Liana Willis

Prof. David Anderson

English 4553
13 December 2012

Freely we serve/ Because we freely love: The Politics of Love in John Miltons
Paradise Lost
!

Since politics in Paradise Lost is an issue yet to be resolved among Milton

scholars, as the basis of my own argument I want to begin with a Miltonic intention any
reader of Paradise Lost can be sure to find: theodicy. As the poet states in Book I, his
goal in writing the poem is to justify the ways of God to men (25). One way Milton
attempts to justify God is by politicizing the cosmos in which he rules. God is
portrayed as a monarch, operating on absolutist monarchial principles while, in
contrast, Satan is portrayed as a tyrant, hiding behind his sophistic use of republican
ideals. Thus Milton, through his use of politics, presents to the reader a hierarchy that
not only sustains on a cosmic, theological level, but on a political one as well. That is to
say, both the cosmic and the political questions are conflated in the poem, allowing for
Miltons metaphysical principles to be seen as his political principles too.
!

These political ideals are evoked through many of Miltons characters, both

divine and human. Since the hierarchical structure of Miltons cosmos is also political,
one may be able to discern Miltons political views by analyzing these epic characters
who represent competing ideologies. Though there are many such characters to choose
from, I will discuss in this essay two of the most prominent examples: Satan and the
Son of God. I will examine the juxtaposition between the two in order to decipher

Willis 2

Miltons political views as presented in Paradise Lost. Though it will be seen that
varying interpretations exist regarding Miltons politics in his poem, my focus on the
internal merits these two characters embody will portray one of Miltons undeniable
ideals: Politics does not have an ethical system of its own, justifiable only on the basis
of a rulers self-serving logic. Rather, it is inextricably linked to a more elevated political
reality that aligns with the Christian paradigm instead of seeking to transform it, as
Satan does. For Milton, all true and virtuous political thought must come from an
acknowledgment of general Christian morality which is portrayed through a
recognition of the merits of the Son of God, a recognition partially achieved by also
setting up a stark contrast between the Son of God and Satan.
!

How do we connect Miltons adamant political views seen in his prose with the

ambiguous ones we encounter in Paradise Lost? Thus one of the first issues to address in
the poem is the lack of or, if present, ambiguous notions of republicanism. We know
from many of Miltons political tracts that a republic was his ideal form of government.
The title of one of Miltons most famous tracts, The Ready and Easy Way to Establish a Free
Commonwealth, exhibits this fact. Yet republican ideals seem to be absent in Paradise
Lost because they are not presented in any obvious way. There seems to be an example
of a republic, but, interestingly and problematically, it is associated with Satan and the
host of Hell. If considering this issue of Miltons political ideals in Paradise Lost, one
must deal with this seemingly apparent contradiction of republican values. Is he

Willis 3

mocking the failure of the Rump parliament? Is he not? Does he have an unclear and
therefore problematic understanding of what a true republic consists of? These are all
relevant questions.!
!

However, one can perhaps understand this lack of usual republican principles by

first simply focusing on historical precedent. Thomas N. Corns notes in Uncloistered

Virtue: English Political Literature from 1640-1660 that regicide, not republicanism,
predominates in the pamphleteering of revolutionary Independency throughout 1649.
The vision is trained backwards, on the act and on events leading to it, rather than
forwards to the new ideological terrain of government without kingship (195). While
Corns is interested in Miltons prose, particularly the Tenure of Kings and Magistrates and
Eikonoklastes, I believe this same idea could also be applied to Paradise Lost. While
Milton wrote the poem in the 1660s, a decade or so later than the time period Corns
discusses, Cornss observation that politically active thinkers like Milton were, after the
execution of Charles, primarily concerned with the justification of the regicide is also a
possible train of thought in Paradise Lost. I do not mean to suggest that Milton is still
specifically trying to justify the execution of King Charles in his poem, though it may be
a possibility. Rather, I believe that this same seeming lack of concern in portraying
political ideals and forms of government is felt by readers because Milton is focused
forward rather than backward as he was in the 1640s. The subject matter itself
points forward and to a future time and place that will guarantee political stability--

Willis 4

One Kingdom, Joy and Union without end-- and, importantly, a time and place that
will embody the standards of Christian justice and morality (Book VII, ll. 161).
!

Furthermore, as Milton states in the beginning of Paradise Lost, he is setting out to

justify the ways of God to men. Although he does not say explicitly that a
justification of mankinds ways is also called for, politics is just as much a crucial issue
for Milton at the time of writing Paradise Lost. Indeed, as we have seen in class, the
fallin days he references in Book VII is proof that while the poem is just as epic as
he promises in scope, he is not ignorant of the slice of cosmos he sees degenerating all
around him. As he laments in Book II:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

O shame to men! Devil with Devil damnd

Firm concord holds, men only disagree
Of Creatures rational, though under hope
Of heavenly Grace; and God proclaiming peace,
Yet live in hatred, enmity, and strife
Among themselves, and levy cruel wars,
Wasting the Earth, each other to destroy:
As if (which might induce us to accord)
Man had not hellish foes anow besides,
That day and night for his destruction wait. (496-505)

The disgrace for Milton lies within the fact that so much of the worlds preoccupations
lie in the affairs of men, which leads to hatred, enmity, and strife / Among
themselves, and not to mention cruel wars as a consequence. They should instead,
as he says, induce themselves to accord and work toward the eternal peace and
unity the Son of God promises in Paradise Lost-- an Earth changd to Heavn, and
Heavn to Earth / One Kingdom, Joy and Union without end (Book VII, ll. 161-62).

Willis 5

Moreover, such peace is only attainable if mankind submit to what the gist of the poem
does explicitly portray: Gods will, which will compel the believer towards the true
divine ethic, that is to say, the very virtues that would, in an ideal world, induce
humanity to accord as Milton insists we should. These political ideals are expressed
through two personas who embody two types of virtue--the Son of God and Satan-- and
whose oppositional, contending political ideals of Heaven and Hell expose, if not
Miltons republicanism, at the very least, his stout anti-monarchism.
!

Among the many scholars who posit that Miltons anti-monarchist principles

maintain throughout Paradise Lost is Barbara Lewalski. In her article Paradise Lost and
Miltons Politics she maintains that Milton, though portraying God and the Son of God
as essentially promoting a monarchy, remains a republican. She writes:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

Monarchy is justified only when the king is vastly superior to the rest, but
that condition seldom obtains, and when it does it should not: monarchy,
and especially absolute monarchy, Milton came increasingly to believe, is
a debased form of government only suited to a servile, debased people.
Properly, government should be shared among the large body of worthy
citizens who are virtuous and love liberty: as he put it in the First
Defense, It is neither fitting nor proper for a man to be king unless he be
far superior to all the rest; where there are many equals, and in most states
there are very many, I hold they should rule alike and in turn. (142)

If monarchy is only justified when the king is vastly superior to the rest, it stands to
reason, as it does for Milton, that the only person who is qualified is God himself. On
Earth, however, politics operate differently. Men, all made in the likeness of God and all
alike in their fallenness, are essentially equal and thus should rule alike and in turn.

Willis 6

Furthermore, Milton believes that, as Lewalski summarizes, earthly kingship is

idolatry in that the king usurps a role belonging only to God and his Son, and it is a
tyranny because the king exercises wrongful dominion over those who are for the most
part every way equal or superior to himself (YP 7:429) and goes on to state that, on
this understanding, kings themselves are the greatest rebels against God, and rebelling
against kings may be piety to God (143)1.
!

However, such a statement seems to confirm that Satan is an admirable

revolutionary hero since he is the first person to rebel against kingship. But this is not at
all Lewalskis insight nor is it Miltons intention. Satans espousal of republican ideals
are used in an effort to gain exactly the opposite: tyrannical rule. The temptation scene
in heaven is just one of many examples Milton offers:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

... if I trust
To know ye right, or if ye know yourselves
Natives and Sons of Heavn possest before
By none, and if not equal all, yet free
Equally free; for Orders and Degrees
Jar not with liberty, but well consist.
Who can in reason then or right assume
Monarchy over such as live by right
His equals, if in power and splendor less,
In freedom equal? or can introduce
Law and Edict on us, who without law

In the chapter Milton The Republican in The Development of Miltons Political Thought: Law, Government, and
Religion, John T. Shawcross discusses the complexities and apparent contradictions of Miltons republicanism,
particularly in his definition of who, exactly, is a part of the people. Shawcross finds that Miltons elitism as
expressed in his polemical tracts is hard to disengage from the seemingly contradictory republican argumentation he
offers. Yet he does not find it a limitation, but rather a striking reflection of the political tumult occurring at the time.
Shawcross does not seek to elucidate but rather point out the tangent political issues, an important aspect to consider
in any analysis of Miltons politics, however, since his intention is to explain the history surrounding his work rather
than his literary works themselves, I will refrain from taking up this additional (though fascinating) issue.

Willis 7

!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!

Err not? much less for this to be our Lord,

And look for adoration to th abuse
Of those Imperial Titles which assert
Our being ordaind to govern, not to serve? (Book V, ll. 782-802)

Satan seems to offer a logical argument, one that consistently professes the very same
republican ideals Milton possesses. But it is only a sophistic resemblance. Satans logic
compels him to believe that if they are all equals then they all have equal opportunity to
govern, not to serve. But service is precisely the quality that God honors his Son with
in Book III when he offers himself as intercessor for mankind, a position that will
necessitate a literal self-sacrifice. Unlike Satan, this deathly prospect does not interfere
with the Sons will to serve God, nor does the promise of political promotion to Gods
right hand because for the Son, and for all true rulers, governing and serving are one
and the same (Buhler, 50). Buhler goes on to claim that:
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!

The exaltation of the Son in Book III, in fact, makes this identity explicit:
the Son will become man, will suffer and die, in order to save/ A world
from utter loss (III, 307-08). Willing self-sacrifice is the cornerstone of the
Sons monarchy... it is the Humiliation--the humbling oneself, the self
sacrifice, the service-- which constitutes not only the authority of this
throne but all true authority. (50)

But Satan does not define power in this way. The Satanic mentality, rather than seek to
serve others, necessarily believes such voluntary subjection to be prostration vile and
see[s] power as something which must be seized and titles as conferring, rather than
reflecting, power and responsibility, as God and the rest of the heavenly host do

Willis 8

(Buhler, 58). 2 Thus, while Satan espouses republican ideals, he does not mean them and
as the scene plays out, it demonstrates yet more decisively the fallacy of the royalist
claim that rebellion against kings is rebellion against God, by showing that kings and
aspirants to kingship are the true rebels as is Satan (emphasis mine) (Lewalski, 155).
!

Though the juxtaposition is clear between them--one seeking to serve and the

other seeking to rule-- the comparison is not yet finished. Why does Satan find himself
unable to serve God? What does service actually mean for Milton? It is not enough to
say that the Son of God, by virtue of being the Son of God, is thus really portraying
Miltons true political ideals. Buhler notes that Milton follows the Aristotelian principle
which asserts nothing in the state is more just, nothing more expedient, than the rule of
the man most fit to rule (YP IV, pp. 671-72) (49). The Son of God represents Miltons
true political disposition because of the merit-- the aspects of what it means to be the
most fit to Milton--he inherently embodies. Thus, if we are to understand what
proper politics is for Milton, we must then define the particular virtues God recognizes
within the Son, and which leads to his appointment as King.
!

Many scholars posit that the service the Son of God exemplifies is the ultimate

manifestation of perfect obedience to Gods will and that such obedience is seen as the

Buhler goes on to talk about the concern with the name, not the meaning as often ascribed to the Stuart
monarchy and its apologists and in so doing provides excerpts from Miltons apologist contemporaries works.
However, Buhler reaffirms that Milton had drawn sharp distinctions between noble titles and performances... For
Milton titles reward those who have already served the people, and oblige others to engage in true service (60). The
counterargument is still worth taking into account, especially if one is analyzing Paradise Lost from a more historical
approach.
2

Willis 9

prime virtue of meritocratic rule which Milton admires and which God seeks to honor.
Stanley Fish concisely states this in How Milton Works:
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!

In Miltons world, however, there are no moral ambiguities, because

there are no equally compelling values. There is only one value-- the
value of obedience-- and not only is it a mistake to grant independence to
values other than the value of obedience, it is a temptation. Indeed, it is
the temptation-- the temptation to seek a separate, self-sustaining
existence-- that Milton obsessively explores. (emphasis mine) (53)

While I do agree Milton returns again and again to the temptation of a self-sustaining
existence, (in fact, it is this obvious tendency that has tempted readers to assert, to the
chagrin of scholars who disagree on the other end of the Miltonic spectrum, that Milton
was of the devils party without knowing it) I do not agree that the value of
obedience is only valuable so as to provide a safeguard against the temptation of false
values. It is part of the issue, as I will discuss in analyzing the particular fallacies
associated with the Satanic worldview, but it is not all. Fishs position ignores a much
more enriching and humanistic aspect of Miltons portrayal of the Sons perpetual
obedience. While his position is one that veers towards a conceptualization of the
relationship between God and his creatures as rational servitude, Miltons conception of
obedience is not only rational, but emotional too.
!

There is no better place to illustrate this dual nature of obedience than in the

argument that occurs between Satan and Abdiel in Book VI. Satan maintains that
though at first [he] thought that Liberty and Heavn / To heavenly Souls had been all
one he sees the Minstrelsy of Heavn as slothfully choosing to serve (ll. 164-168). He

Willis 10

believes the war to be one between two opposing sides: Servility with freedom to
contend (169). Abdiel refutes him:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

Apostate, still thou errst, nor end wilt find

Of erring, from the path of truth remote:
Unjustly thou depravst it with the name
Of Servitude to serve whom God ordains,
Or Nature; God and Nature bid the same,
When he who rules is worthiest, and excels
Them whom he governs. This is servitude,
To serve th unwise, or him who hath rebelld
Against his worthier, as thine now serve thee,
Thyself not free, but to thyself enthralld. (172-183)

In stark contrast to Satan, Abdiel freely serves God because he knows God is
worthiest by Nature3. He also points out one of the many Satanic paradoxes:
Satan is not at all free because he serves himself. He serves someone who is
incompetent, unwise, and not worthy of anything, especially political superiority.
He rightly suggests that Satan is enthralld with himself, and therefore is not free.
Those who are truly free are those whose Reason tells them that God is the worthiest.
Satan abides by a logical fallacy--the idea that severing the connection with God
guarantees liberty-- and thus disallows himself true freedom. Satans voluntary

In Images of Kingship in Paradise Lost: Miltons Politics and Christian Liberty, Davies examines this acknowledged
relationship between the angels and God as employing, not images of royalist kinship, but rather feudalism. He
defends this interpretation quite well:
!
The assumption is that a feudal monarchy is just as repulsive as an oriental despotism, involving an
!
automatic reduction of the many by the one. Yet though feudalism is a conservative structure (and therefore
!
perhaps inherently appropriate for the representation of a state of perfect changelessness), it is not
!
identifiable with a condition of servitude, for in its pure form feudalism proposed a system of mutual
!
responsibilities; a closely interlocking system of classes, each with its unique function, for all of whose good
!
the ruler was responsible (13)
This generous view of feudalism exposes the merit behind the ideal form of system. It is worth noting for its unique
turn on heavenly monarchy and, though problematic since feudalism is seen as he states above, offers insight into the
rigidity of Miltons politics as having a moral basis.
3

Willis 11

disconnection with the cosmic hierarchy defies the pecking order of creation and since
liberty for Milton preceded order and was a condition of it, such a voluntary
disconnection revokes his claim to true liberation that is only attainable through God
(Davies, 135)4 . Paradoxically, he is thus condemned by God to heap on himself
damnation as Gods will /And high permission of all-ruling Heaven will bring
forth / Infinite goodness, grace and mercy shown via the the Son of God whom Satan
so ardently disdains (Bk. I, ll. 210-220). In this way Satans rationale is proved by Abdiel
to be false and inherently irrational as Satan refuses to accept what true Reason should
tell him: God is almighty and the guarantor of liberty.
!

But while Satans inherent logical fallacies only confirm Gods rule on the basis

of what is logical, there is also an emotional aspect that needs to be considered. Abdiel
and the rest of the unfallen angels do not only choose to serve God due to a staunch
adherence to what is logical, but also because they recognize the goodness within him. If
it were only an issue of obeying who should be obeyed based on pure reason, Abdiel
would not have bothered to assert that God is worthy of the service they willingly
offer him. Just as God recognizes merit in the Son, so too do the angels recognize it in

!
!
!
!
!
!
!

Once again, Davies astutely notes this relationship, within a feudal framework, as vassalage:
Vassalage was a sign of the highest virtue and freedom. The chief owed the vassal liberality (beneficium),
and, in return, the vassal owed service, but not that of the serf, whose service was hereditary and unfree and
who paid no homage. This system, though Milton could not have desired it for earth, has an obvious beauty
when transferred to the heavenly sphere. The lord is the Lord himself. In requiring homage from his vassal,
he connects them organically to himself. What he gives he rescinds only if loyalty is withdrawn, as Satan
withdrew his. He makes no serfs, though Satan imagined himself servile and broke Gods peace with a
baronial feud. (emphasis mine) (131)

Willis 12

God. This reciprocal relationship, in which all beings recognize one another as
essentially good, is explained beautifully by Fish as, in a word, unity:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

[...] Those who find their happiness in service... are unified-- that is,
without division. There is no division between their desires and the will
of God; their desire is to do the will of God... There is no division between
their head and heart, between their thoughts and their feelings; what they
feel is the urgency and joy of service and service is what they think about.
There is no division between their insides and outside.... In short, for such
a unified being, what you believe is what you are is what you know is
what you say is what you do. (39-41)

Since there is no division between their head and heart, between their thoughts and
feelings, this unity between God and his creatures is equated with the uniformity of
Reason as well as Feeling--a feeling which Milton defines as love. The angels
affirmation of God as Almighty is at also simultaneously a recognition of themselves as
part of that hierarchy. They do not perceive themselves as ignoble servants but as a
glorious part of a larger entity which bestows upon them all manner of goodness which
is, as it is for Adam and Eve, paradise. While Fish (as seen in his previous statement on
page 9) believes obedience to be for Milton a value in itself, Miltons view is actually a
bit more nuanced. Raphael describes God to Adam as, Him whom to love is to
obey, (Book VIII, ll. 634). Through Raphael, Milton insists there is essentially another
component which reciprocally gives obedience its value: love. Obedience and love are
not mutually exclusive, they are inextricably linked.

Willis 13

Love is precisely the merit which the Son of God exemplifies in his volunteering

to receive the wrath of God and the weight of Adam and Eves sin. God honors him,
saying:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

By Merit more than Birthright Son of God,

Found worthiest to be so by being Good,
Far more than Great or High; because in thee
Love hath abounded more than Glory abounds,
Therefore thy Humiliation shall exalt
With thee thy Manhood also to this Throne;
Here shalt thou sit incarnate, here shalt Reign
Both God and Man, Son both of God and Man,
Anointed universal King. (Bk. III, ll. 309-322)

Milton is unambiguous here. More than Birthright exalts the Son of God to a higher
political position. It is his merit, his Love that abound[s] more than Glory abounds,
which grants him his promotion. Buhler puts it succinctly:
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!

The obedience which Satan rejects, and which Abdiel cannot fully justify,
is adherence to the great commandment the Son delivers in the Gospel of
John before embodying it himself: That ye love one another, as I have
loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his
life for his friends (John xv, 12-13). That self-sacrifice is enacted, in
Paradise Lost, in the offer which leads to the Sons exaltation... (52)

Satan is the anomaly that must be considered as he is the first being to deny unity in
favor of atheism which, as has been noted, is not only a fallacy in Abdiels eyes but
Miltons as well. But what compels him to commit to irrationality? In Book I the
narrative voice tells us that Satans primary ambition in instigating the war in Heaven,
to set himself in Glory above his Peers, thinking that he equalld the most High (ll.
38-39). Once again, we observe the binary maintained between the Son of God and

Willis 14

Satan: one is bent on glory, the other on service. Furthermore, rather than repent and
ask for forgiveness, he concludes that it is better to reign in Hell, than serve in
Heavn, and thus becomes obdurate in hate; the opposite of the Son of Gods love
(Book II, 264).
!

Satans obduracy is a byproduct of his choice to commit to an existence, at least

within his perverted perception of reality, as separate from God. In juxtaposition with
the Son and the unfallen angels like Abdiel, it reveals an aspect of his mentality that
serves as the antithesis of what Milton (and God) perceive as right, just, and logical, and
which extends to the political. Margo Swiss offers important insights regarding Satans
obduracy and what it means:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

Self-protective obduracy debars Satan from all relation with God. In

refusing to commune with the Logos, Satans ungodly rationalizations,
whether they are pathetic or tragic, are also illogical. Fallen logic is,
through its own rebelliousness, condemned to eternal rebuttal. That he
does not communicate logically is clearly not an issue of capacity but of
volition. It is Satans will and not his ability which is defective.
Communion with God means death to Satan and to the revolutionary
ideal which is his raison detre. The obdurate heart will not commune;
loneliness becomes its only option. (59)

Swiss emphasizes that Satans logic is not to be blamed so much as his will. This is an
important distinction to make since the reader encounters, time and again, the amazing
breadth and intelligence of Satans arguments that clearly rely on some sort of
intelligibility in order to strike the reader at all. It is Satans choice, a choice contingent
upon the Will that is connected to ones Reason. It is an illogical choice that indicates

Willis 15

both a defect of heart (his feeling now solidified in hate) and head (the illogical nature
of his atheistic claims) . Moreover, it is all internalized within Satan, thus, as he cries out
famously in Book IV:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

Hadst thou the same free Will and Power to stand?

Thou hadst: whom hast thou then or what to accuse,
But Heavns free Love dealt equally to all?
Be then his Love accurst, since love or hate,
To me alike, it deals eternal woe.
Nay cursd be thou; since against his thy will
Chose freely what it now so justly rues.
Me miserable! which way shall I fly
Infinite wrath, and infinite despair?
Which way I fly is Hell; myself am Hell;
And in the lowest deep a lower deep
Still threatning to devour me opens wide,
To which the Hell I suffer seems a Heavn.
O then at last relent: is there no place
Left for Repentance, none for Pardon left?
None left but by submission; and that word
Disdain forbids me. (emphasis mine) (ll. 66-82)

Satan is thus the embodiment of all hellish virtue, offering a parodic parallel to the Son
of God who is the embodiment of all that is heavenly and right. He is, himself, Hell.
Hell is not only a place, as Satan realizes, but also a way of being that threatens to
devour [him]. Indeed it already seems to have consumed him in this moment as he
refutes what God and the rest of the unfallen angels conform to, a way of being which
relies upon persistence of heavenly values-- love and service, manifested through
obedience--and which Satan hates. He curses love since to [him] it deals eternal woe,
because he recognizes that, though it is the key to salvation, he will never stoop to

Willis 16

submission because stooping--prostration vile--is exactly what he has assured himself

he will never do.
!

Satan must now attempt to justify his rationale in order to cope with what he is

crestfallen to realize: his utter loss of what was once his own version of Paradise. He
must now make assertions of autonomy (as seen in Book VI) or espouse the qualities of
liberty and republican rhetoric (in Book V), not only in an attempt to gain power
through the strength of his cunning, but also because, as Fish notes:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

[O]nce particulars are separated from the larger context that stabilized
their identities, value, and meaning, there opens up the possibility of
assigning (or claiming) other identities, inventing plural values, and
discovering many (perhaps conflicting) meanings; there opens up, in
short, a space or gap in which one can search for what has been lost or
missed, a search that would be unnecessary had the initial error-- the
breaking of union, the worship of false gods, the desire to be God, the
substitution of plural meanings for Gods meaning-- never been made...
(emphasis mine) (36)

Satan, obdurate in his ambition to solely do the opposite of what God wants, does in
fact invent plural values. Thus, if Fishs observation is true (and I believe it is), such
justification in the face of heavenly justice is only a means of coping, of search[ing] for
what has been lost and which, in the case of Satan, can never be had again. This is the
nature of divine law. The perpetual agony of constant remembrance of what he has lost
is his punishment, until he commits his even bigger transgression against Adam and
Eve and effectively assures his annihilation.

Willis 17

Thus, in examining the juxtaposition between the Son of God and Satan, one

discerns Miltons political ideals not only by regarding the evident political structure of
Heaven and Hell but also the characters that exemplify the political virtues that sustain
the structure-- one righteously, the other dementedly-- through their propagation.
While the relation in the poem is sometimes simply parodic, at other times it is so
complex it reveals, through the comparison, the paradoxical nature of Satans atheistic
assertions. Satans mentality is portrayed as contradictory and antithetical on a variety
of levels--ontologically, metaphysically, and politically--and Milton, through this
juxtaposition, presents the proper, true, and therefore rational Christian paradigm that is
inherent within the Son of God and the heavenly host who abide it. As Lewalski notes,
these inner qualities seen in each of the two opposing characters point to an important
aspect of Miltons conception of proper politics, that political liberty depends on inner
liberty, which is the product of reason and virtue (156). Furthermore, as Buhler
explains, adhering to what is reasonable and virtuous in this paradigm means following
Christs example:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

Milton considers human government to have at least the potential to

follow the Sons example here; in The Ready and Easy Way he asserts that
one can find no government [which] comes neer to this precept of Christ,
then a free Commonwealth; wherin they who are greatest, are perpetual
servants and drudges to the public at thir own cost and charges, [and]
neglect thir own affairs (YP VII, p. 245). Here, the greatest have their
greatness confirmed in their disregard for personal gain and glory, in their
dedication to self-sacrifice, in their willingness to take on the duties and
the drudgeries of service. (emphasis mine) (50)

Willis 18

The attributes thus seen in the Son of God and the rest of the heavenly host are used to
demonstrate such dedication to self-sacrifice and a willingness to take on the duties
of drudgeries of service as the ideal political qualities needed in a ruler most fit to
rule. Satan, in his inability to understand the necessity of these traits in a ruler is
forced to create an alternative value system which he cloaks as republican but, in
actuality, asserts the same Satanic qualities that led to his downfall: pride, avarice, and
envy and that culminate as outright hate.
!

However, whether Paradise Lost truly goes so far as to say that a republic is the

ideal political association is still, in my view, subject to speculation. What is apparent to

me is what Corns notes in relation to Miltons Eikonoklatses, and which is also seen in
Paradise Lost, that Milton still develops a clear enunciation of the spirit of a new age...
shot through with the ideology of revolutionary Independency, in its assertion of the
godliness of their actions (219). This means what Corns excerpts from Eikonoklastes,
that those whom perhaps ignorance without malice, or some error, less then fatal, hath
for a time misledd, on this side Sorcery or obduration, may find the grace and good
guidance to bethink themselves, and recover (emphasis mine) (219). This sentiment
when applied to Paradise Lost and, especially, its political relevancies, allows one to
attend to the last, extremely personal hidden aspect of Miltons ambiguous political
topos.

Willis 19

Milton believes that his audience, though few are invaluable because they

realize a truth and wisdom that many do not, but is not yet hopeless for those who
are ignoran[t] without malice. Miltons distinct political message remains ambiguous
to most Milton scholars; however, one thing that is clear may offer a crucial insight. He
says in the quotation above that mankind is still able to recover by process of
bethink[ing] themsselves and thus believes we should think and constantly
remember to do so. As he says in Areopagitica:
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!

Truth is compared in scripture to a streaming fountain; if her waters flow

not in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of
conformity and tradition. A man may be a heretic in the truth; and if he
believe the things only because his pastor says so, or the Assembly so
determines, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet
the very truth he holds becomes his heresy. (739)

The Son of God does not involve himself in this process of continual seeking of
knowledge to confirm the very truth that Milton believes all true Christians have. He
has a mindset that, in comparison to Satans obduracy which is continually seeking new
(and false) justifications to cope with his fallenness, is constant and never falters
(Book V, ll. 902). However, paradoxically, such constancy of divine ethics is what Milton
believes will lead to the One Kingdom, Joy and Union without end he speaks of in
Book VII. For postlapsarian mankind we, having obtained original sin via Adam and
Eve who failed, unlike the Son, to remains steadfast and obedient to the Lord, must
continually search for the right answers in an effort to prove our obedience as well as
our love, since love / Alone fulfil(s) the Law (Book XII, ll. 402-04).

Willis 20

Thus if obedience, reverence and deference to God is maintained, one realizes

the most important and simplest lesson of all: God is Almighty and a beneficent
Creator and therefore is King by merit; thus no one is to ever aspire to supplant him.
Such idolatrous ambition leads to a political aspirants inner servility, and, like
Satans own self-bondage, to deprivation of outward freedom either as a natural
consequence or as a punishment from God (Lewalski, 156). While Lewalski insists that
Miltons poem means to help create a virtuous and liberty-loving people who might
deserve, and so take steps to gain, a free commonwealth, in acknowledging Miltons
intentional ambiguity we perhaps can conclude without such assumptions (156). In
adhering to the true hierarchy and thereby knowing ones place in the wider circle of
being, as the Son of God does, one can go on to understand proper use of politics too.
Knowing ones place is, as the Son says to Adam, is simply know[ing] thyself aright
and thus recognizing the uniformity of being and service as freedom (Book X, ll. 55).
!

As all metaphysical, political and general principles within a Christian paradigm

regard morality and ethics based ultimately on God-given decree, it stands to reason
that Milton would say, whatever the political association, that Christian ethics can
never, and should never, be separate from politics. Separation implies a severance from
God who, by virtue of being a beneficent Creator, bestows all purpose, political and
otherwise. This means recognizing rule, whether aristocratic, meritocratic, feudal, or
strictly monarchial, as a relationship based on terms of service. Rulership is a position of

Willis 21

humility, not grandeur, for Milton. Power is not the end in itself, but rather the means
to an ultimate end: the recognition of God as Almighty and, along with that
recognition, the hopeful end of our postlapsarian woes. This means attempting to
exhibit the characteristics the Son of God manifests in Paradise Lost, not those of Satan,
which is not as complicated as it might seem. Really, for Milton, it is a simple process.
As he puts it beautifully through the words of Raphael:
!
!
!

!
!
!

...freely we serve,
Because we freely love, as in our will
To love or not; in this we stand or fall (emphasis mine) (V, ll. 538-540)

Willis 22

Works Cited
Buhler, Stephen M. "Kingly States: The Politics in Paradise Lost." Milton Studies 28
!
(1992): 49-68. Print.
Corns, Thomas N. "Milton and the English Republic." Uncloistered Virtue: English
!
Political Literature, 1640-1660. Oxford, England: Clarendon, 1992. 194-220.
!
Print.!
Davies, Stevie. "Feudal Lord." Images of Kingship in Paradise Lost: Milton's Politics and
!
Christian Liberty. Columbia: University of Missouri, 1983. 130-63. Print.
Fish, Stanley E. How Milton Works. Cambridge, MA: Belknap of Harvard UP, 2001. Print.
Lewalski, Barbara K. "Paradise Lost and Milton's Politics." Milton Studies 38 (2000):
!
141-68. Print.
Milton, John, and Merritt Y. Hughes. Complete Poems and Major Prose. New York:
!
Odyssey, 1957. Print.
Shawcross, John T. "Milton The Republican." The Development of Milton's Thought: Law,
!
Government, and Religion. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne UP, 2008. 49-62. Print.
Swiss, Margo. "Satan's Obduracy in Paradise Lost." Milton Quarterly 28.3 (1994): 56-61.
!
Print.