only Parliament’s absolute control, but primarily the limitations on the.

(34) 27 public’s ability to communicate productively with power structures. He does not see “civil liberty” (2.2) through external control as a simplifying of conflict, but rather encourages “complaints [to] be freely heard, deeply considered, and speedily reformed” (2.1-2). A lack of creative conflict could lead to a deadlock between these two groups, causing English society to stagnate and become subject to tyranny yet again.. Aware of the possibility that his critique of Parliament’s decision might not be looked upon favourably, Milton tries to reduce his conflict with Parliament through a pacifying discourse that conceals these tensions. He knows that he might be dismissed or get into trouble for the views he expresses in Areopagitica, but claims to “be blameless” (1.17) because he “[p]romotes [his] country’s liberty” (1.19). By interjecting praises for the good Parliament has done and expressing faith in their noble characters, Milton tries to soften his plea for the liberty of unlicensed printing in order to get himself heard. He emphasises, however, that “[h]is highest praising is not flattery, and his plainest advice is a kind of praising” (2.3536). After critiquing their decision to kill books before their birth, Milton pacifies Parliament and makes them complicit in the process of producing texts. He expresses his belief in “the integrity of [their] actions” (11.35-36) and calls them the “authors of this.

(35) 28 licensing order” (11.33). It is the nature of power Milton places under scrutiny, not Parliament’s intent, by negating the too simple binary formulation of good pitted against evil in battle. Through aligning Parliament with other authors Milton attempts to coax Parliament into viewing themselves as creators of texts, hopefully leading to a more sympathetic approach, from Parliamentarian authors, to the free production and circulation of texts by other authors.. In The Tenure, Milton again champions the English people while also posing the English citizens as their own redeemers from tyrannous rule. Milton breaks away from the absolutist or divine right theory that all kings, whether contributing to the well-being of their countries or not, are divinely ordained by God as the rulers of a country. Although Milton bases his political ideologies on these values, he extends them by placing the people’s political fate within “human power … to execute the wrath of God” since “all men naturally were borne free” simply having to elect a ruler to “bind each other from mutual injury” (8). Milton also considers it completely lawful – according to Biblical guidelines – for the private citizen to rid the country of a tyrannical king once the king breaks the contract of trust with the people by becoming selfserving (9)..

(36) 29 Although “the Sword of Justice” hangs over a tyrant in the hand of anyone who has “sufficient power to avenge the effusion, and so great a deluge of blood” (8) Milton considers it his “dutie … to bestow on” good men “better instruction” and motivate them to remain “just and pious … adhering with all thir strength and assistance to the present Parlament and Army” (6). Yet Milton’s entire discussion about the legitimacy of deposing those in power could just as well apply to the new Parliament where the “Worthies” are to be “swett and labour’d out amidst the throng and noises of Vulgar and irrational men” who are “contesting for privileges, customs and forms, and that old entanglement of Iniquity” (4). As in Areopagitica, Milton contemplates the nature of power rather than articulating royalist or republican ideologies. He maintains “that the contract between subject and sovereign is continually subject to negotiation” (Kahn 96).. Ironically, Milton uses the same pacifying discourse that he accuses “bad men” (The Tenure 3) of using when placating and serving tyrants. Milton praises the “wisdom, vertue, and magnanimity” of “Parlament and Military Councel” (33) if they were to bring the king to justice without precedent while simultaneously pacifying the Presbyterian opposition by claming to “believe very many to be good and faithfull Christians, though misled by som turbulent.

(37) 30 spirit” (34). Although Milton does not unambiguously explain who could be considered to be these “bad men” (3), since he depicts both supporters and opponents of the king as inherently noble, his concern is not over who is in the right, but rather attempts to maintain a lively discussion about power by providing arguments for both sides’ positions. Milton uses praise, not only to make himself heard, as in Areopagitica, but also to indicate that the problems surrounding power are more complex by avoiding simplistic categories of good or bad for the opposing voices. He makes it clear that he does not serve tyrants with his praise – he challenges the ideologies of the subjects or supporters of all parties.. In A Second Defence Milton aligns himself with the English citizens who killed their king, proudly announcing himself as author on the title page: “By John Milton: Englishman” (549). He immediately praises the ordinary citizens for their “virtue and nobility” in “free[ing] the state from grievous tyranny” (549). Milton also discredits his opponents by, not only attacking their reputations, but by focussing on his own “glorious achievements” (550) which has led to him “and no other [to be] deemed equal to a foe of such repute … [and] was offered … the task of publicly defending … the cause of the English people and thus of Liberty herself” (549)..

(38) 31 Milton refines the concept of the ordinary English citizen as hero by listing the virtuous qualities of individual persons who contributed to the removal of the monarch. What is most interesting is his heroic descriptions of John Bradshaw8 and Cromwell. Both are avidly admired by Milton, although Bradshaw resisted Cromwell when the latter “abolished Commons and assumed sole power” (Roberts 638). While Bradshaw’s “noble line” (Milton, A Second Defence 638) is mentioned by Milton as supporting evidence of Bradshaw’s noble character, what appeals to Milton in Cromwell’s lineage is that he is “sprung of renowned and illustrious stock” (666) emphasising his position as “a private citizen” (666-667). Milton sees Bradshaw’s role in the king’s trial as “destined by Divinity itself” (638),9 but the esteem for Cromwell from his troops is proof of his “all-but-divine excellence” (668). Although both Bradshaw and Cromwell are described as “incorruptible” (638, 668) Bradshaw’s character elicits unambiguous praise from Milton, while his admiration for Cromwell is coloured by concern with the easily manipulated nature of power. Milton acknowledges that Cromwell might have faults, but emphasises that his actions prove Cromwell to have subjected these to self-discipline (667). To his enemies, Cromwell appears to be at once “formidable” and “merciful” (669),. 8. Bradshaw was the president of the Council of State and also presided over the king’s trial (Roberts 637). 9 Ironically the king’s claim to the throne was supported by Royalists as divinely ordained..

(39) 32 both ambiguous qualities in a ruler. What seems to remain largely unvoiced in this praise is concern over what kind of ruler Cromwell might make during peacetime, without enemies. Being “formidable” (669) is definitely a necessary attribute during war. And mercy can only be shown to a subject who realises the merciful combatant’s capacity for cruelty. It is this potential threat that makes a benevolent act appear to be merciful rather than simply kind or weak. Although Milton supports the Protectorate by claiming that they are “following the true path to liberty” (622) he still hopes that “the discipline arising from religion should overflow into the morals a n d i n s t i t u t i o n s o f t h e s t a t e ” ( 6 2 2 ) . 10 O n c e m o r e M i l t o n c o n c e a l s h i s advice and concerns with praise in order to make himself heard.. As in The Tenure, The Second Defence Milton again distinguishes between what ideologically constitutes a rightful king as opposed to a tyrant, opening a creative discourse with which to describe England’s political climate. Here he contrasts Charles with Queen Christina of Sweden, who openly admired Milton’s first Defence. Milton praises Christina’s ability to notice that he “ha[s] uttered no word against kings, but only against tyrants” (604) thus endorsing 10. Roberts explains these seemingly contradictory aspects of Milton’s ideology concerning the church and politics: “[h]e praises the attack on Episcopacy as the beginning of man’s liberation, but he insists that the state must rest upon the discipline of religion” (622). Milton also later quotes Cicero to prove that it is not “a mark of inconsistency to govern one’s sentiments … by the shifting winds of politics” as long as “the preservation of the safety of the state” (A Second Defence 643) takes precedence..

(40) 33 the people’s right to speak their minds, even when met with opposition.. It is clear from these three key texts that Milton does not rigidly support republicanism, but rather supports a governing body functioning solely for the public good, thus making the ordinary English citizen the hero who has to maintain an unconfined discourse and power over themselves by retaining the right to choose who they appoint as rulers. Milton also promotes open communication between power structures and the public, not necessarily to solve all problems regarding governance, but to maintain an open discourse in which free expression reigns – even if this causes conflict. Dzelzainis notes that Milton “may never in his life have lived under a political regime of which he could wholeheartedly approve” (Dzelzainis, ‘Milton’s Politics’ 82). The political ideologies expressed in these three texts form the basis of Milton’s concern over the nature of power and the characters of those in positions of power in his epic poem, Paradise Lost..

(41) 34 Chapter 2. Paradise Lost: Reinterpreting Heroic Values and Power Structures. The manner in which the Civil War was fought – using, not just armies, but the written word too as a weapon – and the fact that it was the way in which monarchs ruled that was under scrutiny and not the legitimacy of a particular individual’s claim to the throne of England, necessitated a new discourse with which to make sense of the political turmoil. John Milton was actively involved in the political discourse while at the same time producing texts of aesthetic value. Paradise Lost is undoubtedly the most recognised of these.. By the time Paradise Lost was published in its first form in 1667, the Protectorate had failed dismally, the monarchy was restored and Milton had been imprisoned for a couple of months for his support of the regicide (Loewenstein xii-xiv) – yet Milton never stopped his attempts to formulate his support for any form of government in which the public good enjoyed precedence. Milton’s epic, Paradise Lost, reflects not only the political turmoil of his country, but also tries to inform new ways of interpreting the conflict, in an attempt.

(42) 35 to provide a variety of possible resolutions. Unfortunately various critics have used Paradise Lost as evidence of Milton’s political allegiances. However, the mere controversy around this is indicative that Milton did not intend Paradise Lost as either a republican or a royalist text, but was rather examining the nature of power struggles and the accompanying heroic values held by society, especially as portrayed in classical literature. Milton employs classical models to legitimise this task he has set himself, using a structure already accepted by literary circles and creating certain expectations within his readers, only to subvert the norm, prompting his readers to reconsider texts celebrating flawed heroism. However, by not writing in Latin, but opting for English, Milton asserts “bourgeois Protestant nationalism over classical and aristocratic culture” (M. Wilding, ‘Introduction’ 4), a concern that is continually addressed in his political prose.. To a large extent Paradise Lost adheres to features of the classical Greek epics: the opening is “in medias res”; there is the invocation of a muse; there is a focus on “aristocratic and martial themes” revolving around “legendary heroes and their exploits”, especially the epic journey; the story is told with “long similes and epic catalogues” while “intermixing the deeds of gods and men” (Loewenstein 32). At the same time, Milton, the poet, is strongly.

(43) 36 linked with Milton, the political voice. The same concerns regarding power that Milton raises in his political prose become the thematic considerations in Paradise Lost, but rather than using narrative devices such as the characters or the setting as direct representations of political figures during this tumultuous period, Paradise Lost is completely submerged in the symbolic realm where different ideologies, not the key participants in the Revolution (like Charles and Cromwell), are represented by different characters and motifs. Therefore, the same three features that are used in his political prose are also at work in Paradise Lost: (a). a problem and its resolution, centring especially on, or associated with, the ideologies of a political figure or institution;. (b). a resolution fraught with conflicts – some creative (as in a dialectic), others destructive (as in a deadlock);. (c). unresolved conflicts concealed beneath the oversimplifying discourse of justified revolution.. Firstly, the problem starts when Satan refuses God’s rule and different heroic types are compared with each other as possible models for behaviour during conflict. While there is obvious resonance with the political situation of Milton’s time, none of the characters become exact representations of either Cromwell or.

(44) 37 Charles – they become symbols of different forms of governing oneself and one’s environment. In this way Milton exceeds the context of the English Revolution, making his concerns regarding power universal instead of limited to his own country’s predicament.. Secondly, the stalemate between God and Satan prompts God to create a new world. The conflict between God and Satan threatens the tranquillity of Eden and the Son offers himself as sacrifice to save God’s creatures. But both solutions – creating out of and during chaos, and the Son’s sacrifice – are fraught with new conflicts. Chaos becomes the symbolic space in which creativity can either thrive or implode, depending on the type of political power in control of it. The deadlock between God and Satan has put every being at risk of destruction and although Eden seems the perfect place, man’s fall becomes a necessity if the Son is to become a heroic martyr allowing conflict to become a creative dialectic in order for mankind to survive with their, often clashing, internal and external freedom intact.. Thirdly, a great deal of the conflict remains unresolved, creating uncomfortable ambiguities which Milton tries to conceal with oversimplifying discourse. This highlights Milton’s awareness of.

(45) 38 the difficult relationship between a critical writer and his more orthodox Restoration readers.. Each character embodies heroic values in different forms. This highlights the first feature prominent in both Milton’s political prose and Paradise Lost. The various battles and conflicts between the different heroic characters depict ideological problems and their resolutions England faced during the Revolution. Juxtaposing multiple heroes with each other provides multiple perspectives on the nature and operation of power and how society enables tyranny to usurp public interests. At the root of the controversy is that the often celebrated classical heroic traits, associated with the hero of the classical epic, belong to Satan.. Satan, “the enemy of God and Man” (Loewenstein 58), is introduced in the very first book as the classical epic hero. Loewenstein identifies four heroic characteristics that Satan is endowed with: Satan is “courageous, … charismatic, … a skilful rhetorician … [and he is] vengeful” (58). Even though Satan’s army has just lost a battle, their leader “with bold words/Break[s] the horrid silence” (Milton 1.82-83). Satan opens his speech by empathising with his fallen compatriot, Beelzebub. He not only acknowledges the position of power from which Beelzebub has fallen, but recognises.

(46) 39 his “equal ruin” (1.91) reflected in Beelzebub’s defeat. Yet Satan’s strong will and, according to him, “injured merit” (1.98) prevent him from “repent or change” (1.96). He continues in this defiant manner, addressing the rest of his army by claiming that they “shook his [God’s] throne” (1.105) and that they remain “unconquerable” (1.106). Satan further characterises God as the tyrant who tries with “his wrath or might [to]/Extort” their glory of courage (1.110-111) in breaking out of “the tyranny of heaven” (1.124). He believes so strongly in the power of his own words that Satan asserts mental dominance over reality, claiming that “The mind is its own place, and in itself/Can make a Heav’n of Hell, a Hell of Heav’n” (1.254-255).. This sounds uncomfortably similar to The Tenure in which Milton explains why Charles has to be executed. Although Satan’s oration appears to be quite republican, Milton’s concerns are not merely royalist or republican. He is more focussed on warning his readers that powerful rhetoric is easily used to manipulate a society into accepting the governance of a ruler bent on self-interest rather than proclaiming his allegiance in a politically limited area. Even though Milton’s speaker uses similar devices to convince readers of his own political arguments, he does so within a discourse where the free exchange of ideas is primary, the actual support of one or the other.

(47) 40 secondary. Satan, on the other hand, feigns sympathy with Beelzebub only as far as making him complicit in their vengeance and pitying his own “change in outward lustre” (1.97). Satan also never takes any of his subjects’ propositions for their next course of action into consideration. He acknowledges that “popular vote/Inclines, here to continue” (2.313-314) but dismisses this by convincing his followers to wage war on God’s new creation.. Further attention is drawn to Satan’s insincerity in his promises to create an empire of equals by nudging his reader into perceiving Satan’s powerful orations as ironic rather than admirable. Satan distorts the truth of the battle. Firstly, it was “All but the throne itself of God” (6.834) that shook and secondly, God, whom Satan painted as an awful tyrant, would easily take Satan back into heaven, should he repent. In his soliloquy in book four Satan is well aware that repentance and pardon are possible, “but [only] by submission” (4.81). Even in his defiant speech to his followers in book one, Satan is aware that they will be able to return to heaven, but for him it is “Better to reign in hell, than serve in heaven” (1.263). As powerful as Satan’s speeches appear, Milton’s readers would have been aware of Satan’s lack of heroism since he opts for “Some easier enterprise” (2.345) and Satan eventually fulfils the role of the unrepentant, heartless tyrant in pursuing the demise of.

(48) 41 mankind, rather than the role of the classical virtuous hero who takes revenge on tyrants.. M i l t o n p r o v i d e s s e v e r a l a n t i t h e s e s t o S a t a n ’ s f l a w e d h e r o i s m 11 i n t h e characters of God, Christ, Eve and even himself. Yet, Milton’s “depiction of God … [also] unsettled or antagonised [Restoration] readers of the poem” (Loewenstein 76). God is represented as the original monarch, but with republican values because he never becomes tyrannically authoritarian. At the beginning of book three, God is depicted in monarchical terms as he “sits/High throned above all height” (3.57-58) well aware of the “past, present, future” (3.78). What undercuts God’s monarchical stature is that his first words in the poem are not that of an autocratic authority, but a dialogue with his son expressing his concern over the fate of his new creation. God draws Christ’s attention to Satan’s schemes, initiating a productive conversation in which the other party would be able to offer advice and perform damage control once God’s creation becomes part of the stalemate between heaven and hell.. 11. Satan’s heroism is flawed, even according to classical standards. Instead of attacking God directly, he chooses to prey on God’s creation. Worse than that, he takes revenge on a woman, traditionally seen as the weaker sex. Therefore, Satan’s victory is tainted with his cowardice, bullying the weaker rather than honourably being defeated by an equal adversary (M. Wilding, ‘The Last of the Epics’ 190)..

(49) 42 In contrast with this is the Parliament in hell, where Satan assumes the role of absolute ruler. Various demons propose solutions to Satan’s problems, but there is never an open discussion, making the debate “mere window-dressing” (M. Wilding, ‘The Parliament of Hell’ 216). Satan simply dismisses the other demons’ opinions and follows his own proposal of exploring “the happy seat/Of some new race called Man” (2.347-348). Although Satan is also represented as a monarch – “High on a throne of royal state … Satan exalted sat” (2.1,5) – he is a tyrant that has no interest in sharing power with his peers. God’s willingness to enter into a dialogue with his Son concerning his own rule, is presented as an alternative heroic act to Satan’s acts of autonomy. This indicates that Milton did not simply oppose a monarchical form of government but was more concerned with forms of government that led to tyranny. This is why he praises Queen Christina’s observation that he “[h]as uttered no word against kings, but only tyrants” (The Second Defence 604). This highlights that any form of government, be it republican or monarchical, can become corrupt.. Milton, therefore, depicts God as a monarchical republican probably aware that this ambiguous depiction, and the fact that he represents G o d a s a c h a r a c t e r 12 i n h i s e p i c , m i g h t s i t u n c o m f o r t a b l y w i t h s o m e. 12. Rogers argues that God does not form part of Milton’s various representations of heroism since God is not really an epic character (168). He.

(50) 43 orthodox readers. Milton deliberately juxtaposes God and Satan – although God is presented more sympathetically than Satan, the contrast is not as great as one would expect. This is not, however, an indication of Milton’s rejection of the Christian religion, but rather Milton prompting his readers to question powerful religious institutions and the political motives behind their belief systems (Loewenstein 82). We see this in book three where God and his Son debate theological issues such as “divine justice, free will, sufficient grace, determinism, and providential foreknowledge” (Loewenstein 77). God’s anxiety and anger over man’s betrayal is completely justified – a third of his own angels could not remain faithful and it is foreseeable that Adam and Eve will definitely fail.. Yet, it seems as if God tries to justify his very rigid decrees to his sympathetic Son. God oscillates between being the supreme ruler and making humankind “authors to themselves” (Milton, Paradise Lost 3.122), struggling with his own emotions surrounding mercy and justice, free will and providential foreknowledge, asking his son “whose fault” (3.96) man’s fall will be. God’s concern with his new creation seems to threaten his omnipotence, since he argues that. bases this claim on the fact that God does not inhabit a definite space in the poem. Yet, the opening of Book three places God on his throne in heaven. Besides, whether God is an epic character or not, he still becomes representative of an alternative form of heroism. Milton blames his own fallen state for any blasphemous undertones picked up by the reader without solving any of the ambiguities present in his use of God as a character..

(51) 44 because the humans were created “just and right,/Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall” (3.98-99) predestination and “high foreknowledge” (3.116) cannot keep them from sin. The danger also exists that God appears to be desperately looking for excuses to shift blame for man’s disobedience away from himself. Attributing human emotions and failures to a divine being could be construed as blasphemous.. However, the narrator makes it very clear from the outset of the epic that he is part of the fallen human race, partaking in their collective “woe” (1.3) and it is therefore necessary to call on the “Heavenly Muse” (1.5) for inspiration (1.7) and illumination (1.23). For this reason any blasphemy is attributable to his fallen status and not really a representation of God as fallible. Yet his fallen state does not only align the narrator with the rest of mankind, but draws some uncomfortable parallels between him and Satan. Book one starts with the narrator invoking the “Heav’nly Muse … on the secret top/Of Oreb (1.6-7). From there the narrator follows Satan being “Hurl’d headlong flaming from th’Ethereal Sky/With hideous ruin and combustion down/To bottomless perdition” (1.45-47) to listen in on Hell’s council. This downward spiral in the text already starts with the mention of mankind’s fall.

(52) 45 from grace (1.29-30). This draws a parallel, not only between Milton and Satan, but between all humans and Satan.. This parallel only extends to humankind’s fall. After the fall Adam and Eve are willing to repent and carry the burden of their punishments. After much guilt-ridden anguish they humble themselves before each other and God. It is their renunciation of pride, the acceptance of their guilt, and their willingness to repent that distinguishes them from Satan and allows a productive dialectic to continue to exist between them and God.. In representations of these key characters – God, man and Satan – the focus is more on the symbolic representation of the potential failure of political systems rather than on actual heroic beings. The most admirable heroes are God’s Son and Eve. Christ, the merciful s i d e o f G o d ’ s w r a t h , 13 b e c o m e s t h e c o m p l e t e a n t i t h e s i s o f S a t a n a n d the very first Christian martyr. It is his sacrifice and not his political rhetoric that highlights him as the ultimate hero. He challenges God, without becoming rebellious, arguing that by allowing “the adversary … obtain/His end, and frustrate thine 13. Although Milton appears to be anti-Trinitarian since God and the Son are featured as individual characters, where God is superior and the Son acts as a representation of the gentler heroic qualities God does not display, together they appear to embody the perfect ruler. Milton also splits them because he aims to depict a political system in which different ideologies are capable of maintaining a discussion rather than one system autocratically silencing the other’s discourse..

(53) 46 [God’s]” (3.156-156) that Satan would have achieved his revenge against God with man as the collateral damage, leaving God’s “goodness and … greatness … without defence” (3.165-166). His response to God’s concern creates the possibility of “an evolving dialectic” (M. Wilding, ‘The Parliament of Hell’ 216) between the two deities and God agrees to enter into a partnership with man where those who want to be saved will find God’s grace available.. But for this God needs a sacrifice. The silence in heaven matches the silence in hell after Satan asked for a volunteer to go on a perilous journey to Eden. Yet God also remains inactive. He does not match Satan’s heroism in taking up the challenge himself. The Son, however, outshines Satan’s epic action of bringing the whole of mankind to a fall, by saving God’s entire creation. The narrator also describes the Son’s heroism without the ambiguities used to admire Satan’s valour. The Son’s enormous sacrifice is countered by “his meek aspéct” (Milton, Paradise Lost 3.266) rather than pride, and his “immortal love/To mortal men” (3.267-268) is complemented by “[f]ilial obedience” (3.269) rather than a selfish desire to rule.. Eve’s sincere reconciliatory character is what emphasises her heroic status in contrast with the other characters, especially Adam. After.

(54) 47 the fall Adam chooses to shift the majority of the blame onto Eve – unlike Christ who volunteered to take the burden of responsibility on himself – while Eve humbly confesses that “The serpent me beguiled and I did eat” (10.162). Even after Adam cruelly calls Eve a “defect/Of nature” (10.891-892) trying to blame her alone for their fall, Eve “at his feet/Fell humble, … [and] besought/His peace” (10.911-914) confessing her unwavering devotion to him. Eve’s heroism becomes the measure of earthly power. Himy considers “the main foundation of power [to] reside in the virtue of the subject” (121). Eve’s actions of reconciliation is what opens up the possibilities of regaining what mankind has lost. She sacrifices her pride by subjecting herself to Adam’s mercy. Thus, some of Adam’s power is not restored by his own repentance but by Eve’s selfless nature, ironically “disarm[ing]” (Milton, Paradise Lost 10.945) Adam, forcing him to restore some of her own power by raising her up as an equal.. Milton provides his reader with various heroic models, prompting them rather to admire the heroic martyrs, Christ and Eve, who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of mankind, than Satan, the classical hero, who uses the appearance of virtue to manipulate his peers into subjection. By endowing Satan with heroic qualities, the text foregrounds ambiguous qualities within those.

(55) 48 with power. To become a ruler one must certainly initially have some characteristics the public deem heroic. However, man’s corruptible nature could destroy even the noblest form of government. This is why Milton never blindly supports the Protectorate. While praising Cromwell’s heroic formidableness and capacity for mercy in The Tenure (669), Milton remains wary of the potential for tyranny within all power.. As in his political prose Milton even portrays himself as the champion. Through his speaker, Milton champions God’s cause by “assert[ing] Eternal providence/And justify[ing] the ways of God to men” (1.25-26). But to avoid alienating his readers by posing himself as liberator, Milton constantly invokes his own fallen state by referring to “our grand parents” (1.29) and invokes the “heavenly Muse” (1.6) to “Instruct[,] … Illumine, … [and] raise and support” (1.19, 23) “what in [him] is dark … [and] low” (1.17-18) thus aligning himself with his readers’ own limited understanding of God’s ways. It is only through divine inspiration that the narrator is able to take on such an enormous enterprise. At the same time this divine inspiration threatens once more to distance readers from the narrator. By comparing himself to Moses (1.8), the narrator depicts himself as a solitary guide to the people who, alone, is worthy of.

(56) 49 divine interaction. This tension between being part of mankind and champion of the people is never fully resolved.. The different resolutions to Satan’s corrupt heroics – the second feature Paradise Lost shares with Milton’s political prose – are, however, fraught with new conflicts. Some conflicts become a creative dialectic, while the rest form a destructive deadlock. The battle between God and Satan reaches a stalemate and spills over onto the earth. But rather than leading to the utter destruction of this newly created utopia, man’s fall and journey into dystopia becomes necessary for a creative dialectic, growing out of the crisis, in which the potential for development within conflict becomes the solution, not another tension to be dissolved.. The descriptions of chaos function on both the level of creative dialectic and destructive deadlock, providing “the most legible, if curious, space for Milton’s ongoing struggle to articulate a satisfactory ontology of the ideal body politic” (Rogers, ‘Chaos, Creation, and the Political Science’ 109). Chaos is both a necessity for creation and progress, and an anarchic, destructive force.. Contrary to the orthodox Christian belief that states that God created the world out of nothing, creation is represented as chaos.

(57) 50 empowered by God to order and mould itself. God rode “into chaos” (Milton, Paradise Lost 7.220) to spread “His brooding wings … And vital virtue infused, and vital warmth/Throughout the fluid mass” (7.235-237). Here “Milton’s chaos … functions to demonstrate the importance of the assertion of sovereign authority” (Rogers, ‘Chaos, Creation, and Political Science’ 132). Paradise Lost highlights that this authority needs to separate itself from its subject for the subject to flourish. After impregnating chaos, God removes himself to only oversee the birth of his new world, before returning “Up to the heaven of heavens his high abode,/Thence to behold this new created world” (Milton, Paradise Lost 7.553-554). Davis notes that chaos is also “in some sense, the primal stuff out of which the poem is made” (173). The tumultuous politics of the English Revolution, albeit destructive for the monarchy, opened discussion on the nature of power and provided Milton with a wealth of material for his political prose and his poetry.. However, “to fall – in the poem’s narrative design an irreclaimable crossing of a threshold – is to allow too much of the chaotic in oneself to escape the sway of creative control” (Davis 174). Satan becomes the focaliser in his journey to the earth and the reader is drawn in to see chaos through Satan’s eyes. Satan notices a globe far off … Dark, waste, and wild, under the frown of Night.

No results found