I'll be honest, I found Milton annoying in this chapter. It isn't just how he depicts Eve, it is also other little things, like why does he have Gabriel, who is always a messenger in the Bible, be a sentinel and captain? Shouldn't it be Michael disputing with Satan? And what in the world is Pan doing in Paradise?! Yes, I know, Milton is a man of his time, where intellectuals spoke of nature and Pan interchangeably. But Milton places other pagan deities in Hell, i.e. Moloch, Baalzebub (Baal), Dagon. Why does Pan get off? Doesn't Milton know the origin of the word panic, which originally meant 'an unreasoning fear induced by the god Pan'? I saw a few ancient Greek depictions of Pan when I was in Athens and I turned away from them with a shudder - there was a sense of evil in those marble Pans that I didn't sense in other depictions of Greek deities.
But the biggest disappointment was during the evening scene. Milton's Adam and Eve don't walk with God in the cool of the evening. I wonder if his theology got in his way? He probably couldn't think how to depict the Father walking with them, but an orthodox theology would have them walking with the Son.
That’s a really insightful critique, Holly. God is conspicuously absent from the garden here. (And I’m not recalling him showing up in later books ahead which I’ve not re-read yet).
Interesting about Pan. I might look more into how he might have been understood/received at this time.
I also loved Book IV! Two observations that stayed with me:
1) Satan’s lostness and despair is so intricately portrayed that instead of the vile and scary portrait of him in previous books, I was overwhelmed by the regret and “eating away at oneself” that will never end— a loneliness and lostness that not only never improves, it never stops. It only worsens. It made me think of C.S.Lewis’s depiction of hell in The Great Divorce— utterly alone (instead of the “we’ll be miserable together” idea) and forever growing lonelier.
The self-destruction, regret, and despair in lines 18-25 in particular:
“Upon himself; horror and doubt distract
His troubled thoughts, and from the bottom stir
The Hell within him, for within him Hell
He brings, and round about him, nor from hell
One step no more than from himself can fly
By change of place: now conscience wakes despair
That slumbered, wakes the bitter memory
Of what he was, what is, and what must be
Worse; of worse deeds worse suffering must ensue.” (Italics mine)
2) In contrast with Satan’s realizations, the observation of Adam and Eve in the garden is wholly appealing and delightful. I wondered before reading it if there would be troubling, bothersome depictions of men and women because of Puritanism and Patriarchy and Bad History. And there were a few lines that sounded off of course. But I didn’t get the same warning signs of a denigrating view of women as some did. Is it possible to have a more charitable reading? Or am I woefully unable to see the problem? I don’t fall into either of the complementarian/egalitarian camps but would probably lean more egalitarian if pushed on an interpretation of these things from a unified biblical persepctive. Still, the picture of Adam and Eve in the Garden here, to me, read more as a fully satisfying and utterly untarnished fellowship with one another that possibly reflects the original intention and creation of a man and woman, without the mess that has ensued from the fall. Even the parts that can sound abrasive in our current moment (e.g. “Whence true authority in men; though both/ Not equal, as their sex not equal seemed/ For contemplation he and valour formed/ For softness she and sweet attractive grace/ He for God only, she for God in him:” (295-299), I read as an affirming of the beauty of gender creation, and what we could even read as missing when we don’t affirm binary sexes. It’s striking that Satan is utterly enthralled by their worthy, divine, image-bearing glory (not disgusted). And the sweetness of their mutual satisfaction and enjoyment of one another is something he will never experience.
Several lines also pointed to a joint companionship in work and play and worship (lines 610-619 where Adam calls her his “Fair consort” in their mutual need of rest from their daily work appointed by God, and in 726-28 where he says, “Which we in our appointed work employed/ Have finished happy in our mutual help/ And mutual love, the crown of all our bliss” 726-728). The picture is of working alongside one another in the garden. But there is certainly a descriptive difference in the qualities of their attraction to one another. And I guess this too I found more affirming than prescriptive. Maybe Milton describes her submission to Adam in their foreplay (is he actually talking about foreplay? It seems like it!) And that is off-putting. But it might also be actually just feminine. And it might not mean that everything a woman does has to be submissive, but that pre-fall it was pretty great. And Adam didn’t exploit it or turn away from it. He gave her what she wanted and needed. (740-744) It was mutual. The best display of the mutuality everyone seems to be hankering so hard for today. (Karen, I know you read line 743 where Eve does not refuse Adam differently. So maybe I am misinterpreting here.)
Finally, it seemed to me as if Milton was going on and on in an effort to say that the beauty of their sexuality and sexual intimacy is absolutely celebrated and reflective of the image-bearing quality of true relationship and love— which again is something that is so starkly different from the loneliness of the separation from God and from all fellowship of any kind we see in Satan. I know that Milton was a Puritan, but whatever forms of prudery people often associate with puritanism (or an Augustinian view of sex), this seems to be flying in the face of all that (Lines 745 and on—).
So the Aristotlian view of man is that he is the most perfect of physical beings, that even the woman's beauty is not as perfect as the man's is. You have probably seen Leonardo da Vinci's 'Vitruvian Man' - a drawing of a male form with hands and feet spread in a circle and a square to illustrate the Golden Ratio. Da Vinci would never have drawn a female form to show the Golden Ratio. I remember reading in a 1950s-era art book about Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel, an explanation why Eve and the other female figures on the ceiling were painted with masculine muscle and bone structure was because the masculine form was considered the most perfect. Milton's Eve says Adam's form was more perfect than hers: "How beauty is excelled by manly grace".
There is a patriarchal idea, revived among theobro complementarians, that only Adam was created in God's image, Eve was created in Adam's image. It contradicts Genesis 1 and, I think, presents a theological problem regarding the Incarnation, since Jesus was only born of a woman, but Milton's "He for God only, she for God in him" certainly seems to be making reference to that idea. It also seems rather idolatrous - the man has a direct line to God but woman sees God in her husband?
Christine, I totally agree that the beauty and joy and sheer delight that Milton describes here in Eden and in Adam and Eve with one another far outweighs the “troubling” parts. What’s interesting? Is that complementarians so often say that this pre-fallen order that was ordained even before the fall is supposed to look like this. And yet I see so few really striving for it. They strive are more for the distinction rather than the delight. And that’s always excused theologically because, well, we are in a fallen world after all.
In the end, I think Milton’s view is more one of “his times” than of the teachings that we see today. He seems to assume these things rather than intentionally argue for them. I’m not sure that distinction matters or even makes sense.
I love how you describe the heart wrenching portrayal of Satan. It really is. And in that way, I think Milton is showing us more about ourselves and he is of the true Evil One before whom we would likely shudder and faint.
One passage stood like a hair out of place and made me curious about Milton's view of spiritual beings on earth. Adam is explaining (mansplaining?) that the sun goes down in the evening to lighten other parts of the earth, and that these other parts are not "wasted" but have value because of the spirits that behold them (665-679):
"These then, though unbeheld in deep of night,
Shine not in vain, nor think, though men were none,
That heav'n should want spectators, God want praise;
Millions of spiritual creatures walk the earth
Unseen... all these with ceaseless praise His works behold..."
This struck me, since I have often found joy in contemplating the natural world as something that God created for its own sake. When I venture off-trail and find a wildflower that may never have been seen by humans except myself, and when I imagine that there are wildflowers and other beautiful things that I nor anyone may ever see, it fills me with joy for a God who created a world that is beautiful and valuable in itself, which praises Him with its being directly, whether or not it is ever seen by a "spiritual" being.
Milton seems to think that God's creation is valuable only when, or chiefly when, it provides pleasure to humans, and I think that's selling the creation - and God's creativity - short. It also raises the question of what these "millions of spiritual creatures" who Milton says walk the earth are. My footnotes provide no context to this cosmology.
I checked the Riverside note and it says that these creatures include angels "and other invisible spirits' and is "a testimony to the animation of the universe." I take it more that all these creatures and all of creation offer praises about his works to God--that God is being praised/valued by all of creation. This is biblical, of course, thinking of Luke 19:40, for example, that speak of the stones crying out.
With Pan present in the narrative, Milton sometimes seems to be envisioning nature being inhabited by spirits. At a couple of points he made references that made me wonder if he was about to bring nyads and dryads into the picture, which would make his Paradise rather Narnian - I'm starting to see where Lewis got his inspiration for 'Perelandra'. I have reason to think fallen spirits may inhabit inanimate objects in nature, but I don't think they were assigned to those objects at Creation.
This one line from Satan stood out for me: "While they adore me on the throne of Hell, with diadem and sceptre high advanced, the lower still I fall, only supreme in misery." (lines 89-92). Only supreme in misery! He knows he is doomed by his own hatred of God. Grace and forgiveness might be available to him, but he can't make himself submit to this God, yet he knows he can't win. His only option is to act as a spoiler. Heartbreaking. Milton succeeds in making Satan three-dimensional and sympathetic, and yet not so sympathetic that we root for him to succeed, which is a tribute to Milton's creative talents.
Yes! It’s hard to see how any could see Satan as the hero. The anti-hero, I suppose. But at most I feel sorry for him (but not really). He wants to be the best at being the worst.
I will chip in here - as a male I find in wearying to be put in the position of always being the authority, the initiator — having to prove that my spirituality is superior. In reading the Iliad it is obvious where this bias originates - in a male dominated pagan culture. When I was a high school history teacher we fought long and hard for equal pay for women teachers. The assumption was that they have husbands to supply the income for theeir families an did not need to be paid what men, the head of the household, were being paid. Fortunately, we ended that practice and women were some of the strongest members of the (dare I say it) union that achieved this. A small victory to be sure, but not so small for the women who now tach and receive the same pay as men and not so small for the dignity and sense of importance of those women. Jack
"The mind is its own place, and in itself / Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven,"
Well, it has been a crazy week over here. In addition to work, the seasonal cold has descended upon our area. My daughter and I have been no exception. So, its been a bit busier here. My wife is still doing well, so here's hoping one of us makes it out unscathed. All that to say, finding time for this book club hasn't been the easiest.
Nevertheless, there are one or two things worth mentioning. First, this is filled with such magnificent language. The image of Satan, as a cormorant, atop the tree of life was interesting. Someone pointed out the juxtaposition of this image of Satan using the tree of life for vantage point to hunt down humanity. The cormorant could be an omen of greed and gluttony or even evil and darkness. But here’s something interesting: a cormorant with its wings spread wide, drying them off like that, could be seen as kind of mimicking Christ's self-sacrificial posture on the cross. So, perhaps a deeper meaning that Milton is trying to make is that all creatures and creation are neutral; it is intent that counts. The tree of life is good, the cormorant, with wings outstretched, recalls our mind to Christ and that new tree of life. However, there is no good intent here with Satan using the tree of life as perch.
That brings me to the quote. Satan is raving at the angels and heavenly beings about how God's glory is prison for one who imagines himself to be free. He is, in his way, overwhelmed by the beauty of this cosmos. In all of this, he feels compelled to give into his compulsion to make a hash of everything. The biggest question we have to ask is how many of Satan's rantings are honest questions, how many of them are deceits for others, how many of them are self-soothing deceits he tells himself to continue his mission, and how many are the deceits he tells himself which he never realizes are deceits?
So far Milton's biggest plot hole has been a particular aspect of the problem of evil where if God is good, how does He allow evil to creep into His paradise? Milton's explanation is one found throughout English theology, but it is the logical equivalent of wearing a nice shoe that nevertheless pinches in some small way. It's almost perfect, but there is a point you can never quite ignore and which may very well drive you mad. Perhaps the British have never quite gotten over the fact that Pelagius didn't carry the day. (I once had a fellow seminarian from an Episcopal school say, "As someone from the church of England, I have some sympathy for Pelagius.") This puts too much on the inherent goodness of humanity; but goodness is supposed to be from outside of us.
In the story, the Devil is very active; God remains aloof. Such a vignette almost makes it seem like the Devil has a point. The theology of glory is good for pretty good people leading pretty good lives; but it is a disaster for those of us who have to deal with the Devil actively offering us different paths.
To return to the quote, Satan is convincing himself that the only way to achieve his goal is to set himself apart from creation, no matter how wonderful it may be. Yet, does it put too much power on individuals to follow their own wills. America is filled with people who think they are self-originating; but much of our lives are made up of unforeseen accidents. The question beneath Satan is who is actually manipulating him to choose rebellion. Milton skirts this question by invoking free will; but this still leads to a nagging question that just won't seem to go away.
Philip, so many good points here. Thank you for your post. Especially appreciate your comments about the origin of evil and how much we can take Milton’s Satan at face value. He is a master deceiver.
Philip, first, good for you for “keeping up with the reading” as you can. I’m so encouraged by your diligence. Praying now, too, for a little relief.
Second, WOW to that image you offer of the bird with wings spread wide as with the image of the cross. I cannot get that out of my mind. That is a powerful addition to the depths of Milton’s poem.
I agree that there is a hole in the plot afoot here. I don’t know what the answer to your good question is but the question is a greater gift, perhaps, than an answer.
Your reference to line 286, Karen, where Satan “Saw undelighted all delight,” chimes with this passage from lines 505–511, where Satan reacts to the love between Adam and Eve:
Sight hateful, sight tormenting! those these two
Imparadis’t in one another’s arms
The happier Eden, shall enjoy thir fill
Of bliss on bliss, while I to Hell am thrust,
Where neither joy nor love, but fierce desire,
Among our other torments not the least,
Still unfulfill’d with pain of longing pines; . . .
The idea that the devil(s) cannot experience love or joy but are tormented by desire is very wise, I think. Desire is not an evil in itself, but finds its fulfillment in joy and love. Perpetually unfulfilled longings are a hellish fate.
It’s the “perpetually” that makes it hellish! I’m sure that in Dante somewhere there is a soul consigned to tormented longing for eternity. (I haven’t read Inferno for a while.)
I really enjoyed this chapter, which may be because there was more action and made it easier to follow. I sadly lost my lost class notes from when I studied Paradise Lost previously, so the only reminders I have of that course are my handwritten notes in the margins. I was surprised how many memories came back from that class in this chapter - the professor asked the whole class what color hair everyone had assumed that Eve had - and was surprised that so many of us said "brown." Her response: "Of course she was a blonde!"
I can't remember her overall stance on how Eve is depicted here - I wish I remember more.
I found Satan's words in line 76 striking: "Which way I fly is Hell: myself am Hell;
And in the lowest deep a lower deep
Still threat'ning to devour me opens wide,
To which the Hell I suffer seems a heaven (75-78).
There is no escape - only increasing misery.
I was wondering - in line 538 when Satan leaves and travels "o'er hill, o'er dale his roam" - is that intended as a reference to when Shakespeare uses the same phrase in "A Midsummer Night's Dream"? Or was that a common phrase at the time?
There is so much about their hair! In this way, Milton almost treats Adam and Eve equally, at least. And it really does make sense given that that’s all they are wearing at this point…
I don’t recall Shakespeare’s exact phrase, but “over hill and dale” (or some variation) is so common it’s an idiom. Or do you mean this exact phrase?
Love that you have so many memories (and marginalia) if not the notes.
I guess I was wondering if the idiom was one that Shakespeare coined , like so many our common expressions or if it was one common before that, if that makes sense.
I like this opportunity to explore Satan’s character and set of values. Based on the first hundred or so lines, Satan is firmly in the camp of a transactional economy. He wants nothing to do with owing God for what God has done for him. He wants to be the one owed - that suits his sense of self. I have long advocated for Christians to adopt what I call a “gift economy.” That is, instead of seeing all of life from the standpoint of quid pro quo, we understand that we have the privilege of being generous with whatever God has given us - maybe money, but maybe time, or attention or just standing by and being helpfully supportive. I am often appalled by how much the transactional economy has invaded the evangelical church.
Thanks for addressing how Milton described Adam and Eve (Man vs. Woman). It was cringy to me.
It makes me feel uncomfortable when I recognize either the demons or Satans words. This is not a bad thing, as it makes me consider my temptations to question God, to wonder if he is good. And I do think this is some of what Satan is doing in lines 5-115. He seems, at times, to be weighing the goodness of God. That age-old question, "Is God good?" This gets me in the heart because I, too, have done that. Unlike Satan I am saved by God's grace and am so thakful to be reconciled to God. These are the lines I am referring to especially:
Till pride and worse ambition threw me down,
41Warring in Heav'n against Heav'n's matchless King:
42Ah, wherefore? He deserv'd no such return
43From me, whom he created what I was
44In that bright eminence, and with his good
45Upbraided none; nor was his service hard.
46What could be less than to afford him praise,
47The easiest recompense, and pay him thanks,
48How due! Yet all his good prov'd ill in me,
49And wrought but malice; lifted up so high,
50 I 'sdain'd subjection, and thought one step higher
Wow is right! I think this is one of the things Milton does so effectively. I don’t think we can comprehend just how evil the real Satan is, but the one Milton gives us allows us to see our own depravity in him.
Much less profound than all that has been written so far, I am wondering if the mocking of 'the flow'ry arbours, and yonder alleys green' of the couple's 'scant manuring' (625) is what I think it is?
More seriously, there was much in Milton's beautiful description of Paradise that reminded me of Hayden's 'Creation' which I had the opportunity to participate in years ago. Just wondering if Hayden, who comes a century after Milton, might have gotten some of his imagery from Paradise Lost.
Paul, if I were giving prizes you might get the prize for my favorite comment yet! At first, I thought that perhaps it was indeed what you were thinking it was so I did a little detective work and have gone down a delightful etymology trail.
First, the Riverside edition glosses “manuring” as “hand-fertilizing.” Well that confused me. But the first thing I did is to look at the surrounding lines and one of the notes to it. And the reference to more hands being needed a line below is a reference to possible children coming to Adam and Eve. That would be the more hands needed to hand fertilize, whatever that is.
So that caused me to look up the etymology of “manure.”’Manure actually is a word that means fertilizer but of any organic material, which also includes decomposing plant material. So Adam and Eve are probably pruning with their hands (dead heading, etc) and will use those leaves to create organic fertilizer.
Interestingly, the word “manure” is also related to the French word “maneuver.” Both words have in common some sort of cultivation.
This was such a delightful little research journey. I cannot thank you enough for it!
I would suspect your guess about Hyden is correct but I have no knowledge of it. If anyone knows it would be Holly!
Sorry to say I didn't know the answer. I know some of the music from The Creation, and knew there was a dialogue with the angels, but have never heard a complete performance. So, I looked it up. The libretto for Haydn's The Creation was originally written in German, by his patron Gottfried van Swieten. Swieten does seem to have been inspired in part by Milton's imagery. Haydn wanted his oratorio performed in the language of the audience, so translations were created very quickly, and Haydn seems to have had the English translation of the words while he was composing, as some of the music fits better to the English than the German.
I am understanding what I read more each week. Yay! I did struggle with Milton's descriptions of Eve being "less than" Adam in intelligence. He depicts her as just being there to make Adam feel strong and smart. So I had to suck it up and look past those statements. It was good to get out of "hell" and be down to earth, so to speak, for a while. The piece with Satan whispering in Eve's ear while she slept was a little creepy and unnerving!
Reading literature like this is like exercising a muscle that has not been used for a long time—or ever! The cool thing is feeling that muscle get stronger!
I agree Satan whispering in Eve’s ear is very creepy—but aptly rendered, I think.
Enjoying very much the discussion above. Quick unrelated question: lines 917-918 say “But wherefore thou alone? Wherefore with thee came not all hell broke loose?” Is this the origin of the phrase “all hell broke loose” that is used to describe a situation that suddenly becomes chaotic or violent?
I was thinking of how to describe the phrase all hell broke loose and I almost described as pandemonium, a word that I learned back in Book 1 was also coined by Milton. It’s been so interesting to me to learn how influential Paradise Lost has been.
Milton again uses olfactory descriptions so beautifully. It draws me into the scene in a multidimensional way that the visual descriptions do not. I could smell the flowers of Eden.
I was fascinated by Satan's conclusion that his repentance would be pointless anyway because ambition is just his nature, and no matter how restored, he would still be envious and discontent to not be the Almighty.
Yet Satan seems to use the old, "it's just the way I am" excuse, which essentially blames God for one's own choice not to resist our sinful impulses. At the same time he admits that he had the power to stand, but could not tolerate God loving others equally. (sorry, I'm using my old Harvard Classics copy with no line notations.) He is so conflicted.
No, Milton would have been, as nearly all men were, a patriarchalist, and held that women were inferior by nature. Not immediately (because the late 1st century and early 2nd century earliest writers do not speak of women as inferior), but quite early on, the early church fathers write of women with a cultural taint from the prevalent pagan Greek philosophy of Aristotle, who held that women were imperfect or inverted men. The great third century preacher John Chrysostom, for example, in his sermon on I Timothy 2:11-15, tells his female congregants that God has chosen them to be inferior, and Chrysostom is probably one of the nicest of the church fathers in that period on the subject of women. Complementarianism isn't a traditional church position - it is a modern attempt to compromise between the Biblical truth, that men and women are created equal, with an ancient pagan philosophy that women are inferior.
Thank you, Holly. You explained that far better than I could have. It still boggles my mind at times (the modern construct that pretends to be orthodox).
I’d also add that I’d be very surprised if today’s complementarians draw on Milton at all. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a lineage they might not know about. (There is Puritanism, after all. But I don’t think Milton is in that stream. It’s a great question.)
The young preacher who used PL as a commentary for the interpretation the fall and redemption was also a theobro-type complementarian - said things like every woman has a male authority, husband if married, father if single. He had a really wacky take on Adam and Eve - indicated Adam could have died for Eve after she ate the fruit and before Adam had eaten it, but I don't think that is in PL.
Wow. That is interesting. I have never heard any theobro type in my circles reference Milton. Bunyan for sure, but Milton never. (Maybe that’s the difference between Canadian theobros and American ones? 🤣)
I'll be honest, I found Milton annoying in this chapter. It isn't just how he depicts Eve, it is also other little things, like why does he have Gabriel, who is always a messenger in the Bible, be a sentinel and captain? Shouldn't it be Michael disputing with Satan? And what in the world is Pan doing in Paradise?! Yes, I know, Milton is a man of his time, where intellectuals spoke of nature and Pan interchangeably. But Milton places other pagan deities in Hell, i.e. Moloch, Baalzebub (Baal), Dagon. Why does Pan get off? Doesn't Milton know the origin of the word panic, which originally meant 'an unreasoning fear induced by the god Pan'? I saw a few ancient Greek depictions of Pan when I was in Athens and I turned away from them with a shudder - there was a sense of evil in those marble Pans that I didn't sense in other depictions of Greek deities.
But the biggest disappointment was during the evening scene. Milton's Adam and Eve don't walk with God in the cool of the evening. I wonder if his theology got in his way? He probably couldn't think how to depict the Father walking with them, but an orthodox theology would have them walking with the Son.
That’s a really insightful critique, Holly. God is conspicuously absent from the garden here. (And I’m not recalling him showing up in later books ahead which I’ve not re-read yet).
Interesting about Pan. I might look more into how he might have been understood/received at this time.
I also loved Book IV! Two observations that stayed with me:
1) Satan’s lostness and despair is so intricately portrayed that instead of the vile and scary portrait of him in previous books, I was overwhelmed by the regret and “eating away at oneself” that will never end— a loneliness and lostness that not only never improves, it never stops. It only worsens. It made me think of C.S.Lewis’s depiction of hell in The Great Divorce— utterly alone (instead of the “we’ll be miserable together” idea) and forever growing lonelier.
The self-destruction, regret, and despair in lines 18-25 in particular:
“Upon himself; horror and doubt distract
His troubled thoughts, and from the bottom stir
The Hell within him, for within him Hell
He brings, and round about him, nor from hell
One step no more than from himself can fly
By change of place: now conscience wakes despair
That slumbered, wakes the bitter memory
Of what he was, what is, and what must be
Worse; of worse deeds worse suffering must ensue.” (Italics mine)
2) In contrast with Satan’s realizations, the observation of Adam and Eve in the garden is wholly appealing and delightful. I wondered before reading it if there would be troubling, bothersome depictions of men and women because of Puritanism and Patriarchy and Bad History. And there were a few lines that sounded off of course. But I didn’t get the same warning signs of a denigrating view of women as some did. Is it possible to have a more charitable reading? Or am I woefully unable to see the problem? I don’t fall into either of the complementarian/egalitarian camps but would probably lean more egalitarian if pushed on an interpretation of these things from a unified biblical persepctive. Still, the picture of Adam and Eve in the Garden here, to me, read more as a fully satisfying and utterly untarnished fellowship with one another that possibly reflects the original intention and creation of a man and woman, without the mess that has ensued from the fall. Even the parts that can sound abrasive in our current moment (e.g. “Whence true authority in men; though both/ Not equal, as their sex not equal seemed/ For contemplation he and valour formed/ For softness she and sweet attractive grace/ He for God only, she for God in him:” (295-299), I read as an affirming of the beauty of gender creation, and what we could even read as missing when we don’t affirm binary sexes. It’s striking that Satan is utterly enthralled by their worthy, divine, image-bearing glory (not disgusted). And the sweetness of their mutual satisfaction and enjoyment of one another is something he will never experience.
Several lines also pointed to a joint companionship in work and play and worship (lines 610-619 where Adam calls her his “Fair consort” in their mutual need of rest from their daily work appointed by God, and in 726-28 where he says, “Which we in our appointed work employed/ Have finished happy in our mutual help/ And mutual love, the crown of all our bliss” 726-728). The picture is of working alongside one another in the garden. But there is certainly a descriptive difference in the qualities of their attraction to one another. And I guess this too I found more affirming than prescriptive. Maybe Milton describes her submission to Adam in their foreplay (is he actually talking about foreplay? It seems like it!) And that is off-putting. But it might also be actually just feminine. And it might not mean that everything a woman does has to be submissive, but that pre-fall it was pretty great. And Adam didn’t exploit it or turn away from it. He gave her what she wanted and needed. (740-744) It was mutual. The best display of the mutuality everyone seems to be hankering so hard for today. (Karen, I know you read line 743 where Eve does not refuse Adam differently. So maybe I am misinterpreting here.)
Finally, it seemed to me as if Milton was going on and on in an effort to say that the beauty of their sexuality and sexual intimacy is absolutely celebrated and reflective of the image-bearing quality of true relationship and love— which again is something that is so starkly different from the loneliness of the separation from God and from all fellowship of any kind we see in Satan. I know that Milton was a Puritan, but whatever forms of prudery people often associate with puritanism (or an Augustinian view of sex), this seems to be flying in the face of all that (Lines 745 and on—).
So the Aristotlian view of man is that he is the most perfect of physical beings, that even the woman's beauty is not as perfect as the man's is. You have probably seen Leonardo da Vinci's 'Vitruvian Man' - a drawing of a male form with hands and feet spread in a circle and a square to illustrate the Golden Ratio. Da Vinci would never have drawn a female form to show the Golden Ratio. I remember reading in a 1950s-era art book about Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel, an explanation why Eve and the other female figures on the ceiling were painted with masculine muscle and bone structure was because the masculine form was considered the most perfect. Milton's Eve says Adam's form was more perfect than hers: "How beauty is excelled by manly grace".
There is a patriarchal idea, revived among theobro complementarians, that only Adam was created in God's image, Eve was created in Adam's image. It contradicts Genesis 1 and, I think, presents a theological problem regarding the Incarnation, since Jesus was only born of a woman, but Milton's "He for God only, she for God in him" certainly seems to be making reference to that idea. It also seems rather idolatrous - the man has a direct line to God but woman sees God in her husband?
Lots of dots clearly connected here, Holly. Thank you.
I meant to include that line about “he for God”! It’s a theobro heaven!
Christine, I totally agree that the beauty and joy and sheer delight that Milton describes here in Eden and in Adam and Eve with one another far outweighs the “troubling” parts. What’s interesting? Is that complementarians so often say that this pre-fallen order that was ordained even before the fall is supposed to look like this. And yet I see so few really striving for it. They strive are more for the distinction rather than the delight. And that’s always excused theologically because, well, we are in a fallen world after all.
In the end, I think Milton’s view is more one of “his times” than of the teachings that we see today. He seems to assume these things rather than intentionally argue for them. I’m not sure that distinction matters or even makes sense.
I love how you describe the heart wrenching portrayal of Satan. It really is. And in that way, I think Milton is showing us more about ourselves and he is of the true Evil One before whom we would likely shudder and faint.
One passage stood like a hair out of place and made me curious about Milton's view of spiritual beings on earth. Adam is explaining (mansplaining?) that the sun goes down in the evening to lighten other parts of the earth, and that these other parts are not "wasted" but have value because of the spirits that behold them (665-679):
"These then, though unbeheld in deep of night,
Shine not in vain, nor think, though men were none,
That heav'n should want spectators, God want praise;
Millions of spiritual creatures walk the earth
Unseen... all these with ceaseless praise His works behold..."
This struck me, since I have often found joy in contemplating the natural world as something that God created for its own sake. When I venture off-trail and find a wildflower that may never have been seen by humans except myself, and when I imagine that there are wildflowers and other beautiful things that I nor anyone may ever see, it fills me with joy for a God who created a world that is beautiful and valuable in itself, which praises Him with its being directly, whether or not it is ever seen by a "spiritual" being.
Milton seems to think that God's creation is valuable only when, or chiefly when, it provides pleasure to humans, and I think that's selling the creation - and God's creativity - short. It also raises the question of what these "millions of spiritual creatures" who Milton says walk the earth are. My footnotes provide no context to this cosmology.
I checked the Riverside note and it says that these creatures include angels "and other invisible spirits' and is "a testimony to the animation of the universe." I take it more that all these creatures and all of creation offer praises about his works to God--that God is being praised/valued by all of creation. This is biblical, of course, thinking of Luke 19:40, for example, that speak of the stones crying out.
I'm not sure I can read it exactly this way, but the idea that God is praised throughout the universe apart from humans is biblical and beautiful.
Also, there is a lot of mansplaining that goes on. 😂
With Pan present in the narrative, Milton sometimes seems to be envisioning nature being inhabited by spirits. At a couple of points he made references that made me wonder if he was about to bring nyads and dryads into the picture, which would make his Paradise rather Narnian - I'm starting to see where Lewis got his inspiration for 'Perelandra'. I have reason to think fallen spirits may inhabit inanimate objects in nature, but I don't think they were assigned to those objects at Creation.
Interesting, Holly! I was actually thinking of Perelandra the other day and how Lewis must have had this in mind when writing. Lots to unpack there!
Interesting. Much to mull here.
This one line from Satan stood out for me: "While they adore me on the throne of Hell, with diadem and sceptre high advanced, the lower still I fall, only supreme in misery." (lines 89-92). Only supreme in misery! He knows he is doomed by his own hatred of God. Grace and forgiveness might be available to him, but he can't make himself submit to this God, yet he knows he can't win. His only option is to act as a spoiler. Heartbreaking. Milton succeeds in making Satan three-dimensional and sympathetic, and yet not so sympathetic that we root for him to succeed, which is a tribute to Milton's creative talents.
Yes! It’s hard to see how any could see Satan as the hero. The anti-hero, I suppose. But at most I feel sorry for him (but not really). He wants to be the best at being the worst.
I will chip in here - as a male I find in wearying to be put in the position of always being the authority, the initiator — having to prove that my spirituality is superior. In reading the Iliad it is obvious where this bias originates - in a male dominated pagan culture. When I was a high school history teacher we fought long and hard for equal pay for women teachers. The assumption was that they have husbands to supply the income for theeir families an did not need to be paid what men, the head of the household, were being paid. Fortunately, we ended that practice and women were some of the strongest members of the (dare I say it) union that achieved this. A small victory to be sure, but not so small for the women who now tach and receive the same pay as men and not so small for the dignity and sense of importance of those women. Jack
It was sooooo hard not to go off on all these trails when I was writing this week’s post!
"The mind is its own place, and in itself / Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven,"
Well, it has been a crazy week over here. In addition to work, the seasonal cold has descended upon our area. My daughter and I have been no exception. So, its been a bit busier here. My wife is still doing well, so here's hoping one of us makes it out unscathed. All that to say, finding time for this book club hasn't been the easiest.
Nevertheless, there are one or two things worth mentioning. First, this is filled with such magnificent language. The image of Satan, as a cormorant, atop the tree of life was interesting. Someone pointed out the juxtaposition of this image of Satan using the tree of life for vantage point to hunt down humanity. The cormorant could be an omen of greed and gluttony or even evil and darkness. But here’s something interesting: a cormorant with its wings spread wide, drying them off like that, could be seen as kind of mimicking Christ's self-sacrificial posture on the cross. So, perhaps a deeper meaning that Milton is trying to make is that all creatures and creation are neutral; it is intent that counts. The tree of life is good, the cormorant, with wings outstretched, recalls our mind to Christ and that new tree of life. However, there is no good intent here with Satan using the tree of life as perch.
That brings me to the quote. Satan is raving at the angels and heavenly beings about how God's glory is prison for one who imagines himself to be free. He is, in his way, overwhelmed by the beauty of this cosmos. In all of this, he feels compelled to give into his compulsion to make a hash of everything. The biggest question we have to ask is how many of Satan's rantings are honest questions, how many of them are deceits for others, how many of them are self-soothing deceits he tells himself to continue his mission, and how many are the deceits he tells himself which he never realizes are deceits?
So far Milton's biggest plot hole has been a particular aspect of the problem of evil where if God is good, how does He allow evil to creep into His paradise? Milton's explanation is one found throughout English theology, but it is the logical equivalent of wearing a nice shoe that nevertheless pinches in some small way. It's almost perfect, but there is a point you can never quite ignore and which may very well drive you mad. Perhaps the British have never quite gotten over the fact that Pelagius didn't carry the day. (I once had a fellow seminarian from an Episcopal school say, "As someone from the church of England, I have some sympathy for Pelagius.") This puts too much on the inherent goodness of humanity; but goodness is supposed to be from outside of us.
In the story, the Devil is very active; God remains aloof. Such a vignette almost makes it seem like the Devil has a point. The theology of glory is good for pretty good people leading pretty good lives; but it is a disaster for those of us who have to deal with the Devil actively offering us different paths.
To return to the quote, Satan is convincing himself that the only way to achieve his goal is to set himself apart from creation, no matter how wonderful it may be. Yet, does it put too much power on individuals to follow their own wills. America is filled with people who think they are self-originating; but much of our lives are made up of unforeseen accidents. The question beneath Satan is who is actually manipulating him to choose rebellion. Milton skirts this question by invoking free will; but this still leads to a nagging question that just won't seem to go away.
Philip, so many good points here. Thank you for your post. Especially appreciate your comments about the origin of evil and how much we can take Milton’s Satan at face value. He is a master deceiver.
Philip, first, good for you for “keeping up with the reading” as you can. I’m so encouraged by your diligence. Praying now, too, for a little relief.
Second, WOW to that image you offer of the bird with wings spread wide as with the image of the cross. I cannot get that out of my mind. That is a powerful addition to the depths of Milton’s poem.
I agree that there is a hole in the plot afoot here. I don’t know what the answer to your good question is but the question is a greater gift, perhaps, than an answer.
Your reference to line 286, Karen, where Satan “Saw undelighted all delight,” chimes with this passage from lines 505–511, where Satan reacts to the love between Adam and Eve:
Sight hateful, sight tormenting! those these two
Imparadis’t in one another’s arms
The happier Eden, shall enjoy thir fill
Of bliss on bliss, while I to Hell am thrust,
Where neither joy nor love, but fierce desire,
Among our other torments not the least,
Still unfulfill’d with pain of longing pines; . . .
The idea that the devil(s) cannot experience love or joy but are tormented by desire is very wise, I think. Desire is not an evil in itself, but finds its fulfillment in joy and love. Perpetually unfulfilled longings are a hellish fate.
How you put that is very powerful: “unfulfilled longings are a hellish fate.”
Some parts of this book (including these lines) remind me of Grendel before he attacks the hall in Beowulf.
It’s the “perpetually” that makes it hellish! I’m sure that in Dante somewhere there is a soul consigned to tormented longing for eternity. (I haven’t read Inferno for a while.)
And it’s even longer since I read Beowulf! (45 years at least.)
You might be thinking of the lustful lovers in hell. One is Dido. I think they perpetually chase each other. It’s been a while for me, too!
Typo in line 505, which ends “thus these two.”
I really enjoyed this chapter, which may be because there was more action and made it easier to follow. I sadly lost my lost class notes from when I studied Paradise Lost previously, so the only reminders I have of that course are my handwritten notes in the margins. I was surprised how many memories came back from that class in this chapter - the professor asked the whole class what color hair everyone had assumed that Eve had - and was surprised that so many of us said "brown." Her response: "Of course she was a blonde!"
I can't remember her overall stance on how Eve is depicted here - I wish I remember more.
I found Satan's words in line 76 striking: "Which way I fly is Hell: myself am Hell;
And in the lowest deep a lower deep
Still threat'ning to devour me opens wide,
To which the Hell I suffer seems a heaven (75-78).
There is no escape - only increasing misery.
I was wondering - in line 538 when Satan leaves and travels "o'er hill, o'er dale his roam" - is that intended as a reference to when Shakespeare uses the same phrase in "A Midsummer Night's Dream"? Or was that a common phrase at the time?
There is so much about their hair! In this way, Milton almost treats Adam and Eve equally, at least. And it really does make sense given that that’s all they are wearing at this point…
I don’t recall Shakespeare’s exact phrase, but “over hill and dale” (or some variation) is so common it’s an idiom. Or do you mean this exact phrase?
Love that you have so many memories (and marginalia) if not the notes.
I guess I was wondering if the idiom was one that Shakespeare coined , like so many our common expressions or if it was one common before that, if that makes sense.
I've tried to look it up, not finding a lot, but one source did say the phrase may have been around since the middle aged.
*ages
Thanks for looking into it!
I like this opportunity to explore Satan’s character and set of values. Based on the first hundred or so lines, Satan is firmly in the camp of a transactional economy. He wants nothing to do with owing God for what God has done for him. He wants to be the one owed - that suits his sense of self. I have long advocated for Christians to adopt what I call a “gift economy.” That is, instead of seeing all of life from the standpoint of quid pro quo, we understand that we have the privilege of being generous with whatever God has given us - maybe money, but maybe time, or attention or just standing by and being helpfully supportive. I am often appalled by how much the transactional economy has invaded the evangelical church.
Jack
That’s a powerful insight, Jack. A lot we can see in and for our own time in seeing Satan that way.
This was so good; a page-turner!
Thanks for addressing how Milton described Adam and Eve (Man vs. Woman). It was cringy to me.
It makes me feel uncomfortable when I recognize either the demons or Satans words. This is not a bad thing, as it makes me consider my temptations to question God, to wonder if he is good. And I do think this is some of what Satan is doing in lines 5-115. He seems, at times, to be weighing the goodness of God. That age-old question, "Is God good?" This gets me in the heart because I, too, have done that. Unlike Satan I am saved by God's grace and am so thakful to be reconciled to God. These are the lines I am referring to especially:
Till pride and worse ambition threw me down,
41Warring in Heav'n against Heav'n's matchless King:
42Ah, wherefore? He deserv'd no such return
43From me, whom he created what I was
44In that bright eminence, and with his good
45Upbraided none; nor was his service hard.
46What could be less than to afford him praise,
47The easiest recompense, and pay him thanks,
48How due! Yet all his good prov'd ill in me,
49And wrought but malice; lifted up so high,
50 I 'sdain'd subjection, and thought one step higher
51Would set me highest and in a moment quit
52The debt immense of endless gratitude,
53So burdensome, still paying, still to owe;
54Forgetful what from him I still receiv'd;
55And understood not that a grateful mind
56By owing owes not, but still pays, at once
57Indebted and discharg'd: what burden then?
WOW!
Wow is right! I think this is one of the things Milton does so effectively. I don’t think we can comprehend just how evil the real Satan is, but the one Milton gives us allows us to see our own depravity in him.
Yes! And it hurts so good.
Much less profound than all that has been written so far, I am wondering if the mocking of 'the flow'ry arbours, and yonder alleys green' of the couple's 'scant manuring' (625) is what I think it is?
More seriously, there was much in Milton's beautiful description of Paradise that reminded me of Hayden's 'Creation' which I had the opportunity to participate in years ago. Just wondering if Hayden, who comes a century after Milton, might have gotten some of his imagery from Paradise Lost.
Paul, if I were giving prizes you might get the prize for my favorite comment yet! At first, I thought that perhaps it was indeed what you were thinking it was so I did a little detective work and have gone down a delightful etymology trail.
First, the Riverside edition glosses “manuring” as “hand-fertilizing.” Well that confused me. But the first thing I did is to look at the surrounding lines and one of the notes to it. And the reference to more hands being needed a line below is a reference to possible children coming to Adam and Eve. That would be the more hands needed to hand fertilize, whatever that is.
So that caused me to look up the etymology of “manure.”’Manure actually is a word that means fertilizer but of any organic material, which also includes decomposing plant material. So Adam and Eve are probably pruning with their hands (dead heading, etc) and will use those leaves to create organic fertilizer.
Interestingly, the word “manure” is also related to the French word “maneuver.” Both words have in common some sort of cultivation.
This was such a delightful little research journey. I cannot thank you enough for it!
I would suspect your guess about Hyden is correct but I have no knowledge of it. If anyone knows it would be Holly!
Interesting Karen, but I’m sticking with my first thought.
😅🤝
Sorry to say I didn't know the answer. I know some of the music from The Creation, and knew there was a dialogue with the angels, but have never heard a complete performance. So, I looked it up. The libretto for Haydn's The Creation was originally written in German, by his patron Gottfried van Swieten. Swieten does seem to have been inspired in part by Milton's imagery. Haydn wanted his oratorio performed in the language of the audience, so translations were created very quickly, and Haydn seems to have had the English translation of the words while he was composing, as some of the music fits better to the English than the German.
Thanks, Holly!
Thank you.
I am understanding what I read more each week. Yay! I did struggle with Milton's descriptions of Eve being "less than" Adam in intelligence. He depicts her as just being there to make Adam feel strong and smart. So I had to suck it up and look past those statements. It was good to get out of "hell" and be down to earth, so to speak, for a while. The piece with Satan whispering in Eve's ear while she slept was a little creepy and unnerving!
Reading literature like this is like exercising a muscle that has not been used for a long time—or ever! The cool thing is feeling that muscle get stronger!
I agree Satan whispering in Eve’s ear is very creepy—but aptly rendered, I think.
Enjoying very much the discussion above. Quick unrelated question: lines 917-918 say “But wherefore thou alone? Wherefore with thee came not all hell broke loose?” Is this the origin of the phrase “all hell broke loose” that is used to describe a situation that suddenly becomes chaotic or violent?
Well! I just looked it up and apparently so! Great catch!
I was thinking of how to describe the phrase all hell broke loose and I almost described as pandemonium, a word that I learned back in Book 1 was also coined by Milton. It’s been so interesting to me to learn how influential Paradise Lost has been.
Great connection. So glad you are enjoying this!
Milton again uses olfactory descriptions so beautifully. It draws me into the scene in a multidimensional way that the visual descriptions do not. I could smell the flowers of Eden.
I was fascinated by Satan's conclusion that his repentance would be pointless anyway because ambition is just his nature, and no matter how restored, he would still be envious and discontent to not be the Almighty.
I think the description of Eden is one reason why Book 4 is one of my favorites. It really seems like Paradise in every way!
I think it's significant that Milton keeps reminding us in various ways that Satan has free will, too, and chooses his rebellion, over and over.
Yet Satan seems to use the old, "it's just the way I am" excuse, which essentially blames God for one's own choice not to resist our sinful impulses. At the same time he admits that he had the power to stand, but could not tolerate God loving others equally. (sorry, I'm using my old Harvard Classics copy with no line notations.) He is so conflicted.
Oh, I like that. Yes, the old “it’s just the way I am” excuse!
I came away from book 4 with a question: Is Milton the original source of complementarian ideology?
No, Milton would have been, as nearly all men were, a patriarchalist, and held that women were inferior by nature. Not immediately (because the late 1st century and early 2nd century earliest writers do not speak of women as inferior), but quite early on, the early church fathers write of women with a cultural taint from the prevalent pagan Greek philosophy of Aristotle, who held that women were imperfect or inverted men. The great third century preacher John Chrysostom, for example, in his sermon on I Timothy 2:11-15, tells his female congregants that God has chosen them to be inferior, and Chrysostom is probably one of the nicest of the church fathers in that period on the subject of women. Complementarianism isn't a traditional church position - it is a modern attempt to compromise between the Biblical truth, that men and women are created equal, with an ancient pagan philosophy that women are inferior.
Thank you, Holly. You explained that far better than I could have. It still boggles my mind at times (the modern construct that pretends to be orthodox).
Thank you!
I’d also add that I’d be very surprised if today’s complementarians draw on Milton at all. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a lineage they might not know about. (There is Puritanism, after all. But I don’t think Milton is in that stream. It’s a great question.)
The young preacher who used PL as a commentary for the interpretation the fall and redemption was also a theobro-type complementarian - said things like every woman has a male authority, husband if married, father if single. He had a really wacky take on Adam and Eve - indicated Adam could have died for Eve after she ate the fruit and before Adam had eaten it, but I don't think that is in PL.
Wow. That is interesting. I have never heard any theobro type in my circles reference Milton. Bunyan for sure, but Milton never. (Maybe that’s the difference between Canadian theobros and American ones? 🤣)
This is something I will be looking for.
An excellent summary!
Folks, be sure to read this post by @andrewroycroft on Lewis’s thoughts on Adam and Eve. And I think Andrew’s thoughts are gold, too! https://open.substack.com/pub/andrewroycroft/p/lost-with-lewis-pt3?r=90e4e&utm_medium=ios