"freely we serve/ because we freely love": the politics of love in john milton's paradise lost

8/12/2019 "Freely we serve/ Because we freely love": The Politics of Love in John Milton's Paradise Lost

1/22


2/22

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 alignswith the Christian paradigm instead of seeking to transform it, as

Satan does. For Milton, all true and virtuous political thought mustcome 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

Lostbecause they are not presented in any obvious way. There seemsto 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 2


3/22

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 1640-1660that 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 Magistratesand

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

specificallytrying 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 3


4/22

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 4


5/22

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 throughoutParadise Lostis 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 worthycitizens who are virtuous and love liberty: as he put it in theFirst

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 5


6/22

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 isan 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 liveby right

His equals, if in power and splendor less,

In freedom equal? or can introduce

Law and Edict on us, who without law

Willis 6

1Inthe 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 asexpressed in his polemical tracts is hard to disengage from the seemingly contradictory republican argumentation heoffers. 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 considerin any analysis of Miltons politics, however, since his intention is to explain the history surrounding his work ratherthan his literary works themselves, I will refrain from taking up this additional (though fascinating) issue.


7/22

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 7


8/22

(Buhler, 58).2 Thus, while Satan espouses republican ideals, he does not meanthem 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 kingshipare 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 obedienceto Gods will and that such obedience is seen as the

Willis 8

2Buhler goes on to talk about the concern with the name, not the meaning as often ascribed to the Stuartmonarchy 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... ForMilton titles reward those who have already served the people, and oblige others to engage in true service (60). Thecounterargumentis still worth taking into account, especially if one is analyzing Paradise Lostfrom a more historicalapproach.


9/22


10/22

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 findOf 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 notfree.

Those who are trulyfree 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

Willis 10

3In Images of Kingship in Paradise Lost: Miltons Politics and Christian Liberty, Davies examines this acknowledgedrelationship between the angels and God as employing, not images of royalist kinship, but rather feudalism. Hedefends 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 thereforeperhaps inherently appropriate for the representation of a state of perfect changelessness), it is notidentifiable with a condition of servitude, for in its pure form feudalism proposed a system of mutualresponsibilities; a closely interlocking system of classes, each with its unique function, for all of whose goodthe ruler was responsible (13)

This generous view of feudalism exposes the merit behind the ideal form of system. It is worth noting for its uniqueturn on heavenly monarchy and, though problematic since feudalism is seen as he states above, offers insight into therigidity of Miltons politics as having a moral basis.


11/22

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 condemnedby 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 rationaleis proved by Abdiel

to befalseand inherently irrationalas 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 thegoodnesswithin 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

Willis 11

4Once 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 andwho paid no homage. This system, though Milton could not have desired it for earth, has an obvious beautywhen 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 Satanwithdrew his. He makes no serfs, though Satan imagined himself servile and broke Gods peace with a

baronial feud. (emphasis mine) (131)


12/22

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 12


13/22


14/22

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 revolutionaryideal 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 14


15/22

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 withinSatan, 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 beingthat 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 15


16/22

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 stabilizedtheir identities, value, and meaning, there opens up the possibility ofassigning (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 16


17/22

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 rationalChristian 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 perpetualservants 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 17


18/22

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 Losttruly 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 toParadise Lost and, especially, its political relevancies, allows one to

attend to the last, extremely personal hidden aspect of Miltons ambiguous political

topos.

Willis 18


19/22

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 isclear 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 flownot in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool ofconformity 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 19


20/22

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 virtueof 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 20


21/22

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 wefreelylove, as in our will

To love or not; in this we stand or fall (emphasis mine) (V, ll. 538-540)

Willis 21


22/22

Works Cited

Buhler, Stephen M. "Kingly States: The Politics in Paradise Lost."Milton Studies28

(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.

Willis 22

"freely we serve/ because we freely love": the politics of love in john milton's paradise lost

Documents