Arts, Faculty of
English, Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Sandison, James Macleod
Master of Arts - MA
University of British Columbia
In my reading of Milton criticism I have discerned what I feel to be a major deficiency, a deficiency consequent upon a too narrow approach to Paradise Lost. Whether they are anti-Miltonists who claim that Paradise Lost offers little to the twentieth-century - except the first two books; or orthodox Christian critics: who read Paradise Lost with an extreme doctrinal bias; or critics favourable to Milton and not narrowly doctrinal - the major Milton scholars, by succumbing to Milton's stated intentions when those intentions come into conflict with the impressions of the poetry, have easily adopted the traditional attitude towards the action in Eden: they accept the dictum that Adam and Eve are not human, until! the Fall. They give Milton little credit for humour, for the creation- of domestic comedy. Professor A.J.A. Waldock (Paradise Lost and Its Critics)) has correctly noticed that Milton's statements of intention do not always match his performances. By reading the poem in the light of his thesis, I have in this paper -after my first chapter on Milton criticism - attempted to show how Milton the poet has transcended Milton the doctrinaire by creating In Eden a good deal of domestic comedy. It is my belief that Adam and Eve are individuals - and human - before the Fall, and that when we view them (and Raphael) as real people acting and interacting in character, we will see that the action in Paradise is instinct with the humour of domestic comedy. In the second chapter, although I have stressed the humour in the middle books, I have not neglected the pathos that accompanies this humour. In my third chapter I have tried to show how this reading of Eden - a reading which succumbs to the poetical impressions rather than to the doctrinal statements - has its effect on the poem as a whole, how it makes the poem rather a human tragedy than a divine comedy. The final chapter is summary impart; but in the last section: I endeavour to mitigate the impression- that the thesis might have created - that Paradise Lost is merely a tragedy of two individuals - by stressing the poetical power of the element of myth In the poem. This thesis is written in the belief that any approach to Paradise Lost which stresses - favourably or unfavourably -the doctrine of the poem as against the poetical impressions (when the two clash) will have little appeal to the non-orthodox reader, and will miss the vital humanity with which Milton has invested his epic.
MILTON. AND THE! NON:-ORTHODOX READER: CHIEFLY A STUDY' OF THE HUMAN: .ELEMENTS:IN EDEN by James MacLeod Sandlson A thesis submitted in.partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS; in the Department of English We accept this thesis as conforming to the standard required from candidates for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Members of the Department of English' The University of British Columbia August, 1953 Abstract In my reading of Milton criticism I have discerned what I feel to be a major deficiency, a deficiency consequent upon a too narrow approach to Paradise Lost. Whether they are anti-Miltonlsts who claim that Paradise Lost offers l i t t l e to the twentieth-century - except the f i r s t two books; or orthodox Christian critics: who read Paradise Lost with an extreme doctrinal bias; or c r i t i c s favourable to Milton and not narrowly doctrinal - the major Milton' scholars, by succumbing to Milton's stated intentions when those intentions come into conflict with the impressions of the poetry, have easily adopted the traditional attitude towards the action in. Eden: they accept the dictum that Adam and Eve are not human, u n t i l ! the F a l l . They give Milton l i t t l e credit for humour, for the creation- of domestic; comedy. Professor A.J.A. Waldock (Paradise Lost and Its Critics)) has correctly noticed that Milton's statements of. intention do not always match his performances. By reading the poem in the light of his thesis, I have in this: paper -after my f i r s t chapter on Milton criticism - attempted to show how Milton the poet has transcended Milton the doctrinaire by creating In Eden a good deal of domestic comedy. It i s my belief that Adam and Eve are Individuals - and human - before the F a l l , and that when we view them (and Raphael) as real people acting and Interacting i n character, we w i l l see that the action in Paradise i s instinct with the humour of domestic i i comedy. In the second chapter, although I have stressed the humour in the middle hooks, I have not neglected the pathos that accompanies this humour. In my third" chapter I have tried to show how this reading of Eden - a reading which succumbs to the poetical impressions rather than to the doctrinal statements - has i t s effect on the poem as a whole, how i t makes the poem rather a human tragedy than a divine comedy. The f i n a l chapter i s summary impart; but in the last section: I endeavour to mitigate the Impression- that the thesis might have created - that Paradise Lost i s merely a tragedy of two individuals - by stressing the poetical power of the element of myth In the poem. This thesis i s written in:the belief that any approach to Paradise Lost which stresses - favourably or unfavourably -the doctrine of the poem as against the poetical impressions (when the two clash) w i l l have l i t t l e appeal to the non-orthodox reader, and w i l l miss the v i t a l humanity with which Milton has invested his epic. To Walter Raff T A B L E : O F CONTENTS Chapter Page Introduction! I Recent Trends, in.Milton Criticism 4 1. The anti-Mlltonlsts 2 . The "orthodox" c r i t i c s 3 . Other c r i t i c s 4. The need for a humanistic reading of Paradise Lost II Humour and Humanity in Eden 30 1. Introduction: Adam and Eve as individual characters 2 . The honeymoon 3« Rustic-Puritan Hospitality 4. "Behold a Wonder": The War in Heaven and the Creation.: of the Universe through Adam's eyes. 5. Adam's story III The Significance of this View of Eden 74 1. Oh Books IV-VIII 2 . On our view of Satan 3 . Oh the F a l l and Reconciliation 4. On the Vision IV Conclusion. 90 1. The c r i t i c s again 2 . The individual human tragedy in Paradise Lost 3 . The element of myth which transcends the individual tragedy Bibliography INTRODUCTION To e n t e r upon a s t u d y o f M i l t o n i s an u n d e r t a k i n g f r a u g h t w i t h dangers, and t h e amateur s e t s f o r t h w i t h c o n s i d e r -a b l e t r e p i d a t i o n . He has engaged t o e x p l a i n t h e i n e x p l i c a b l e , t o b o t a n i z e under h i s own d i s t o r t i n g m i c r o s c o p e a g r e a t e p i c poem; and, however d e f e r e n t i a l h i s approach, he has s e t up as a c r i t i c i n an a r e a a l r e a d y crowded w i t h c r i t i c s , many o f them l e a r n e d s c h o l a r s and p r o f o u n d I n t e l l e c t s . B u t , as Douglas Bush s a y s , "... one has one's v i e w o f M i l t o n and f e e l s moved t o ex p r e s s i t The l o v e r o f M i l t o n w i l l have h i s say: he must p e r f o r c e e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y r e c o r d t h e i m p r e s s i o n s o f h i s j o u r n e y s t h r o u g h P a r a d l s e L o s t , j u s t as Marco P o l o r e c o r d e d h i s • • • J-i m p r e s s i o n s o f t h e E a s t . And P a r a d i s e L o s t c o n t a i n s t h e l a v i s h e x o t i c i s m o f t h e E a s t . I t c o n t a i n s t o o t h e p a g e a n t r y o f t h e r e c e n t c o r o n a t i o n . I t c o n t a i n s many more t h i n g s , b e s i d e s . The st u d e n t o f l i t e r a t u r e , a t l e a s t t h e l o v e r of M i l t o n , must communicate h i s a d m i r a t i o n d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t c r i t i c s have overworked many a r e a s o f t h e poem.. F o r such a p e r s o n , an essay on P a r a d i s e L o s t i s a n e c e s s i t y - a k i n d o f grand t o u r - o r , t o put t h e m a t t e r a n o t h e r way, a sowing o f l i t e r a r y w i l d o a t s . Q The amateur, o f c o u r s e , owes h i s debt t o t h e s c h o l a r s , e s p e c i a l l y t o t h o s e s c h o l a r s who combine l e a r n i n g w i t h a 1 P a r a d i s e L o s t i n our Time. New Yo r k , P e t e r S m i t h , 1948, p.25. 2 s e n s i t i v i t y of response. The debt i s burdensome to the student writing a th e s i s , since theses purport to be o r i g i n a l . With Milton, however, i t i s d i f f i c u l t , perhaps impossible, to be o r i g i n a l at any length, and the student who attempts o r i g i n a l i t y with Paradise Lost had best be cautious to seek i t rather In what he r e j e c t s , selects, or elaborates on i n h i s reading of the scholars than i n any tenuous and attenuated new thesis on the meaning of the poem. However, there i s something yet to be said f o r Paradise Lost. something that none of the c r i t i c s has given attention to - the v i t a l i t y of the human action i n Eden, the r e a l i t y of Adam, Eve and Raphael as Individuals, the humour and the pathos that permeate the greater portion of the poem because of t h i s l i f e - l i k e humanity. This humanity i n Paradise Lost i s s i g n i f i c a n t , as I intend to show; i t colours almost the whole poem. It i s time, I f e e l , that we ceased to accept the t r a d i t i o n a l opinion that Milton, because of h i s egoism and his Puritanism, could not create l i v i n g characters. So much for the raison d'etre of t h i s paper. I should make i t clear at once that my tone throughout w i l l be e u l o g i s t i c . Professor Merritt Y. Hughes, when he lectured on Milton at t h i s U niversity several years ago, i s reported to have opened his remarks by stating, "Milton can do no wrong". Professor Hughes, I f e e l , has chosen the ri g h t vantage point f o r a prospect of Paradise Lost. It w i l l be my endeavour to discuss some of the things that Milton did r i g h t . But before p a r t i c u l a r i z i n g on the humour and humanity i n Eden, i t w i l l be p r o f i t a b l e to survey the main contemporary t r e n d s i n M i l t o n c r i t i c i s m , so t h a t my p o s i t i o n as a non-orthodox r e a d e r o f P a r a d i s e L o s t w i l l be c l e a r . F o r t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s i s c h i e f l y t o r e v e a l what P a r a d i s e L o s t o f f e r s t o t h e non-orthodox r e a d e r . 4 CHAPTER I RECENT TRENDS IN MILTON CRITICISM "Milton almost requires a solemn service of music to be played before you enter upon him", said Lamb.2 And i t i s a commonplace of Milton c r i t i c i s m that t h i s kind of rhapsodical reverence echoed through the nineteenth century. In the l a s t t h i r t y years, however, the angel of death has been abroad i n the land, and Milton has been reproached because h i s blank verse lacks the dramatic q u a l i t i e s of Shakespeare's, because h i s language and metre are not those of conversation, and because h i s great epic i s a monument to dead ideas. Further, he i s blamed f o r the f a u l t s and excesses of the poets of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. T.S. E l i o t has been the i n s p i r a t i o n f o r the a n t i - M i l t o n i s t s . His most famous s t r i c t u r e s appeared In "A Note on the Verse of John Milton".3 The controversial Middle-ton Murry joined the f a l l e n angels i n 1 9 3 9 when he stated that Milton has " l i t t l e Intimate meaning f o r us", that he does not "tough our depths".^ E l i o t , i n a recent a r t i c l e i n The Sewanee Review^, has recanted, and we thank him fo r I t , even though we 2 "Detached Thoughts on Books and Reading" 3 In Essays and Studies by Members of the English Association XXI, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1 9 3 6 . 4 Studies i n Keats New and Old. London, Oxford University Press, 1 9 3 9 , p. 1 2 1 . -5 No. XVI, pp. 1 8 5 - 2 0 9 . 5 f e e l that h i s lack of warm conviction indicates a permanent breach between Milton and himself, caused, probably, by E l i o t ' s p o l i t i c a l and r e l i g i o u s position. The a n t i - M i l t o n i s t s are not many, but they are i n f l u e n t i a l because they appeal to the powerful name of E l i o t , and because cynicism, revaluation and denigration seem to f i n d easy entrance into the modern mind. The most vocal and extreme of these c r i t i c s i s F.R. Leavis, the leader of the often i l l u m i -nating and often arrogantly c y n i c a l contributors to Scrutiny. Leavis has ever revered T.S. E l i o t , but he i s unwilling to follow h i s mentor into the enemy camp. In h i s recent book, The Common Pursuit^, he deplores E l i o t ' s volte-face and continues the r o l e of minister of vengeance and pursuit that he accepted f o r himself In 1 9 3 6 i n Revaluations?. In hi s chapter on Milton i n Revalua-tions , Leavis made short s h r i f t of Milton's blank verse. In The Common Pursuit he goes further. I t i s u n i n t e l l i g e n t and deplorable, he suggests, to devote much time to Milton's thought.8 He commends A.J .A. Waldock's a n a l y t i c a l reproofs on the inconsistencies i n Paradise Lost9 , but censures Waldock f o r not drawing the 6 London, Chatto and Windus, 1 9 5 2 . 7 London, Chatto and Windus, 1 9 3 6 . 8 The Common Pursuit, p. 27. 9 A.J .A. Waldock, Paradise Lost and i t s C r i t i c s . Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1 9 4 7 . 6 consequences of his findings; that i s , i t seems, fo r not damning Paradise Lost out of hand as unworthy of serious study. !0 After a l l has been said, Leavis thinks that Paradise Lost offers us merely the f i r s t two books and a "number of beauties" i n the other books.!! And the "Scholar Gypsy", which Leavis c a l l s "a relaxed and relaxing anodyne", i s traced to Milton; the following passage from Arnold's poem Leavis terms an "obvious reminder" of M i l t o n : ! 2 T i l l having used our nerves with b l i s s and teen, And t i r e d upon a thousand schemes our wit, To the just-pausing genius we remit Our worn-out l i f e , and are - what we have been. What could be les s M i l t o n i c than the lassitude of these l i n e s ! Now i t does not r e a l l y make sense that Paradise Lost should suffer the reproaches handed i t by Leavis, and one suspects that there i s something deeper than l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m involved i n h i s denigration. This suspicion i s heightened by several things i n Leavis' c r i t i c i s m . F i r s t , by h i s tone: "As i t i s , the point seems best enforcible (though It should be obvious to anyone capable of being convinced at a l l ) . . . . " 1 3 ; 10 The Common Pursuit. p. 21. 11 Ibid., p. 27. 12 The Common Pursuit. p. 31 . 13 Revaluations, p. 4 4 . " I t would be o f no use t o argue w i t h anyone who contended t h a t . . . . " H o w many c u l t i v a t e d a d u l t s c o u l d h o n e s t l y swear t h a t t h e y have r e a d ... ['Samson A g o n i s t e s J t h r o u g h w i t h e n j o y m e n t ? " ^ (The r e a d e r who swore (!) enjoyment, we may suppose, would be marked by L e a v i s as u n c u l t i v a t e d . ) F u r t h e r , i n h i s e s s a y on O t h e l l o - ^ . L e a v i s n o t o n l y d i s a g r e e s w i t h A.C. B r a d l e y ' s i n t e r -p r e t a t i o n o f t h a t p l a y (an a c c e p t a b l e c o u r s e ) ; he o f f e n d s a g a i n s t good manners by t r e a t i n g B r a d l e y as somewhat o f a c r i t i c a l b u f f o o n . H i s a t t a c k on S i r H e r b e r t G r i e r s o n 1 ? i s e q u a l l y i m p e r t i n e n t . But however j a u n d i c e d L e a v i s ' v i e w o f P a r a d i s e L o s t , t o c o u n t e r a c t i t s e f f e c t one must pose p o s i t i v e r e a s o n s f o r contemporary s t u d y o f t h e poem. But I s h a l l f o r t h e moment put t o one s i d e t h e o f f i c e o f j u s t i f y i n g M i l t o n t o t h e t w e n t i e t h -c e n t u r y r e a d e r , I n o r d e r t o g l a n c e a t some o t h e r c r i t i c a l stands.18 I f t h e a n t i - M i l t o n i s t a attempt t o undermine M i l t o n s t u d y by c l a i m s t h a t M i l t o n does n o t t o u c h our d e p t h s , t h a t he i s o u t d a t e d , n o t worthy o f our s e r i o u s c o n t e m p l a t i o n , t h e r e i s 14 I b i d . , p. 50. 15 I b i d . , p. 67. 16 " D i a b o l i c I n t e l l e c t and t h e Noble Hero", i n The Common P u r s u i t . 17 " I n Defense o f M i l t o n " , i n The Common P u r s u i t . 18 B e f o r e l e a v i n g t h e a n t l - M i l t o n i s t s , I f e e l c o m p e l l e d t o d e p l o r e Robert Graves' W i f e t o Mr. M i l t o n : i t i s an u n f o r t u n a t e book w h i c h might do much t o deepen t h e erroneous i m p r e s s i o n o f M i l t o n as a s u r l y and narrow-minded p u r i t a n . I t i s bad enough t o h e a r a g r e a t poet a t t a c k e d where he i s v u l n e r a b l e ; i t i s u n f o r -g i v e a b l e when Graves I n v e n t s and c o n j e c t u r e s , b u i l d s a st r a w M i l t o n o f h i s own, i n o r d e r t o damn P u r i t a n i s m t h r o u g h M i l t o n . 8 another school of c r i t i c s who are to he avoided as guides, since they tend to steer us away from the r e a l Paradise Lost by stressing the absolute necessity of our b e l i e f - f o r the pur-poses of reading the poem, at the least - In the mythological-theological framework of Paradise Lost, We might c a l l t h i s group the orthodox school. The four most important c r i t i c s of t h i s group are C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, S. Musgrove, and J.S. Diekhoff. Williams seems to be the prime mover of these c r i t i c s . One learns from C.S. Lev/is' dedication of his Preface to Paradise Lost^-9 that he and others were greatly stimulated by Williams' lectures on Milton at Oxford. Mr. Lewis i s not a f o o l , and one i s ready to believe that Williams waa an i n s p i r i n g l e c t u r e r . But the reverence paid by Lewis to Williams' "Intro-, duction" to MlltorisEnglish poems^O ±a> j think, extravagant. However, i t seems that Williams f i r s t taught Lewis to hate Satan, and the praise Is perhaps not void of r e l i g i o u s bias. At any rate, I pass by Williams to come to grips with Lewis' exceedingly v i v i d and provocative Preface to Paradise Lost. Unlike the a n t i - M i l t o n l s t s , the orthodox school i s a l i v e to the greatness of Milton. This i s es p e c i a l l y true of C.S. Lewis; and some of h i s insights and h i s s t r i k i n g s t y l e make the heretic regret that he must on several issues part 19 Preface to Paradise Lost. London, Geoffrey Cumberlege, 1942. 20 The Poetical Works of Milton. The World's Cl a s s i c s , 1940. 9 company with Lewis;, and, unfortunately, part company without shaking hands. The Preface to Paradise Lost contains some admirable c r i t i c i s m of the epic - Lewis' d i s t i n c t i o n between, and analysis of, primary and secondary epic, f o r example. His analysis and defense of the "solempne" of Milton's epic s t y l e , and his d i s -cussion of hierarchy are also penetrating and refreshing. And there are many nice insights throughout the book. But much that Lewis argues i s apt to I r r i t a t e many non-Christian readers. F i r s t , he p o n t i f i c a l l y suggests that he, as a Chris t i a n , i s better able to understand Paradise Lost than i s the sceptic.21 (He uses the pejorative.term "atheist" as a r t i l l e r y . ) The Implication i s that the reader who i s not a Christian can have a mere antiquarian i n t e r e s t i n the thought i n Paradise Lost. Lewis' rather J e s u i s t i c a l Anglicanism i s apparent throughout his book, and i t d i s t o r t s h i s reading of the epic: he must make Milton a f t e r h i s own image: "Except f o r a few i s o l a t e d passages ...[Paradise Lostj i s not even s p e c i f i c a l l y Protestant or P u r i t a n . " 2 2 Nov/ most would agree that Milton i s not a narrow C a l v i n i s t , but he i s eminently Protestant. Lewis i s at pains, however, to reveal Paradise Lost as e s s e n t i a l l y Anglican, per-haps so that he can enjoy i t with a clear conscience. This course forces him to i n s u l t the s i n c e r i t y of Milton's theo-l o g i c a l tenets, which i s to i n s u l t Milton the man. I am i n c l i n e d to agree with Lewis that many of Milton's 21 Preface to Paradise Lost, p. 64. 22 Preface to Paradise Lost, p. 91 10 heresies do not appear i n Paradise Lost. but notice the tone and the implications of the following passage from Preface to Paradise Lost: 23 And when we study ... fParadlse Lost) we f i n d that he has l a i d aside most of his private theological whimsies during his working hours as an epic poet. He may have been an u n d i s c i -plined man; he was a very d i s c i p l i n e d a r t i s t . Therefore, of h i s heresies - themselves fewer than some suppose - fewer s t i l l are paraded i n Paradise Lost .... The "best" of Milton i s i n h i s epic: why should we-labour to drag back into that noble building a l l the rubble which the laws of Its structure, the l i m i t a t i o n s of i t s purpose, and the perhaps h a l f conscious prudence of i t s author have so happily excluded from i t ? Must Noah always figure i n our minds drunk and naked, never building the Ark? This i s scarcely complimentary to Milton's i n t e l l i g e n c e . I t seems that his independent b e l i e f s ("private theological whimsies") are "rubble"; and "best" i s taken to mean "orthodox". The unorthodox Milton C'undisciplined") i s compared to a "drunk and naked" Noah - a true son of B e l i a l . At such impertinence the reader must r e s t r a i n himself from reaching angrily f o r the two-handed engine. Lewis' d o c t r i n a l bias (his lack of humility deters one from using the terms "Christian" or " r e l i g i o u s " ) , takes him i n the wrong d i r e c t i o n on several issues: Satan and his followers, the F a l l , and the characters of Adam and Eve. He treats Satan as a r e a l person, a personal enemy, a prisoner i n 23 p. 9 0 . I t a l i c s mine. 11 the dock; he i s angry with him, so angry, and so eager to b e l i t t l e him that he reminds one at times of the snarling speaker i n Browning's "Soliloquy of the Spanish C l o i s t e r " . "What we see i n Satan", says Lewis, i s the h o r r i b l e co-existence of a subtle and. incessant I n t e l l e c t u a l a c t i v i t y With, an i n -capacity to understand a n y t h i n g . 2 4 The reader who i s not encumbered with d o c t r i n a l adhesions and who has absorbed some of the best findings of psychology f e e l s that such a co-existence i s rather pathetic than h o r r i b l e . And when one reads the poem without a d o c t r i n a l bias, t h i s response i s borne out: Satan Is. pathetic, and he nowhere inspires horror. But Lewis misses the force of Satan's complex personality: ... i t i s a mistake to demand that Satan, any more than S i r Wllloughby, should be able to rant and posture through the universe without, sooner or l a t e r , awaking the comic s p i r i t . " 2 5 Satan, we might point out, i s not S i r Wllloughby; Paradise Lost i s not The Egoist; Milton Is not Meredith. However, Lewis thinks that I f the reader refuses to view Satan as both abhorrent and r i d i c u l o u s , he Is evading "the f u l l impact of the poem"2^. The f a c t i s that the non-orthodox reader does not wish to evade anything i n reading Paradise Lost. But h i s Impressions of Milton's mind, of Satan, of Paradise Lost as a 24 Preface to Paradise Lost, p. 96. 25 Ibid.. p. 93. 26 Preface to Paradise Lost, p. 100. 12 u n i t , d i f f e r from those of the orthodox. What he objects to i s the exclusiveness posited by Lewis. Lewis' anger f a l l s on Satan's cohorts with equal force. He reads a good deal into the characters, seeing each of them as "... a man who has just sold his country or his f r i e n d and now knows himself to be a pariah ...."27 Moloch? Mammon? Beelzebub? Perhaps B e l i a l , but c e r t a i n l y not the r e s t . With B e l i a l , Lewis i s grossly u n f a i r : he merely, as Milton himself, c a l l s B e l i a l names; he completely misses the pathos of the great speech i n Book I I . The unbiased reader must perforce admit that B e l i a l ' s reasoning i s good. He sees the f u t i l i t y of war, and he i s ready to accept the consequences of his actions. I f he i s wrong i n supposing that God w i l l relent i n h i s punishments, the o error i s based on the v i r t u e Hope, not on the vice Despair. But by Lewis' reasoning we must assume that the only noble course for B e l i a l to follow i s to supplicate God to apply the bellows with increasing vigour! In the next chapter I s h a l l touch upon Lewis' treatment of Adam and Eve. I. might merely comment here that h i s opinion that Eve's decision to entice Adam to eat of the f r u i t c o n s t i -tutes murder 2^ i s incompatible with the p o e t i c a l impression of of the F a l l . Neither Adam nor Eve at any point i n the poem 27 Ibid., p. 101. 28 Preface to Paradise Lost, p. 121. 13 strikes us as capable of murder. But to Lewis the F a l l i s clear: Eve f a l l s through pride, Adam through uxoriousness. 29 That i s a l l . This i s too simple a view of the complex situ a t i o n that Milton creates i n the human action; but Lewis, because he reads Paradise Lost with St. Augustine as a guide, has no sympathy with Adam at the F a l l . A point of Lewis' that I w i l l be opposing i n the next chapter i s that Adam and Eve do not become human u n t i l the F a l l , 3 0 C.S. Lewis' approach to Paradise Lost has influenced the attitude of S. Musgrove, who, i n an a r t i c l e e n t i t l e d "Is the Devil an Ass?"^l , declares that to understand Paradise Lost aright, we must begin the day with "a good morning's hate" of Satan. Musgrove holds that those who do not take t h i s stand are Romantics.32 This, I suppose, because Blake and Shelley were somewhat extravagant Satanlsts. But the process i s not only undesirable (I cannot imagine such a beginning leading to a pleasant day); i t i s Impossible, except f o r the orthodox who believe i n the r e a l presence of Satan, and who attach f i n a l s ignificance to Chri s t i a n theology. I think Mr. Musgrove equates "Romantic" and "unorthodox"; at any rate i t w i l l not do 29 Ibid.. pp. 121-122. 30 Ibid., p. 124. 31 RES XXI, 1945, p. 302-15. 32 Ibid., p. 303. 14 to banish. Saurat, T i l l y a r d and Waldock into the same camp with Shelley. Musgrove's d o c t r i n a l approach to the poem, l i k e Lewis', i s not conducive to a reading of the action i n Eden which sees beyond the doctrine into the humanity. John Diekhoff's book33 gives a valuable exposition of Milton's theological argument i n Paradise Lost; but Diekhoff makes the error of allowing the argument to Interfere with the impressions of the poetry. Like Lewis', h i s book i s laden with • theory, and i n both cases the authors force us to ask questions better not asked. Diekhoff's attitude to Satan i s r e l e n t l e s s l y d o c t r i n a l , unlike Milton's. Because Satan i s not repentant, because he f a l l s "... by God's permissive (not h i s constitutive) w i l l "3^ a n c i _ because, Diekhoff claims, Satan's r e b e l l i o n i s not a matter of p r i n c i p l e , but springs from pride and ambition35, "Those who do not f i n d ... Satan abhorrent have missed the poem."36 And seven deadly sins w i l l not do f o r Satan; he must have nine; and we hear the f a l l of each stroke of Diekhoff's lash: Pride, Ambition, Envy, Hate, Malice, Despair, Wrath, Revengefulness, Deceit.37 I t i s true that Satan has a l l these 33 Milton's Paradise Lost. A Commentary on the Argument. New York, Columbia University Press, 1946. 34 Milton's Paradise Lost. A Commentary on the Argument. p. 28. 35 Ibid., pp. 78-9. 36 Ibid., p. 48. 37 Ibid., p. 43. 15 t r a i t s , but there are other sides to him - his courage, resourcefulness, leadership; above a l l , perhaps, the genuine g r i e f he experiences, however incapable he i s of changing his ways. One f e e l s the pathos of Satan's pli g h t i n Chaucer's l i n e s i n T r o l l u s and Criseyde; For of fortunes sharp adversitee The worste kynde of infortune i s t h i s , A man to han ben i n prosperitee, And i t remembren, whan i t passed i s . 38 Biekhoff i s as harsh with Adam and Eve as with Satan; and h i s treatment of them provokes the same undesirable ques-t i o n i n g . When he i n s i s t s that "Adam and Eve are s u f f i c i e n t to stand firm against any temptation Satan can put i n t h e i r way, and should stand firm"39 f w e hearken back to Milton's words af t e r Satan has deceived U r i e l : So spake the f a l s e dissembler unperceived; For neither man nor angel can discern Hypocrisy, the only e v i l that walks I n v i s i b l e , except to God alone. ^ U r i e l , l e t alone the human pai r , i s palpably not s u f f i c i e n t to stand f i r m against deception (hypocrisy). But Diekhoff's theorizing s t i r s up i n him the same anger that we f i n d i n 38 Book I I I , 1625 f f . 39 Biekhoff, p_p_. c i t . . p. 66* 40 Paradise Lost. I l l , 681 f f . 16 C.S. Lewis and Musgrove: he speaks of "The fan t a s t i c perversity \irtiich prefers an apple to God"1^1 Surely th i s i s not our experience of the F a l l . Diekhoff, because of hi s r i g i d d o c t r i n a l reading of the poem, misses the human intere s t which pervades Milton's Eden. A t h i r d group of c r i t i c s , represented best, I think, by Denis Saurat and E.M.W. T i l l y a r d , I s h a l l c a l l "the pioneers". Saurat and T i l l y a r d are both excellent scholars and men of f i n e s e n s i b i l i t i e s . They are also eminently objective i n t h e i r c r i t i c i s m . Saurat's Milton. Man and Thinker2*"^ was a milestone i n Milton study because of the l i g h t i t threw on Milton's theo-l o g i c a l doctrine, and because of i t s emphasis on the force of Milton's personality i n the poem; but since i n t h i s essay I sh a l l not be dealing at any length with Milton's theology, I s h a l l pass by Saurat's work. E.W.M. T i l l y a r d ' s work on Milton stretches over a twenty-year period; h i s c r i t i c i s m , greatiy inspired by Saurat -and where i t i s not, s t i l l i n the best t r a d i t i o n of l i t e r a r y scholarship - i s Instinct with learning and s e n s i t i v i t y . Where one disagrees with him, one disagrees with caution and with respect. T i l l y a r d ' s three books alone would be, i f not s u f f i c i e n t , at least very considerable equipment f o r the student 41 Diekhoff, p_p_. c i t . , p. 51. 42 London, J.M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1924. 1 7 of Milton's verse and prose. T i l l y a r d ' s Milton ( 1 9 3 0 ) i s a monumental work which, i s j u s t l y famous, and I s h a l l have recourse to i t often - not always, of necessity, with acknowledgment. One point which he makes i n that bo o k 4 3 , and which he maintains i n h i s l a t e s t work on Milton ( 1 9 5 1 ) , i s that the l a s t four books of Paradise Lost are characterized by pessimism. I do not agree with t h i s stand; at least I think that the pessimism i s greatly mitigated by hope; but t h i s i s a-point that each reader w i l l decide f o r him-s e l f . I s h a l l be Indebted to T i l l y a r d ' s Mlltonio Setting ( 1 9 3 8 ) f o r some of my comments on archetypal patterns i n Milton. For the moment, I s h a l l have something to say about the recent Studies i n M i l t o n 4 4 , i n which T i l l y a r d modifies some of his e a r l i e r opinions and presents some valuable hints f o r fresh work on Paradise Lost. In t h i s l a t e s t study, T i l l y a r d r e j e c t s hi s e a r l i e r b e l i e f - one almost un i v e r s a l l y held - that the c r i s i s of the poem occurs at the F a l l . He s h i f t s the c r i s i s to the regeneration of Adam and Eve from l u s t and quarreling through despair to mutual tolerance, helpfulness and, f i n a l l y , to prayer. But whether he i s right here or not, I cannot agree with him that t h i s new prospect of the structure leaves the poem without a "major f l a w " 4 5 . To adjust the balance of the poem to t h i s point of view, T i l l y a r d suggests that Milton places l i t t l e 4 3 p. 2 9 1 . 4 4 Studies In Milton. London, Chatto and Windus. 4 5 Ibid.. p. 5 2 . 18 emphasis on the F a l l , that Adam's horror i n the moving l i n e s , Adam, soon as he heard The f a t a l trespass done by Eve, amazed Astonied stood and blank, while horror c h i l l Ran through h i s veins, and a l l his Joints relaxed; From hi s slack hand the garland wreathed for Eve Down dropped, and a l l the faded roses shed: i s noble, but b r i e f l y described, that the passage i s formally Neo-Classical i n tone, that Milton was saving h i s Intensity fo r the regeneration. But surely t h i s passage, i n i t s emphatic s i m p l i c i t y , reminds us rather of the great tr a g i c moments i n Shakespeare than of anything Neo-Classical. Our feelings at the F a l l do not change because of t h i s s h i f t . The major flaw -that we sympathize with Adam at the F a l l , whereas the theology demands our disapprobation - remains. T i l l y a r d further t r i e s to d i s p e l t h i s flaw by pointing out that Adam has already f a l l e n before he eats the f r u i t ; he f a l l s as soon as he eulogizes Eve to Raphael i n Book VIII: ... yet when I approach Her l o v e l i n e s s , so absolute she seems And i n her s e l f complete, so well to know Her own, that what she w i l l s to do or say Seems wisest, virtuouseet, discreetest, best; "... by the nominal requirements of the scheme", T i l l y a r d claims, we s h o u l d be shocked and h o r r i f i e d f a t t h e F a l l J ; f o r what i s more s h o c k i n g t h a n t h e s p e c t a c l e of a man, s t i l l i n n o c e n t , c h o o s i n g t o f l o u t God w i t h h i s eyes open and t o s a c r i f i c e e t e r n a l p r i n c i p l e s f o r an i m p u l s e t o companionship? Y et i n a c t u a l reading we are not profoundly shocked, and the reason i s that Adam's innocence at t h i s point i s only nominal. 46 ;. But by t h i s reading we should now he profoundly shocked at that point where Adam does move from innocence to the f a l l e n condi-t i o n (at the passage quoted above from Book VIII, that i s ) . The fact i s that the non-orthodox are nowhere "profoundly shocked"; T i l l y a r d ' s s h i f t of emphasis i n two directions from the F a l l -forward to regeneration and backward to Book VIII - willnnot, therefore, gloss over the flaw at the F a l l , whether the flaw disturbs us i s another matter. I think thereaare a good many readers whom i t does not disturb; those who do not surrender to the "nominal requirements of the scheme". T i l l y a r d ' s explanation of h i s response to Adam's resolution to f a l l with Eve i s perhaps the best that c r i t i c i s m has yet offered; he likens Adam's pl i g h t to that of the p a c i f i s t at the outbreak of war: To f i g h t i s bad, yet not to f i g h t i s worse, because i t i s a denial of the common human fate, of an incrimination It i s as yet impossible f o r any human being to be free of. To keep clear on narrowly personal moral grounds would be to incur a self-riteousness worse than the t a i n t of association i n an e v i l which a l l humanity i s doomed to share. That ... i s a true analogy dictated by the p o e t i c a l e f f e c t . 47 This i s well said: T i l l y a r d , though he does not recognize the pervasive humour and humanity i n pre-lapsarian Eden, does f e e l 46 Studies i n Milton, p. 28. 47 Studies i n Milton, p. 29. 20 the "beauty and the complexity of the passions which s t i r Adam at the F a l l . In this book, Tillyard has many cogent things to say about the character of Satan, although perhaps his relation of Satan to Hitler i s unfortunate. He sees, however, that dictators, including Hitler, are not wholljr e v i l . He i s also Illuminating on the honeymoon aura which invests pre-lapsarlan Eden. Finally, though he rsfers i t only th the quarrel scene before the F a l l , he touches upon domestic comedy in Eden, the subject I shall be chiefly concerned with in this paper. The last c r i t i c s I shall discuss here are A.J.A. Waldock and E. Rajan - writers who have during the past decade written admirable books on Paradise Lost. I group these men together merely because they have written during the 1940's, and because they are admirers of Milton. One of the most significant books on Paradise Lost i s A.Jr.A. Waldock1 s Paradise Lost and i t s Critics^8; i t i s a book which refuses to f a l l i n with the orthodox: c r i t i c s (or with Tillyard) in their attempts to find in Paradise Lost a scheme which i s consistent, and, at the same time, entirely compatible with the impact of the poetry: In approaching the F a l l ... - or indeed ... any part of Paradise Lost - there i s a simple distinction that i t i s of the utmost importance, I think, to keep well in mind. It i s this: in. 48 See note 9 above. 21 reading Paradise Lost we must not always expect to f i n d that -Milton'.s intention i s p e r f e c t l y matched by his performance .... 49 And Waldock I n s i s t s , r i g h t l y I think, that the performance Is what matters; that our impressions, not Milton's statements about what our Impressions should be, constitute the facts of the poem. He suggest, too, that some of the d i f f i c u l t i e s that the reader of Paradise Lost encounters were simply not f e l t by Milton; that Milton, not having the t r a d i t i o n of the novel behind him, perhaps d i d not see that i n Genesis God as a narrative character simply does not appear i n a good l i g h t . ^ But Milton, he believes, knew that h i s narrative had to catch the reader at the outset, and he holds that t h i s i s one reason f o r the attractiveness of the Satan of the early books. There i s much tru t h i n these assertions; and c e r t a i n l y I concur with Waldock i n his s k i l f u l defense of Satan against C.S. Lewis' r i d i c u l e . Satan's speeches may not be l o g i c a l l y sound; they may be self-contradictory, agrees Waldock; but they are ef f e c t i v e f o r the purposes of r a i s i n g r e b e l l i o n , encouraging the f a l l e n angels and deceiving Eve. And a l l Satan i s aiming at i s the accomplishment of these purposes: "... to appraise such a speech £ Satan's f i r s t speech to his followers] by l o g i c alone i s to bring under the ban of Nonsense, by implication, h a l f the great oratory of the world."51 49 Waldock, op_., c i t . , p. 2 5 . 50 Waldock, c i t . , p. 18. 51 Ibid., p. 7 0 . -22 Professor Waldock's general thesis on the d i s t i n c t i o n between Milton's intentions and performances, i s , I think,:<3f the utmost importance, hut the main f a u l t i n his hook i s a f a u l t of omission. He i s r i g h t i n asserting that because of the reader's i n i t i a l i n t e r e s t i n Satan, because Satan i s grander than Milton intended him to be, the balance of the poem, i s disturbed.52 He i s r i g h t , too, i n claiming that the poem can-not stand the s t r a i n at the centre; that i t breaks because we are c a l l e d on by the myth to condemn Adam at the same time as the poetry demands that we wholly admire h i s resolution to die with Eve.53 But Waldock, who obviously admires Paradise Lost and Milton, leaves much to be said on the p o s i t i v e side. His book Is an admirable antidote to the writings of the orthodox school, but i t i s scarecely a guide Into the values of Paradise Lost; and Waldock's stress on the inconsistencies of the poem, unmatched by a stress on i t s p o s i t i v e values, gives h i s book a greater l i s t than Satan gives to Paradise Lost. And Waldock, as I s h a l l point out l a t e r , f a l l s i n with the other c r i t i c s i n hi s s t r i c t u r e s on the human action i n Eden. Another recent and important c r i t i c i s B. Raj an of T r i n i t y College, Cambridge, whose book Paradise Lost and the S event e en th- G entury Reader appeared i n 194-7.54 Professor Raj an 52 Waldock, op_. c i t . , p. 123. 53 Ibid.. p. 56. 54 London, Chatto and Windus. gives in his f i r s t chapter a valuable, i f brief, survey of Milton criticism since World War I. This survey i s rather bibliographical than, c r i t i c a l . The most cogent studies in his book, I believe, are, f i r s t , that on the "song and dance" elements - the harmony - in the Elizabethan world-picture and in Paradise Lost; and, second, that on correspondences (parallels) and symmetry in Paradise Lost. The latter i s a study long overdue. But I cannot agree with Rajan's main thesis (which he fortunately forgets at times) that the "ideal c r i t i c " should relate his remarks "to the effect of the poem on the audience for whom It was intended".^5 pf course Paradise Lost could only have been written in the seventeenth-century, and certainly the more the read'er i s aware of seventeenth-century art , po l i t i c s , theology, science, and manners, the more Paradise Lo3t w i l l render to him. But i t i s my belief that Paradise Lost should be studied as a poem which has meaning for the twentieth-century reader, and that to attempt to r i g oneself out in the prejudices of the seventeenth-century while reading i t i s to approach i t as an antiquarian. If the attempt were possible of success - which i s doubtful, unless one actually holds the seventeenth-century beliefs as the orthod c r i t i c s do - the result would be that one would read the poem entirely in terms of Milton's stated Intentions, not i n terms of his performance; 55 Rajan, op_. c i t . , p. 15. 24 not, as Waldock points out;, i n terms of the p o e t i c a l facts of the epic. Besides, Milton's " f i t audience" was composed more l i k e l y of men l i k e John Evelyn, of men l i k e the Milton of the I t a l i a n Journey, than of Puritans. Milton, as well as writing f o r p o s t e r i t y , was writing f o r gentlemen of l e t t e r s , c l a s s i c a l scholars who were also what Milton would term "good men". I do not think Rajan i s r i g h t , therefore, when he contends that Milton and his " f i t audience" attached contempt to words l i k e "Memphis" and A l c a i r o " and "Sultan" because these names suggested the Infidel.and the l a v i s h splendour of courts which the Puritans contemned. Milton, despite himself, was fascinated by the exotic, and even though Satan's p o s i t i o n i s termed "bad eminence", the opening passage of Book II -High on a throne of royal state which f a r Outshone the wealth of Ormus and of Ind, Or where the gorgeous East with richest hand Showers on her kings barbaric pearl and gold Satan exalted sat, rings with the same admiration as the reference to the Squires Tale i n "II Penseroso", the reference to ... the wondrous horse of brass On which the Tartar king did r i d e . And we remember, i n Chaucer, the hush that f a l l s over the court of "Cambuscan bold" when the strange knight anounces that he i s 56 Rajan, op_. c i t . , p. 95. 25 an emissary of "The kyng of Arabe and of Inde".57 The names are magic to Chaucer and his audience, to Milton and his audience, and to us. Rajan's attempt to read the poem as a Puritan (for that i s what i t amounts to) leads him into the same do c t r i n a l narrowness that possesses the orthodox c r i t i c s . He charac-te r i z e s Adam's moving words, "I f e e l the bond of nature draw me to my own", as "heroics"58; a n £ Eve's reply, "0 glorious t r i a l of exceeding love", as "the same f r i v o l i t y "59. "... though we may applaud such s e l f - s a c r i f i c e as Adam's as a romantic gesture", says Rajan, "we have to condemn i t as a responsible act."60 we have to, indeed, i f we peruse as seventeenth-century readers; but we do damage to our r e a l f eelings i f we read thus: Adam's gesture i s not s u p e r f i c i a l , as "romantic" Implies that i t i s . 57 Squire's Tale, l i n e 110. 58 Raj an, op_. c i t . , p. 72. 59 Loc. c i t . 60 Loc. c i t . 26 . The purpose of t h i s survey of the main trends In Milton c r i t i c i s m has been to lay the groundwork f o r the thesis of t h i s essay - that Paradise Lost has much to say to the twentieth-century non-orthodox reader, and that there i s room f o r a study of Paradise Lost which i s directed for the most part s p e c i f i c a l l y to such a reader. The a n t i - M i l t o n i s t s would have us rej e c t Paradise Lost (Milton.does not touch our depths); the orthodox c r i t i c s (and Raj an) demand that we adopt seventeenth-century attitudes and prejudices; T i l l y a r d , while he presents sugges-tions germane to my p a r t i c u l a r subject, does not elaborate a o defense of Paradise Lost as a work v i t a l to our times by vi r t u e of i t s humanity. Besides, T i l l y a r d Is at pains to bring the theology of Paradise Lost into.harmony with the poetic impact of the action, a task which leads him to some valuable c o n t r i -butions to Milton Scholarship, but a task i n i t s e l f impossible of f u l f i l m e n t ; a task, too, the fulfi l m e n t of which i s not necessary to a keen enjoyment of the poem. Waldock sees that the theology and the actions are often out of harmony: h i s vigourous i n t e l l e c t w i l l not permit him to s a c r i f i c e the poetic impressions to the theological scheme. But Waldock, as I have suggested, says scarcely anything about the p o s i t i v e values of Paradise Lost. It i s my task, then, to set f o r t h exactly what I f e e l Paradise Lost contains f o r the non-orthodox reader who w i l l take pains to give himself over to the poem. (One must, af t e r a l l , surrender completely to poetry i f one i s to reap the :< . . . l • • 27 f u l l - r i p e n e d grain; and Paradise Lost i s a r i c h garner.) I s h a l l not deal, except i n c i d e n t a l l y , with such time-honoured themes as the Problem of Satan and the F a l l ; nor s h a l l I attempt to come to any f i n a l conclusion about the "meaning" of the poem. I s h a l l be c h i e f l y concerned with the humanity of Eden, the r e a l i t y of Adam and Eve as characters before the F a l l , the humour (and the pathos) which Invests the Paradisal action and which effects a change i n our impression of large areas of the poem. It now remains f o r me to make clear what I mean by the term "non-orthodox" reader. I do not mean the term to be narrowly exclusive. Experience t e l l s us that most of those who are l i k e l y today to read Milton are not orthodox Christians. The orthodox c r i t i c s contend that the reader must stand i n Milton's d o c t r i n a l p o s i t i o n i n order to derive value from Paradise Lost, but t h i s assertion, I maintain, i s to demand too narrow a view of Milton, who was a poet as well as a Puritan. I f i n d a wealth of human characterization and drama i n the middle books of Paradise Lost. drama, f o r the most part, which i s not to be appreciated on a do c t r i n a l l e v e l . I t i s t h i s drama, which i s composed l a r g e l y of domestic comedy and which i s both amusing and I r o n i c a l l y pathetic i n i t s impressions, i t i s t h i s drama which I believe makes Paradise Lost es p e c i a l l y meaningful to the great number of readers - sceptics, r a t i o n a l i s t s , atheists, communists, Jews, Hindoos, etc. - who are not orthodox Christians. I should add, of course, that there are orthodox Christians who do not treat poetry so much 2 8 as doctrine as the orthodox c r i t i c s do, and that such readers are not intended to f a l l under the ban I have placed on C.S. Lewis, Diekhoff and the r e s t . For the non-orthodox reader, the orthodox c r i t i c s , indeed any c r i t i c s who demand that we succumb to Milton's C h r i s t i a n scheme, w i l l never do. But that the theology of Paradise Lost does not touch the non-orthodox reader does not mean that the epic i s not a glorious and meaningful poem fo r him. Milton w i l l survive his theology just as Homer has survived h i s . Paradise Lost must not be allowed to perish at the hands of the orthodox c r i t i c s ; i f i t Is to remain a l i v i n g document, i t must speak to the twentieth-century - and to future centuries. And i t must speak mainly through i t s essential humanity. It i s most touching to hear greatness paying homage to greatness, and we cannot overestimate the significance of Wordsworth's t r i b u t e to Milton. Milton has a voice whose sound i s l i k e the sea, and It must continue to reverberate; we must not w i l l i n g l y l e t i t die. But i t s voice w i l l be l o s t i f we look too curiously into Paradise Lost f o r f a u l t s , If we set up conditions which hamper a surrender to the poetry. Even Waldock, as I have suggested, f a l l s into t h i s error. C.S. Lewis, i t seems to me, i s wasting time by wondering whether Milton was wise i n representing paradlsal sexuality^-*-. Milton has represented i t . 61 Preface to Paradise Lost, p. 118. 29 We thank him f o r i t : take i t away and we have no Paradise Lost. Milton put into the poem what he had to put i n . He i s the poem and the poem i s Milton. It i s vain to wish Paradise Lost other than It i s , to suggest that here Dante and here Shakespeare might have acquitted himself better. We must not pay heed to Rajan when he asserts that I f Milton's convictions could have stood firm ... he might yet have brought to i t s noblest consummation that s p i r i t of seventeenth-century Protestantism of which Paradise Lost i s s t i l l the authentic though imperfect symbol. °2 Milton has bequeathed us Paradise Lost, a poem replete with beauties, a poem which w i l l increasingly re-pay our journeys through i t i n proportion as we refuse to obstruct our path of enjoyment by r a i s i n g b a r r i e r s of conditions. We must, while not attempting to claim f o r Paradise Lost a consistency i t does not have, take the poem as i t i s . Doubtless Urania could have inspire d a better epic, but doubtless Urania never did. 62 Raj an, op_. c i t . , p. 92. 30 CHAPTER II HUMOUR AND HUMANITY IN EDEN 1 M l l t o n i s t s have f o r some time been at pains to restore to Paradise Lost the balance which the decay of orthodoxy, and the r e s u l t i n g admiration f o r Satan, have disrupted. This i s a worthy endeavour, and, as I have suggested, many of these c r i t i c s , e s p e c i a l l y T i l l y a r d , have i n c i d e n t a l l y made fresh and s t r i k i n g discoveries, have greatly advanced our understanding of Paradise Lost. I f e e l , however, that the balance w i l l never be restored f o r the non-orthodox reader i f acceptance of the Ch r i s t i a n scheme i s the p r i c e he must pay. But the balance can be restored, I think, I f not completely, at least to a very considerable degree. And what i s needed f o r t h i s readjustment i s a new view of Eden, a reading which finds i n the action of the middle books (IV - VIII) a good deal that Is i n t e r e s t i n g l y human, that i s evocative of humour as well as of pathos. My response to Eden i s not that of the orthodox c r i t i c s ; C.S. Lewis i s uneasy, fo r example, because Milton has represented Paradisal sexuality i n too human a manner.^ 1 Preface to Paradise Lost, p.iaa 31 I t i s not that of Samuel Johnson 2, T i l l y a r d 3 or Waldock^, a l l of whom have supported the t r a d i t i o n a l view that the action i n Eden i s e s s e n t i a l l y f l a t , that the human p a i r are not human u n t i l the F a l l . ( T i l l y a r d , I have remarked, has recently modified h i s stand, and has broken some ground for my present study of the Paradisal honeymoon and domestic comedy i n Eden.) Certainly I f a l l out with F.R. Leavis when he contends that a f t e r "... the f i r s t two books, ... Paradise Lost, though there are Intervals of r e l i e f , becomes d u l l and empty."5 I t i s my Intention i n t h i s thesis to give the case f o r the Paradisal action, to show that the characters are engagingly human, that the episodes are Instinct with humour, the r e a l humour of domestic r e l a t i o n s e s p e c i a l l y , not simply the heavy-handed irony which i s usually granted to be Milton's sole province apart from the serious. I am aware that i n the following pages I s h a l l often be open to the charge of "reading-in". My answer must be that when I read Paradise Lost I succumb to the p o e t i c a l Impressions of the action, not to Milton's statements of the intention when, as with B e l i a l ' s speech, f o r example, those statements come into c o n f l i c t with the p o e t i c a l impressions. I love Milton t h i s side i d o l a t r y as much as any man, and though I cannot 2 L i f e of Milton, p. 73. 3 Milton, p. 282. 4 Paradise Lost and i t s C r i t i c s , pp. 28-29. 5 Revaluations, p. 5 9 . 32 follow him, intellectually or emotionally, In his Christian scheme, Paradise Lost i s for me the great English poem. This; must he, obviously, for reasons outside the Christian scheme. It would be arrogance for me to claim that C.S. Lewis, Diekhoff and Rajan do not admire and "understand" Paradise Lost. But, though we no doubt appreciate much in common, there are things v i t a l to them which I cannot feel - the utter depravity of Satan, the viciousness of Adam and Eve at the F a l l , for example. The reason for this division of view i s that these c r i t i c s are, or are at pains to be, seventeenth-century readers. My problem Is to bring to light those aspects of Paradise Lost which can make the reading of i t an exciting adventure for the reader who may even be repelled by orthodox theology. As I have suggested, the answer l i e s to a great extent in the humour and humanity in Eden, humour and humanity which Milton did not always consciously Intend - just as he did not Intend Satan to be attractive - but which nevertheless has spread through the action. Milton was, when he wrote with his right hand, f i r s t and last a poet. This i s a fact which for my purposes cannot be overemphasized. And once the reader puts on his poetical gar-ments when he picks up Paradise Lost, the problem of accepting the theology of the poem diminishes, even disappears; and the more this problem fades, the more we are able to look for and find engaging humanity where before there seemed to be only arid allegory. Adam and Eve, however much they are typical, are recognizable individuals, and as such, both in themselves 33 and in their relations to each other, they give a genial humanity to the poem. It i s of the f i r s t importance i n finding Adam and Eve human before the F a l l to close one* s ears to the traditional opinion of Adam. Lord David Cecil has taken the effortless path of repetition in his character-analysis: "In Paradise Lost", he says, "All-holy Cod and innocent Adam are made equally i r r i t a b l e and egotistic ...."^ Professor Waldock, elsewhere so discerning, allows his antipathy to Milton's stated inten-tions - to the frequent Miltonic Puritanism, that i s - to interfere with the impressions one gets of Adam's character, not only at the F a l l , but before and after; impressions which reveal an extremely engaging human being. I disagree with Waldock when he asserts that Adam i s stupid, sententious and priggish by turns.^ Rather, I find his priggishness and sen-tentlousness, set against the framework of his relationship with God, Raphael, Michael and Eve, humanly amusing. For a l l Adam's moralizing,, for Instance, when the test comes he i s ready to go to earthly h e l l with his Eve. We are reminded of the amusing.and commendable contrast, between the maxims and the actions of Parson Adams.. Again, despite his confident, and seemingly learned reply to Eve's question about the nocturnal service of the stars (IV, 659), he needs must ask Raphael for 6 Oxford Book of Christian Verse. Oxford, Clarendon, 1940, p. x x i i . .... -7 0p_. c i t . , pp. 28-29. 34 essentially the same information. (VIII, 13) The fact seems to be than Adam i s not nearly so knowledgeable about the universe as he pretends to his bride. The important fact about Adam i s that he suffers from a split-personality caused by two experiences on his f i r s t day of existence - in his childhood in fact. Everything in his action stems from these two experiences, and i t i s therefore essential that we study them in some detail i f we would clearly grasp the character of Adam. Here then i s a brief summary of the main features of Adam's birthday. Our f i r s t picture of him i s of a completely innocent creature delighting with pure animal spirits in himself and In the world he sees about him: By quick Instinctive motion up I sprung, As thitherward endeavoring, and.upright Stood on my feet; about me round • I saw H i l l , dale, and shady woods, and sunny plains, And liquid lapse of murmuring streams; by these, Creatures that lived, and moved, and walked, or flew, Birds on the branches warbling; a l l things smiled, With fragrance and with joy my heart o'erflowed. Myself I then perused, and limb by limb Surveyed, and sometimes went, and sometimes ran With supple joints, as l i v e l y vigor led. (VIII, 259-69) Here i s Adam frisking like a yeanling kid: " a l l things smiled", and so does the reader, out of sheer vicarious pleasure. Adam Is for a l l the world like a child before a Christmas tree. Can we really imagine this Adam capable of e v i l , even capable of conceiving evil? I think not. But what follows? Milton's God enters with his Puritan theology and frightens Adam, as 35 Victorian parents frightened their children, with the threat of damnation: "Remember what I warn thee, shun to taste, And shun the bitter consequence: for know, The day thou eatest thereof, my sole command Transgressed, Inevitably thou shalt die; From that day mortal, and this happy state Shalt lose, expelled from hence into a world Of woe and sorrow." Sternly he pronounced The r i g i d interdiction, which resounds Yet dreadful in mine ear. (VIII, 327T335) Adam i s possessed of "the fear of God"; he seems, in fact, to have a guilt-complex before the F a l l . The Important question i s , Do we feel that the healthy and lovable creature needs a taboo placed before him, especially in this "stern" and "dread-f u l " manner? No; one might as well proselytize a fawn. But the warning rings in Adam's ear and accounts for the moralist In him; i t accounts too for some very touching passages in the Tenth Book, of which more later. The other important event of Adam's birthday i s , of course, the event pre-eminent in his l i f e - God's gif t of Eve. For Adam i t i s love at f i r s t sight: Under his forming hands a creature grew, Manlike, but different sex, so lovely f a i r , That what seemed f a i r i n a l l the world, seemed now Mean, or in her summed up, in her contained And in her looks, which from thattime infused Sweetness into my heart, unfelt before, And into a l l things from her air inspired The s p i r i t of love and amorous delight. She disappeared, and l e f t me dark, I waked 36 To f i n d h e r , o r f o r e v e r t o d e p l o r e Her l o s s , and o t h e r p l e a s u r e s a l l a b j u r e : When out o f hope, b e h o l d h e r , n o t f a r o f f . ( V I I I , 470) T h i s i s t h e p r o t o t y p e o f a l l l o v e - s t o r i e s . We can f e e l Adam's d e l i g h t and t h e awe w i t h w h i c h he gazes upon t h e l o v e l y Eve. I t i s t h e g r e a t moment i n h i s l i f e and he i s t r y i n g t o communi-c a t e I t t o R a p h a e l . N o t i c e t h e s h i f t t o t h e p r e s e n t i n h i s , "When out o f hope, b e h o l d h e r , n o t f a r o f f " , as who s h o u l d say, "Look you, R a p h a e l , a t my b r i d e ; i s she n o t b e a u t i f u l ? Do you have any c r e a t u r e i n Heaven who can compare w i t h t h a t ? " And f o r e v e r a f t e r Adam i s bound t o Eve by hoops s t r o n g e r t h a n s t e e l , by t h e "bond o f n a t u r e " w h i c h o v e r - r i d e s God's i n t e r d i c t i o n and t h e consequent s e n t e n t i o u s P u r i t a n i s m o f Adam's t h e o l o g i z i n g . The n o t e i s s t r u c k i n t h i s v e r y speech i n t h e ominous, I waked To f i n d h e r , o r f o r e v e r t o d e p l o r e Her l o s s , w h i c h throws our a t t e n t i o n f o r w a r d t o t h e pathos o f Adam's v i s i o n o f " t h e s e w i l d woods f o r l o r n " . These, t h e n , a r e t h e two f o r c e s t h a t o p e r a t e i n Adam: h i s w h o l e h e a r t e d and, we f e e l , b l a m e l e s s l y s e n s u a l l o v e o f an Eden crowned w i t h Eve (and t h e g r a t i t u d e t o God t h a t r e s u l t s ) , and h i s P u r i t a n i c a l f e a r o f God. As I have s u g g e s t e d , and as I hope t o show as I p r o g r e s s , h i s P u r i t a n i s m i s , as i t r e a c t s w i t h h i s l o v e o f Eve and h i s b a s i c a l l y I nnocent s e n s u a l i t y , o f t e n amusing, sometimes t o u c h i n g . 37 What of Eve? She too i s human from the beginning; most c r i t i c s f e e l t h i s , I believe, but only Waldock to my knowledge has cast off the shackles of Milton's surface inten-tions enough to manifest h i s impressions on t h i s point. Eve -we must face i t - Is unregenerate from the beginning. I f we look f o r causes we must blame Milton's God either f o r con-sciously creating her with a propensity to transgression or f o r s l i p p i n g up somewhere i n her creation. (But we need not ra i s e such problems.) Her f i r s t action i s her N a r c i s s i s t i c pool-gazing. Then there i s that portentous dream of hers, t e l l i n g us that, from God's point of view, a l l Is not well with her soul. One senses, too, that she i s not much impressed by Raphael - she would rather Adam t o l d her of the mysteries of the cosmos; i n his t e l l i n g he, ... she knew would intermix Grateful digressions, and solve high dispute With conjugal caresses, from his l i p Not words alone pleased her. (VIII, 54) And with Christ, when he c a l l s her to account f o r her trans-gression, one senses that she Is Just a l i t t l e sulky i n her terse, The serpent me beguiled and I did eat. (X, 162) True, Milton points out that she i s "with shame nigh over-whelmed"; but there i s something In her words here - she neither excuses her action nor heaps curses on her own head -38 and i n her lack of in t e r e s t i n Raphael, which suggests that these Gods are intruders she can well do without. Perhaps t h i s i s because her Puritanism was taught her, not by God, not i n "dreadful" tones, but by Adam, who intermixes his discourse with caresses, and who Is r e a l l y not at a l l hard f o r her to manage - I f they can only be l e f t to themselves. I should l i k e now to study the Paradlsal action i n greater d e t a i l ; but f i r s t I must point out that i n t h i s chapter I might seem to disregard much that Milton meant to be treated seriously; further, i n my record of my impressions of the action and the characters my tone might be taken as f l i p p a n t . I t i s f a r from my purpose that I leave t h i s Impression. My admira-t i o n f o r Milton would not permit me to treat l i g h t l y the treasures of his mind. My endeavour i s to reveal, not x/hat a capricious skimming of the poem yiel d s to me, but the essen-t i a l l y human Interest that Milton did i n fac t i n j e c t into h i s characters. I do not think i t complimentary to Milton the poet, no matter how r e v e r e n t i a l It might seem to be to Milton the thinker, to accept wholesale the t r a d i t i o n that he had no capacity f o r character creation, that he was l i t t l e interestied i n the human animal. Eden, I f e e l , manifests that Milton, at leas t when he had the sanction of Scriptures, could represent human action with considerable subtlety and va r i e t y . 39 2 The Honeymoon The action i n Eden up to the entrance of Raphael, and including the flashback given by Adam i n Book T i l l , i s not very i n t e r e s t i n g , l e a s t of a l l exciting, i f i t i s taken to represent the good l i f e open to " f a l l e n " man. I f i t i s thus taken i t provokes questions about the v a l i d i t y and the d e s i r a b i l i t y of such a l i f e ; and the answers to these questions force us to assert the dulness of l i f e i n Utopias, even with Eve as consort. . But Milton knew that Paradise was not to be gained by man as he i s . He had a story to t e l l ; a story doctrinal-to a nation, to be sure, but a story which must f i r s t delight, even as i t obviously delighted Milton as he fashioned i t . He i s given very l i t t l e i n Genesis to go on, so he must enlarge, he must "make". Something deep and strong In h i s psyche w i l l not permit him to make a t t r a c t i v e pre-lapsarian l i f e with Its sameness and i t s lack of human suff e r i n g and struggle. But something else, just as deep and strong, operates to give Eden a r i c h variety. That something i s his preoccupation with sexual and domestic r e l a t i o n s . He can r a i l against women at moments i n Paradise Lost and Samson Agonistes. but a deep urge moves him to i d e a l i z e marriage and to represent i t with a sensuality which i s exalted and yet quite human, and humourously r e a l i s t i c . His genius shapes an i d e a l representation of domestic and sexual r e l a t i o n s , which becomes not f l a t l y a l l e g o r i c a l but r e a l and human because i t i s the 40 representation of an ideal situation In the real world - a honeymoon. We need only refer to his birthday frolicking to reject C . S . Lewis' contention that Adam i s a grand and exalted creature - the great philosopher-Adam of Augustine: To you or to me, once in a l i f e time perhaps, would have fallen the almost terrifying honour of coming at last, after long journeys and r i t u a l preparations and slow ceremonial approaches, into the very presence of the great Father, Priest, and Emperor of the planet Tellus; a thing to be remembered a l l our lives.° This; i s not Adam. About-Eve we need not argue: she i s patently of this world. The human pair are human. They are idealized, i t i s true; but the idealization becomes real because of i t s honeymoon quality. Our f i r s t view of the human couple (.IV/, 297) presents them in their essential personalities: Adam formed for contem-plation and valor; Eve for "softness" and "sweet attractive grace". We have the Puritan ideal In Adam and the everlasting feminine ideal in Eve. The picture i s rounded- out in the suggestive, "sweet reluctant amorous delay" (IV, 311), which hints something of Cleopatra in Eve and amusingly Indicates that Adam i s scarcely "For G-od only", as Milton claims (IV, 299). 8 Preface to Paradise Lost, p. 114. 41 The lovely bride in fact can with ease lure her husband from, the contemplation of God - when It suits her to do so. For the moment, however, the issue does not arise. The two are picnicking in the wood, hand in hand, far from the city: they are complete in themselves, as a l l honeymooners, and they are revelling in , the beautiful outdoors: / Nor gentle purpose, nor endearing smiles Wanted, nor youthful dalliance as beseems Fair couple, linked in happy nuptial league, Alone as they. (IV, 337) Again the note of good-nature and humour i s struck in "youthful dalliance". Milton i s pleased: here in;idealized Eden he can give free rein to his strong sensual bent, and he f a i r l y brims over with good nature. A l l the world loves a lover, he feels; and through his eyes - and the eyes of the honeymooning pair -the very animals seem to partake of the "enormous b l i s s " of the newlyweds. We imagine Adam and Eve laughing good-humouredly as ... the unwieldy elephant To make them mirth used a l l his might, and wreathed His l i t h e proboscis. (IV/, 345) His performance i s not so graceful as those of the more agile ounces and pards, but he managed, after exerting " a l l his might", to contribute to the entertainment, and his reward, we are sure, i s unstinted applause from his human audience. After the picnic Adam gives Eve her f i r s t lesson i n obedience. It i s the f i r s t that we know of, at any rate; though 42 his words suggest that i f he has not had to keep Eve in line heretofore, at least he feels that there i s something about her that calls for the lesson:. It i s the Puritan Adam, not quite sure that the honeymoon, should advance too far without religion receiving; its.due. He loves Eve, and i s easy prey to her strong t o i l of grace; but God's dread command gives him uneasy moments. There i s something amusingly coaxing in what amounts to his plea to Eve that they remain obedient: Then let us not think: hard One easy prohibition, who enjoy Free leave so large to a l l things else. (IV/, 432) Perhaps Eve has already; cast a curious eye on the forbidden fruit? At present, with the: honeymoon s t i l l so young, Eve listens patiently to the doctrine; she even gives the good Adam confidence in his own.superiority: she recognizes, she says, How beauty i s excelled by manly grace And wisdom, which alone i s truly f a i r . (IV, 490) But in the passage immediately preceding this sop to the husband she has. described, that ominous experience of hers at the "Smooth lake". And at the very moment of her reassurances to Adam that she i s alive to the proper order of things she i s luring him from heaven to earth with her female charms: So spake our general mother, and with eyes Of conjugal attraction unreproved, And meek surrender, half embracing leaned On our f i r s t father, half her swelling breast 43 Naked met his under the flowing gold Of her loose tresses hid: he in delight Both of her beauty and submissive charms Smiled with superior love. (IV, 492) There i s no doubt who i s in control: Eve is: willing to encourage the superior smile in her obedient husband' as long as she has won the round. And she has, for the effect of her enticing embrace i s that Adam immediately forgetS3 theology and bethinks him of the nuptial bower. The honeymoon resumes i t s course. But Adam, however desirous of the nuptial bed,- and Eve has obviously whetted his appetite - cannot forget his early training. His request is. circumlocutory: he must give extra-sexual reasons-: for their communion. Eve is. probably as amused as we are as he avoids a direct invitation,by pointing out that they should; now retire - because they require rest i f they are to ply their work on the following day. We do not feel that their gardening i s as pressing as Adam's words imply: Tomorrow ere fresh morning streak the east With f i r s t approach-of light, we must be risen, And: at our pleasant labor, to reform Yon flowery arbors, yonder alleys green, Our walk at noon, with branches overgrown, That mock our scant manuring. (IV, 623) Then he becomes: more direct: there i s so much work to be done that more hands are needed (IV', 628). The bower beckons, them, says~Adam, to give uss rest: before our t o l l and to supply/ us with a communion which w i l l provide children: to aid" us; i n our work. Eve,- who has.instigated the whole affa i r - of course 44 agrees with Adam, again.tactfully acknowledging his superiority, and God's perfection: 'My author and disposer, what thou blddest Unargued I obey; so God ordains-, God i s thy law, thou mine: to know no more I s. woman1 s^ happiest-knowledge and her praise.' (IV/, 635) We - and Eve - know otherwise. Adam i s patently not her disposer: i t is: she who pulls the strings. But why argue? There is: no point i n st i r r i n g doubts: in her good husband's mind, sapping his belief, and his self-confidence:. For Eve does love Adam, however much she is? not the dependent flower he - and! Milton - would have her; and" the beautiful love-sonnet which follows next: i s from her heart: With thee conversing I forget a l l time, All„seasons: and! their change, a l l please alike. SWeet.is the breath of morn, her rising sweet, With charm of earliest bir<is; pleasant the suns When f i r s t on this delightful land! he spreads His orient beams, on herb, tree, f r u i t , and flower, Glistering with dew; fragrant the f e r t i l e earth After soft showers; and sweet: the coming on Of grateful evening- mildi, then silent night With this, her solemni bird and this f a i r moon, And these the gems of heaven, her starry train: But neither breath of morn when she.ascends With charm of earliest birds,'nor rising sun On thi& delightful land, nor herb:, f r u i t , flower, Glistering with dew, nor fragrance after showers, Nor grateful evening mild, nor silent night With this her solemni bird;, nor walk by noon, Or glittering starlight without thee Is sweet. (IV, 639) And what Is Adam doing while his;: bride, i s eulogizing him and their marriage? If we have been watching him; up to now, I think we can imagine his reactions;. There w i l l of course be 45 the "superior smile"; and the pride i n his pupil Eve. There w i l l also be a heightening of the. bridegroom's excitement as he surveys Eve - and i f he i s not surveying her, the less Adam he. The situation as he views i t i s ideal: a beautiful bride who has just admitted her inferior position;; who shares his religious doctrines, and who has; heen won over by his prudent suggestions; about reti r i n g to the marriage bed. But Eve, now that; she has excited; Adam's desire and has him in the palm of her hand, practises: her amorous; delay. It is; partly that; i t i s partly that she i s curious from the beginning. Hard upon her love-song, therefore,- before Adam can whisk her off to the bower -she asks: But wherefore a l l night long shine these, for whom This glorious sight, when sleep has= shut a l l eyes? (IV?, 657) Adam can hardly refuse her request for knowledge, however high his: excitement;. Besides, the question! gives him another chance to teach Eve, to display his knowledge, to feel superior - and to bring God into her mind again as; he explains; the beauty and the functloni of the heavenly;;bodies. It is: a l l quite amusing: Adam: expounding deep lore to the worldly-wise Eve; i t i s the more delightful i f we^ re c a l l that his self-assured 1 answer i s partly bluff: as I have remarked earlier, he shows his basic cosmologlcal ignorance when he requests Raphael to provide him with essentially the same information; that Eve asks;, for here. Further s t i l l , we: are fbreed to smile when we notice? that while he i s propounding these mysteries; he is; guiding Eve. towards the nuptial bed: 46 Thus talking hand In hand alone they/passed On to their b l i s s f u l bower. (IV/, 689) There i s also pathos?-in. the picture of them hand in. hand: we remember their parting i n Book IX<: Thus saying from her husband's hand her hand Soft she withdrew. (IX, 385) and their exit at the close of the epic, as They hand in-hand with wandering steps: and slow Through Eden took.their solitary way. In fact. Milton significantly frames his descriptibm of the marriage bower with lines? of pathos. First there is-the pathos suggested7: in: the. pair hand' in.hand. Then follows; the exotic and rich picture of the bridal bower (IV), 690), Immediately after which comes the moving comparison of EVe with Pandora, an Image which again; throws? our attention! forward:, to the F a l l , and which I S3 char ge# with pathos: More lovely than Pandora, whom the gods Endowed, with a l l their g i f t s , and 0 too like In sad event. (IV, 714) I mention:, this pathos here, because I would not be thought to hold that in: Eden there i s nothing but humour and sexual play. Throughout there are passages of such beauty that Milton; draws Iron; tears.down;Satan's cheek and makes us despair of adequately fathoming poetic: genius:. And. Milt on; never allows us. for long to forget the F a l l and the fact; of suffering in;the world; and i f 47 at the F a l l we cannot share his anger at Eve's curiosity and Adam's defection:, i f we cannot really feel that this Adam of ours (of Milton's) can he held accountable for the horrible suffering pictured in Michael 1 s. vision, we yet realize that man's search for knowledge, and the countless dilemmas-presented to his imperfect understanding by free w i l l and choice, do often result im conflict and agony. Caught; i n the chains; of their personalities, Adam and Eve must, " f a l l " , Just as innocent Desdemona cannot escape her character to save her l i f e : But yet the pity of i t , Iago! ODlago the pity of i t , Iago! Meanwhile, Adam i s on; his honeymoon; - with Eve; and what, a lass that were to go a-gypsying through the world with! And now at. last, we arrive at. the "shady/lodge" (IV/, 7 2 0 ) ; and after a brief prayer to the Ordainer of "this delicious place", ... into their inmost bower Handed they went; and eased the putting off. These troublesome disguises: which we wear, Straight side by side were laid , nor turned I ween Adam from his f a i r spouse, nor Eve the rites Mysterious of connubial love refused. (IV/, 738) Earn sure that there is: a good-humoured smile on Milton's face as he"weens" that Adam does not turn from the desirable Eve. For Milton: can represent sexuality with a clear conscience and with the most charming directness - when he can Idealize i t as he does here. And now he defends the delightful sensuality by lashing out at, ascetics, and libertines, in the "Wedded Love" passage (IV/, 7 5 0 ) . Everything im the Fourth Book has; led up 48 to this sexual union; for Milton, Ideal wedded love - physical union)- i s the highest, that man ean reach; this - not reason, notice - i s man1s ... sole propriety, In Paradise of a l l things: common else. (m, 751) And, says; Milton to the two "Imparadised in one another's arms", ... seek No happier state, and know to know no more. (IV, 775) Thus ends the f i r s t day. Those who do not love Milton the man, who think him, like C.S. Lewis=, "undisciplined", or, like Johnson, "am acrimonious and surly/ republican", or, l i k e Leavis, a rather boring poet, or like Rajan and others, a poet with a theme which he hews; to with zealous: rigour - such readers, I feel, can never enter f u l l y Into the delights of this- honeymoon:, can never laugh gently at Adam, God's good! Puritan, amusingly sententious, whom the delightfully unregenerate, womanly-wise, and' gorgeous Eve leads by the nose, loving him for his Puritan Godliness even:ass she does not. very deeply share his-faith; just as we have affection:; for Milton .though his theology is; not ours. And to have affection for Milton i s to be gently amused; by the fiasco of his; f i r s t marriage at the same time as we proffer him deep sympathy. This "personal heresy" always enters when we read any of Milton's work; and: I must part company with those who decry: i t s entrance. Throughout the poem Miltom can be heard Ini his characters - In Satan, In God, in Abdiel; above; a l l , perhaps, i n Adam. And during the honeymoon;his own sensuality, his own 49 righteousness, his own failure to rule Mary- Powell, are amusingly -and pathetically - projected; in Adam. The Paradisal honeymoon i s , In fact, the honeymoon Milton dreamt of but probably never had; i t is: human both in its; humour and in i t s pathos. 3 Rustic-Puritan Hospitality With Milton's hymn to Wedded: Love, the honeymoon proper ends. Eve's dream i n the early lines of the F i f t h Book slightly clouds the azure serenity, of the action!, throwing the attention forward!to the F a l l . The spell i s broken. Indeed we have had enough of the honeymoom- exactly enough, not too much or too l i t t l e , for Miltomknows;what he Is about. Now the story must ••. advance, and Milton.must be busy to hold our Interest at the same time as he forwards the plot; with the War in Heaven and. the Great!oni of the Universe. He carries i t off by introducing a new theme - a theme we might c a l l Rustic Hospitality and Puritan Conviviality. Adam and Eve now appear as the ideal Godly countryfolk (Wordsworth's Michael and Isabel, f i f t y years younger and idealized)\ frugal yet bounteously hospitable; courteous and humble before the gentleman Raphael - the good Squire - yet in;no way abject: they/live im "cheerful Godliness", and they are proud of their cottage, of their garden, of themselves. Theirs is. not a great, estate., not Heaven^ but. i t i s their home; and Raphael i s welcome only i n so far as he feels honoured In. sharing their table. For Raphael, the v i s i t is; as much a 50 holiday in the country as i t Is a mission from Heaven. Here we have two congenial Puritans enjoying a quiet day together, discoursing on topics especially, interesting to them. At Raphael's approach, Adam sends Eve to prepare an abundant meal for the "heavenly stranger" (V;, 3©8). Eve, with a good housewifely caution on frugality, assures him that she will. set. before Raphael such a. meal that he Beholding shall confess that here on earth God hath dispensed his bounties as in heaven. (V, 329) Eve i s keeping up with the Joneses.9 Adam now greets Raphael and, "though not awed", he i s exceedingly deferential as he invites him to sup and rest u n t i l evening (V, 358) . Raphael reciprocates, pointing out that Eden i s worthy of heavenly-guests: ... lead on. then where thy bower O'ershades; for these mid-hours, t i l l evening rise I have at w i l l . (V, 375) 9 It w i l l be noticed that this frugal farmer's wife i s a different Eve from the bride of Book IV?. For me, the shift does not jar in the least. But the charge of inconsistency, i f anyone were to l a y i t against Milton here, cannot be answered. What matters i s , does the inconsistency disturb; us? I think i t w i l l disturb; only the anti-Miltonlsts intent on proving the f u t i l i t y of giving Paradlse Lost serious attention. Those, on the other hand, who hew to Milton's Christian intentions throughout, w i l l not agree that there is; a break: for them, the feminine coquetry of Eve in Book IV does not exist. We see Eve in this r u s t i c role only brie f l y : while she l a listening to Raphael's War in. Heaven, we imagine her as the earlier and later Eve.. 51 And at the bower to greet them i s naked Eve (worthy of heavenly eyes, we feel) standing beside a table on which she has " A l l autumn piled" for their dinner. Adam, the proud, householder, very courteously, yet very pointedly, remarks; to Raphael that although their fare is; not so good as Raphael i s accustomed to, i t i s nevertheless from God: ... unsavory food perhaps To spiritual natures; only, this I know, That one celestial father gives to a l l . (v7, 401) It. i s at once an apology and a polite and amusing warning that Raphael should not despise the nutriments of their humble but proud home. This gives Raphael an opportunity to display his-knowledge: he discourses on. the goodness of matter, on spiritual digestion; (V/, 404). He, like Adam, Is amusingly sententious: he i s more than sociable; he is-aliiost garrulous. Of course, Miltoni Is using: Raphael, here to convey his own philosophy; but the passage is; only interesting to us as i t reveals Raphael's character; just as; Adam's lessons-, to Eve are Interesting && they reveal his amusing Puritanism. We need not he concerned, as; c r i t i c s have often been, about whether the description! of the angelic digestive process Is appropriate in a religious epic. We are spending a holiday with Adam and? Raphael, and we must get inside their personalities f u l l y to enjioy their discourse. Raphael's speech delivere&, they/eat heartily as Eve ministers naked; not, we Imagine, without some sidelong glances 52 from Raphael: ... 0 innocence Deserving Paradise1, i f ever, then, Then had the sons of God excuse to have been Enamored at that sight. (W, 445) Adam i s doubtless: proud, not only of his table but of his enticing; wife as she waits; om them. We imagine him suppressing a beaming smile. And when, they have eaten well, with Puritan moderation; ("Not burdened nature"), Adam decides to lead Raphael into the exposition, of things unknown; i n Paradise. It befits these Purltan-humanists to cap their good meal with good conversation!. lit i s a joy to watchi Adam drawing Raphael, out, as i t i s a joy to watch-Raphael, who i s re a l l y eager to talkc, displaying his knowledge, playing; the world-traveller before Adam, who has never been out of the parish. First Adam uses the occasion of dinner, of food, to enquire of "heaven's high feasts" (V, 467). Raphael's answer i s a sermon on the goodness of a l l created things, a delightfully pompous sermon i n which he remarks that i f they are obedient Adam and Eve w i l l In the course of things turn to s p i r i t and live in; Heaven (W, 468). After politely thanking Raphael for the lesson;, Adam takes his cue to enquire further: What meant that caution, joined, " i f ye be found Obedient?" (W, 512) 53 Then follows another sermon, rather more pompous, and something of a repeated lesson; that Raphael has put to memory. The gist and the patronizing tone of the lesson; are contained In the opening lines: ... Son of heaven and earth, Attend: That thou art happy, owe to God; That thou continuest such, owe to thyself. (V, 519) And again the guest throws out a cue for Adam to follow: And some are fallen, to disobedience fallen, And so from heaven to deepest h e l l . (V?f 541) Adam's curiosity i s whetted. "Don't go yet", he says in effect; " t e l l me of this strange event. I promise that I w i l l l i s t e n quietly, deferential: to your sacred voice": ... what thou tellest Hath passed in-1 heaven, some doubt wlthim me move, But more desire to hear, i f thou consent, The f u l l relation, which must needs be strange, Worthy of sacred silence to be heard; And we have yet large day, for scarce the sun Hath finished half his journey. (V?, 553) Raphael now has the excuse he wants to t e l l the story of the War in_Heaven and the Creation; of the Universe. Notice how he preens himself before the t e l l i n g . We have come to think of the two as equals of a sort: Raphael, the affable Archangel, ranks: in our imaginations with Uriel and Abdiel rather than with the more impressively heroic Michael or Satan.; so that the visitor's false modesty and his superiority become rather amusing, however much Milton; Intended us to think of him as a commandingly dignified figure: 54 High matter thou enjoineat me, 0." prime of men, Sad task and hard, for how shall I relate To human sense the invisible exploits Of warring s p i r i t s ; • • • ... how last unfold The secrets: of another world .... (V/, 563) And yet, I, Raphael of Heavem, w i l l surmount these formidable obstacles, the angel implies, By likening spiritual to corporal forms. (V/, 572) Milton.can.now get on.with the plot. He has managed through Raphael to communicate some of his own; dogma and he has kept our interest by consciously or unconsciously characterizing his actors, so that we are continually amused by their dialogue and. their reactions to each other: Adam, always subservient, yet not apologetic, leading Raphael, on; to speak of mysteries; Raphael, always courteous, yet always somewhat patronizing and pompous, eager to be drawn out, desirous of exercising; his excellent powers as a story-teller. And we should enjoy the humour of the rustic scene; there i s no help in; our being righteous with Raphael, preparing;the blame which attaches i t s e l f to Adam at the F a l l for not heeding the warning. Adam i s foredoomed to f a l l and to suffer. We blame him neither before, during, nor after the F a l l . 4 "Behold, a wonder" 55 I am concerned In.this chapter not only with, the pleasures that a human! zed Eden ; affords in. Itself, hut also with the ways in; which this- new view of. Eden; affects the total poem. And: though I reserve, a f u l l , discussion of this theme to the third chapter, I thlnk.it relevant to Introduce the subject at the point where we now find?:, ourselves - at Raphael's story of the War In Heaven and5 the Creation; of the Universe. I: do not, however, intend; here: to treat these events in; detail,but merely to suggest how our humanized, conception; of Adam as an exceedingly likeable, rather naive creature, essentially child-l i k e , and amusing: even. when, he i s sententious, greatly heightens our interest im the action; in; heaven. What i s the situation? Here i s Adam, the f a i t h f u l Puritan, the Godly rustic, delighting in a v i s i t from a guest of. his own; stamp. His guest is. of greater significance than he, however: he has travelled the cosmos; he knows of "things invisible to mortal sight", things of heaven. Adam, whose childlike nature demands stories, can now hear Bible stories -and from an actual participant. Raphael Is here in his very parlour. It i s as though Christian really came to Bedford and related his adventures to an enraptured' Bunyan. Our interest in; the action; that follows:', therefore, comes not only from the pleasure we take In. watching Milton; create, recognizing: epic patterns falling: into place (great as; that pleasure i s ) ; i t comes also, from; our perceiving the whole actions through, the 56 eyes of the admiring Adam. Except the reader put himself In Milton's hands - as Adam, i s in; Raphael's - and5 take-the story as pure story, as fairy-tale, he shall not enter f u l l y into the War in.Heaven. It i s fairy-tale. Listen to the opening: As yet this world5 was not, and chaos: wild Reigned, where these: heavens, now r o l l , where earth now rests Upon; her center poised, when on a day (For time, though im eternity,, applied To motion;, measures a l l things durable By present, past, and future) om such day; As heaven's great year brings forth, the empyreal host Of angels-byy imperial summons called, Innumerable before the almighty's throne Forthwith from: a l l . the ends of heaven appeared Under their hierarchs i n orders bright Ten. thousand thousand, ensigns high, advanced, Standards, and gonfalons, twixt van and rear Stream in: the air, and" for distinct lorn serve Of hierarchies, of orders, and degrees; Or in.their glittering tissues bear emblazed Holy memorials, acts, of zeal and love Recorded eminent,. Thus, when; inu orbs Of. cir c u i t inexpressible they stood, Orb: withlm orb, the father i n f i n i t e , By whom; im bl i s s embosomed sat the S.bm, Amidst as- from; a flaming mount, whose top Brightness had. made invisible, thus; spake. CW, 577) "Once upon; a time, says, Raphael. What follows i s fairy-tale-romance. Here are the opening lines of Chaucer's Wife of Bath's Tale: Imth' olde dayes of. the Kyng Arthour, Of which that Britons speken. with honour, Al was; this, land f u l f i l d of fayerye. The elf-queene, with hir Jply/ compaignye, Daunced ful . of te im many; a grene mede. This was: the olde opinions, as I rede:; I speke of manye hundred, yeres. ago. The effect, i s basically the same. Be sure that in. Adam Chaucer would have found an attentive audiences 57 And what does Adam hear?- a tale to draw children; from their play: high councils of war, strange: battles, awesome spectacles, the mighty Satan, (of whom, of course, Adam does not approve), Abdiel, the paragon: of Puritans (whom; Adam loves). It i s a Joy to Imagine Adam's reaction to Abdiel. Here i s the dreadless angel arrived safely home from; the rebel camp: ... gladly then; he mixed Among those friendly; powers who him received With joy and acclamations;: loud, that one That of so many;/ myriads fallen, yet one Returned not lost: Oh to the sacred h i l l They led him; high; applauded, and present Before the seat supreme. (VI, 21) Adam i s there in the thick; of the press cheering the fai t h f u l soldier on. And when; God rewards; Abdiel, Servant of God;, well: done, well; hast thou fought The better fight, who single hast maintained Against revolted multitudes the cause Of truth .... (VdC, 29) we imagine that Adam gravely nods: his approval. And so do we; for in;this fairy-tale our sympathy i s with the good. God becomes a stock king, Satan a melodramatic villain;, and the il l u s i o n of romance keeps; us: from viewing God as an oriental potentate, as we might i f we tried to read the action as doctrinal. At last the battle i s joined (Raphael is a good story-t e l l e r : he. has; kept Adam in suspense for over 500 lines); and 58 we know that Adam l a seized: with wonder as Michael bids the archangellc trumpet sound and as ... through the vast of heaven It sounded, and the faithful armies rung Hbsanna to the highest. ( W , 203) He listens-wide-eyed, as Desdemona to Othello, and swears to himself that It is. strange, passing strange, when ... now storming fury rose, And clamor such as heard"; in; heaven t i l l now Was;never, arms on armor clashing brayed Horrible discord., and the madding wheels Of brazen; chariots raged; dire was? the noise Of conflict; overhead the dismal hiss Of fiery darts in; flaming volleys, flew, And flying vaulted either host with f i r e . • • • ... a l l heaven Resounded, and had earth been then, a l l earth Had to her center shook. What wonder? when. Millions of fierce encountering angels fought Oh either side, the least of whom could wield These elements .... (TO, 207) "Aye, what wonder, indeed'." we imagine Adam saying: Raphael succeeds: im impressing him. But there i s more to come. Now those two great titans; meet - Satan and Michael; and again there w i l l be the nod of approval from Adam as^ . good triumphs. (Our fairy-tale i s , of course, ruled by poetic justice.) And now the miraculous cannon;, and the suspense and terror that seize the fa i t h f u l when the cannon f i r e pierces- their ranks: "What should they do?" asks Raphael - he was there. 59 ... i f on: they rushed, repulse Repeated, and indecent overthrow Doubled, would, render them yet more despised, And. to their foes a laughter. (VJI, 600) It Is Hector caught alone outside the gates of Troy, forced to face Achilles or to seek the protection of the walls, the coward's way. But Right finds a way: Forthwith (behold the excellence, the power Which God hath In. his mighty angels: placed) Their arms away they threw ... • • • They plucked the seated h i l l s with a l l their load, Rocks, waters, woods, and by the shaggy tops Uplifting bore them: i n their hands: Amaze, Be sure, and. terror seized the rebel host. ( m , 637) Adam will, indeed "behold the excellence" of the fa i t h f u l ; and he w i l l be convinced, of the amazement and terror in. the rebel host. What wonder? (He w i l l not notice Raphael's amusing swagger as he attributes to himself. - with the others - great excellence, and power; he, who not long since was at a loss before the cannon. Raphael, we may be confident, did not think of the mountains: he i s not a leader, we feel; perhaps he i s not even cut out for a soldier.) The romance ends; as St. George-Messiah enters and metes out justice. It has.been for Adam a wonderful experience; even the concluding moral of the tale falls; pleasantly-on his ears: 60 ... let i t profit thee to have heard By terrible example the reward Of disobedience.; firm they might have stood, Yet fell.; remember, and fear to transgress. (V/I, end) Now Adam, ... as one whose drouth Yet scarce allayed, s t i l l eyes the current stream, ( M l , 66) asks for More. He i s the child 1 asking for another bed-time story. He i s unwilling to lose this marvelous t e l l e r of tales, this heavenly scop. He praises Raphael. (It, i s almost flattery, and flattery w i l l not be wasted oni this angel): Great things, and f u l l of wonder 1m our ears., Ear differing from.this world, thou hast revealed Divine Interpreter .... • • • Deign, to descend now lower .... {mi, 70) Adam hastens to Justify his desire to hear the story of creation by insisting that, of course, such knowledge i s required not that he and Eve might ... explore the secrets ... Of. his eternal empire, but the more To magnify his works, the more we know. (V/II, 95) Adam is. not quite truthful. The plain, fact is: that he likes a good story and he fears that Raphael w i l l depart. In fact he i s so keen: oni hearing more that - again like a child - he i s ready; to remain: awake beyond the prescribed time for rest; ready, that i s , to go clean against God's rules: 61 ... i f the star of evening and the moon; Haste to thyy audience, night with her w i l l bring Silence, and sleep- listening to thee will, watch, Or we can. bid his absence, t i l l thy song End, and dismiss thee ere the morning shine. (VII, 104) We smilingly remember that he was correct enough, i n preaching early retirement when Eve excited his passion. Raphael, of. course-, does not really need any prodding; to exercise his talents and to impress Adam. Aigain a slight swagger in the false modesty of his acceptance: This also thy request with caution; asked; Obtain: though to recount almighty; works What words or tongue of seraph-can; suffice, Or heart, of man: suffice to comprehend? (VII, 111) And then.the rather superior preaching again; preaching which does not seem the less self-righteous because of Raphael's commission; from God: ... such commission; from above I have received, to answer thy desire Of knowledge within bounds; beyond abstain; To ask, nor let thine own; inventions hope Things not revealed .... (VII:, 118) Then comes the tale of the wondrous creation of the universe, especially-enchanting to Adam who loves nature as the young Wordsworth and Gbd as Bunyan. No explanation:Is too marvelous for his impressionable and pious mind. Here i s the descriptioBii of the creation: he wants there i s 62 ... im his hand He took the golden: compasses, prepared" In God's eternal store, to circumscribe This universe, and a l l created things: One foot he centered, and the other turned Round through the vast profundity obscure, And said:, "thus far extend, thus far thy bounds, This be thy jjust circumference, 0 world." Thus God the heaven created, thus the earth, Matter unformed and void: Darkness profound Covered the abyss: but on the watery calm: His brooding wings the s p i r i t of God outspread, And v i t a l virtue Infused, and v i t a l warmth Throughout the f l u i d mass, but downward purged The black tartareous cold Infernal dregs Adverse to l i f e : then: founded, them conglobed Like things: to l i k e , the rest to several place Disparted, and between spurn out the air, And earth self balanced on her center hung. (VII, 224): God worked a l i t t l e space; and then, "Behold, a wonder'." Just like that. Raphael seems to have engaged in;divine sleight of hand and to be now holding the magically fashioned universe before the wondering Adam's very eyes. It i s perfect. Adam, who has never doubted that i t would be perfect, yet marvels at the beauty of i t . The rest of the Seventh Book i s f u l l of the beauties of God's creating hand. Adam listens delighted as he hears of the creation, of a l l : the things: dear and familiar to him -the sun, the moon, the stars, Eden with i t s flowers and birds and animals. Adam w i l l not forget this tale: his children and his children's children 1shall hear i t from his l i p s , how a great angel told him of God's marvelous workmanship. 63 5.. Adam's Story-One of the most charming and amusing sections of Paradise Lost i s Adam's relation to Raphael of his f i r s t day in Eden. Adam is-unwilling that his new-found friend and co-Puritan, the affable Raphael, should depart. More than this -he wants to know the exact causes and functions of the heavenly bodies in relation!to the earth. His earlier explanation to Eve (IV, 660 f f . ) was given with outward confidence; but i t was actually rather primitive and EVe has. an uncomfortably curious mind. Adam Is himself not satisfied with his limited conception. Raphael's answer i s not what Adam expects. They have been getting along, handsomely un t i l now; but Adam, not used to the heavenly regimen and perhaps not sufficiently subordinate to suit the self-satisfied angel, oversteps: himself. Fortunately for Adam's self-esteem, Eve (does she divine Raphael's essential, pedantry?) retires from the scene before the angel advises Adam-that, although his present enquiry i s not bad, he must not seek knowledge open only to higher s p i r i t s . Raphael's speech (V/III, 66) i s long and excessively complicated. He outdoes himself i n this display of erudition. It is: Milton philosophizing, of course; but by now, whatever Milton's intentions, we have our particular impressions of Raphael as a character. This speech as poetic philosophy i s not exciting, i s even contorted and gnarled; but what we should be concerned with i s how i t enhances our grasp of Raphael's personality and enriches the interplay of the actors 64 before us. Taken; thus; the passage has i t s part in the humour of the action. We reap no benefit here i f we try/ to justify Milton's anti-humanism; on the other hand, to reject the speech out of hand as plaimbad verse is Just as unrewarding. I have been proposing throughout this paper that we take Paradise Lost as i t s poetry moves us; and the poetry/, of course, includes the characters and their interaction; The essence of Raphael's "explanation-'' i s from Adam's point of view - confusion; confusion, consisting in-alternatives, p o s s i b i l i t i e s , conditions, and Latinate jargon: But this I urge, Admitting motlorn i n the heavens, to show Invalid:, that which.-.thee to doubt i t moved; Not that I so affirm, though so i t seem To thee .... (VIII, 114) and. Their wandering course now high, now low, then hid, Progressive, retrograde, or standing s t i l l , In six: thou seest, and. what i f seventh to these The planet earth, so steadfast though she seem, Insensibly three different motions move? Which else to several spheres thou must ascrihe, Moved' contrary to thwart obliquities, Or save the sun; his. labor, and that swift Nocturnal and diurnal rhomb; .... (VIII, 126) and But whether thus these things, or whether not, Whether the sun; predominant in; heaven Rise on the earth .... ( m i l , 159) And what does Adam say to a l l this? That he has been cleared of doubt 1 If he. means; that he no longer doubts that higher philosophy i s not his bent he speaks, truth: Raphael, has made 65 the secrets of that study seem unattainable. But to hear the naive Adam assert that he i s "cleared of doubt" by t h i s i n v o l u t i o n i s to laugh outright - sympathetically, of course. For here he i s Indeed su f f e r i n g the blank misgivings of a creature moving about in;worlds not r e a l i z e d - worlds f o r him never to be r e a l i z e d , i t seems. Adam feels; well out of I t , I think. At any rate he has now the perfect opportunity to do what he most wants - to describe h i s l i f e , ini Eden, how i t came about, what "enormous b l i s s " i s wedded love with Eve. I t i s only hospitable, Is h i s implied excuse, to r e t u r n t a l e f o r t a l e with his guest. In fa c t , however, we f e e l that Adam simply: cannot contain himself: he i s i n love, i n Paradise; he i s proud of h i s l i f e and his bride; and he must poetize i t a l l for his; f r i e n d Raphael. And his story w i l l not be i n f e r i o r , he thinks, to the angel's. There i s r i v a l r y Im s t o r y - t e l l i n g , even i f your guest, i s a s p i r i t ; andl Adam, despite his amenable, piety and1, deference, cannot r e a l l y imagine anything^ more ex c i t i n g than his honeymoon: battles im heaven, the c r e a t i o n of the universe, heavenly choirs hymning the great architect -a l l . pale beside his own:! Paradisal l i f e . Indeed that l i f e appeals much more to us- than. Raphael.' s: not only i s there Eve, but Adam does not have to go om m i l i t a r y exercises to "inure" his "prompt, obsdience" (mil, 239) 66 Now Raphael, for a l l his condescension^ i s a courteous guest: he has: had hls : say, and he 1 s prepared to listen to his host's tale. It i s a wonderful (and Incredible) coincidence that he was not on; hand when; Adam was created. Even; i f he i s not lying (and one rather, suspects that he. i s - quite rightly, of course), about his absence, he must certainly have heard the whole story/before now. (He i s amazingly knowledgeable about each detail of the action; im Satan's camp - even; after the departure of Abdiel, we remember.) Even in agreeing to lis t e n to Adam's relation-* however, Raphael i s garrulous: he takes thirty-one lines to give his courteous assent, a speech which almost turns into another Raphaelite story - about the Journey down-; to Hell. Raphael remembers just im time: that i t i s Adam's innings: Fast we found, fast shut The dismal gates, and barricadoedl strong; But- long ere our approaching heard within Noise, other than the sound; of dance or song, Torment, and loud" lament, and furious rage. Glad we returned), up to the coasts of light Ere Sabbath evening: so we. had), im charge. But thy relation; now; for I attend, Pleased with thy-words no less than; thou with mine.110 ( M i l , 240) Then Adam begins, and, not to be outdone by his guest, 10 But long ere our approaching heard, wlthim Noise, other than.the sound of dance or song, Torment, and: loud lament, and furious rage. Glad1 we; returned up. to the coasts of light Ere Sabbath evening. Do not these lines strike, one amusingly; as. the pious man's reaction; as he: hurries past a tavern on. the way; to chapel? 67 he too w i l l make the narration seem d i f f i c u l t , the better to deserve applause for his excellent performance. He adopts Raphael's mannerism of false modesty: For man to t e l l how human l i f e began Is hard; for who himself beginning knew? (VIII, 250) And what a beautiful story Adam's i s - f u l l of the exquisite delights of pure Paradise (except for that "dread" command of God' s) j. I pass; by those birthday experiences of Adam's that we have previously noted to get right to the heart of. the story -Adam's marriage with Eve; for everything moves toward that point, not, as Raphael expects, to the greater glory of God. It i s Adam the lover, Adam the bridegroom, who speaks here; in the Hbneymoom excitement, Adam the Puritan;is;forgotten. The courtship) scene as related by Adam is: most amusing when we contrast i t with Eve's version; of the same event. Eve, we remember, had! to be induced by God's command to follow her 11 I might here comment om Adam's engaging account of his argument with God about his need for a companion. For once, God appears im a positively pleasant light as he teasingly/ leads Adam on; to give good, reasons: for his desire for a mate. He i s , as i t were, holding the gi f t of Eve behind his back while his c h i l d coaxes.him:to show his hand. It i s a comfortable Old Testament scene of familiarity between: God and man. Adam is proud as he t e l l s Raphael how he; (I, Adam) argued with God: "Thus I presumptuous" (VIII, 367); "Thus I emboldened spake, and freedom used Permissive, and acceptance found ,..." (VIII, 4-34) "What do you think of that, Raphael?" we imagine: him thinking; "I have, had; my; moments, too. " There i s a congenial rivalry, in the episode. 68 husband, her husband who seemed to her not so winningly graceful as the. Image of herself In the smooth lake. Here i s Adam's account: She heard me thus, and though; divinely brought let innocence and virgin; modesty/, Her virtue and" the conscience of her worth, That would be wooed, and not unsought be won;, Not obvious, not obtrusive, but retired, The more desirable, or to say a l l , .\ Nature herself, though pure: of sinful thought, Wrought In:her so, that seeing me, she turned; I: followed her, she what was; honor knew, And with obsequious majesty approved My pleaded: reason. (VIII, 500) We smile at the urgent Adam pleading' with the Irresistible Eve, thinking that she: i s engaged, in "sweet reluctant amorous: delay", the while she. i s In. fact inwardly contemplating the: more "winning soft" creature.she saw im the pool. But the bridegroom i s naively convinced! of his superiority; from the beginning. Adam does win Eve's love, however, even; i f she i s not the docile creature he supposes. And now the bewitched husband reaches the climax of the story - the sexual communion; and here poor unwitting Adam pours his eager heart into the description, confident that Raphael's heart i s kindled by the same f i r e as;bis own as he approaches the nuptial bed. Listen to him; he i s incontinently, and understandably, precipitant i n carrying his bride across the threshold: 69 ... she turned; I followed! her, she what was honor knew, And with obsequious majesty approved My pleaded- reason; To the n u p t i a l bower I l e d her blushing l i k e the morn: a l l heaven, And happy c o n s t e l l a t i o n s on that hour Shed t h e i r selectest Influence; the earth Gave sign.of gratulation, and each h i l l ; J.oyous the bi r d s ; fresh gales and gentle a i r s Whispered i t to the woods, and from t h e i r wings Flung rose, flung odors; from the spicy shrub;, Disporting, t i l l , the amorous b i r d of night Sung spousal, and bid: haste the evening star On h i s h i l l t o p to l i g h t the b r i d a l , lamp. Thus; have I t o l d thee a l l . myr state, and brought My story to the sum of earthly b l i s s Which I enjoy. (VIII, 507) Adam i s c a r r i e d away: a l l nature i s In sympathy with his love. Notice that he omits any thanks; to God: no prayer i s mentioned. Instead the enchanted bridegroom, seeming to forget Raphael altogether (is; not what follows more-like reverie-soliloquy than; communication?), ponders the mystery of Eve, suddenly mindful that she has an Inexplicable control over him. He c e r t a i n l y i s not here; smiling with superior love: Thus: have I told, thee a l l my state, and brought My story to the sum- of earthly b l i s s Which t enjoy, and must confess to f i n d In a l l . things: else delight indeed, but such As used or not, works", in; the mind, no change, Nor vehement desire, these d e l i c a c i e s I mean of taste, sight, smell, herbs, f r u i t s , and flowers, Walks, and the melody of birds; but here Far otherwise, transported I behold, Transported touch; here passion f i r s t I f e l t , Commotion.;strange, i n a l l enjoyments else Superior and unmoved, here only weak Against the charm of beauty 1s powerful glance. Or nature f a i l e d : i n me, and l e f t some part Not proof enough such object to sustain, Or from my side subducting, took perhaps. More; than .enough; at least on her bestowed; Too much of ornament, i n outward show Elaborate, of inward less exact. For well I understand im the prime end Of nature, her. the i n f e r i o r , In the mind. And.inward.faculties, which most excel, In outward also her resembling less 70 His image who made both, and less expressing The character of that dominion given O'er other creatures; yet when: I approach Her lo v e l i n e s s , so absolute she.seems And! in..herself complete, so well'., to know Her own, that what she w i l l s to do or say, Seems wisest., vlrtuousest, discreetest, best; A l l higher knowledge In:her presence f a l l s Degraded, wisdom, i n discourse, with her Loses: discountenanced", and', l i k e f o l l y shows; Authority and', reasons on ..her wait, As one intended f i r s t , not af t e r made Occasionally. (VIII, 521) And then, as i f coming out of the semi-trance which thoughts, of. Eve have l e d him: into, Adam hastens back to orthodoxy. (What breaks the s p e l l - the words "Authority and reason", those key words i n Adam's re l i g i o n ? or a sudden awareness of growing uneasiness omRaphael's countenance?): Authority and reason.omher wait, As one;: intended" f i r s t , not a f t e r made Occasionally; and to consummate a l l , Greatness of mind and nobleness t h e i r seat Bui l d i n her l o v e l i e s t , and create an awe About her, as a guard angelic placed. (VIII, 554) But i t i s too l a t e : Raphael sees which way the wind s i t s . This story of Adam's i s ; clean out of the way. And now comes the wonderfully amusing conclusion; to Book 8. Adam has pulled out the theological-moral stop in.Raphael, and the inevitable condescending lecture follows: Accuse not nature, she hath done her part; Do thou but thine, and" be not d i f f i d e n t Of. wisdom, she deserts thee not, i f thou Dismiss not her, when most thou needest her nigh, By a t t r i b u t i n g overmuch to things Less excellent, as thou thyself perceivest. For what admlrest thou, what transports thee so, An outside? f a i r no doubt, and worthy well 71 Thy cherishing, thy honoring, and thy love, Not thy subjection: weigh, with her thyself; Then value: Ofttimes nothing profits more Than self esteem, grounded on Just and right Well managed; of that s k i l l the more thou knowest, The more she w i l l acknowledge thee her head, And to re a l i t i e s yield a l l her shows: • • • In loving thou dost well, in;passion, not, Wherein.: true love consists not; love refines The thoughts, and heart enlarges, hath his seat In reason* and i s Judicious, Is the scale By which to heavenly love thou mayest ascend, Not sunk in carnal pleasure, for which cause Among the beasts no mate for thee was found. (VIII, 561) This sermon demands some analysis i f we would get to the bottom of the human situation in Eden. Has nature done her part? No, she has not, as I have indicated In the preceding chapter: Adam i s as Adam i s . He cannot change his relationship with Eve. We know that he w i l l follow her, not God, when the cr i s i s comes. "Weigh her with thyself"! But poor Adam has Just done exactly this - and has found himself wanting. "In loving thou dost well, i n passion; not": Not passion on a honeymoon? Not passiomin Milton's "Wedded Love" - the "sole propriety of a l l things common else" in Paradise? We cannot accept Raphael's argument here: Milton's reasoning at this point does not agree with his hymn to wedded love i n the Fourth Book. He i s pulled both ways: he i s both Adam and Raphael; mostly Adam, however, and that i s why our sympathies l i e with the man and not with the angel. Adam's defense i s not quite what i t should be: he i s , in truth, "half-abashed" (VIII, 595), but only half. He concedes that It i s not merely physical Eve that he loves; but Those thousand decencies that dally, flow 72 From a l l her words and actions mixed with love And5 sweet compliance. (VIII, 601) But i t i s a concession: he was much more enthusiastic when he described wedded love. Adam now has his doubts about Raphael. Everything has gone well up to now; but the plain fact i s that Raphael has had a stricter Puritan discipline than Adam; he has not been enough outside the chapel walls. He has learned from the book only, and he simply does not know his women - least of a l l his Eve. Adam now senses this inexperience, we feel, when; he questions Raphael on heavenly love: Love not the heavenly spi r i t s , and how their love Express they, by looks only, or do they mix Irradiance, virtual or Immediate touch? (VIII, 615) I think Adam's tone here i s one of Incredulity: "But surely, Raphael, you would not speak thus i f you were married." Suddenly Adam seems the less naive of the two. And then the hilarious conclusion: Raphael's blush, his briefjfeuphemistic description: of spiritual love, his hasty decision,to part (before this suddenly shrewd Adam trips him up), and f i n a l l y his attempt to get in the last blow by way of a parting sermon: ... stand fast; to stand or f a l l Free i n thine own: arbitrament i t l i e s . Perfect' within, no outward aid require; And a l l temptation to transgress repel. (VIII, 640) 73 Adam has been hurt by the lack of enthusiasm with which Raphael has greeted his story. In his last words there Is no mention of Raphael's warning: he merely bids him; adieu, with deference, i t i s true, but not with any apologetics: Since to part, Go heavenly guest, ethereal messenger, Sent from whose sovereign- goodness I adore. Gentle to me and affable hath been Thy condescension:, and shall be honored ever With grateful memory: thou to mankind Be good and f r i e n d l y • s t i l l , and oft return. (VIII, 645) Adam has had a memorable day, but this fellow Raphael has at the last become s l i g h t l y too much of a doctrinaire. Adam, somewhat deflated, Is ready to say goodbye - at least for to-day. So the angel goes back to heaven. And where: does Adam go? Does: he s i t him down to meditate, to weigh high matters, to digest Raphael's lessons? No: he goes directly to his bower - to Eve; and there, we may-be sure, the bride i s lighting the nuptial.lamp. The Significance of this View of Eden I have purposely neglected much i n chapter two i n order to throw into r e l i e f what seems to me a very important aspect of Bden - the essential humanity found there, the individuality of Adam and Eve, and of Raphael, as characters. I f I have at times "read-in", I have not done so frivolously; rather I have interpreted the poetry as i t i n fact impresses i t s e l f upon me. And I am impressed by the great amount of interplay of character, and by the humour that permeates that interplay. I need not, I think, apologize for the exaggeration which my thesis - and mere space - has necessitated: I realize that I have, merely by omission, exaggerated. Those who i n s i s t Ithat we adhere s t r i c t l y to.Milton's conscious intentions (whatever their reasons for this insistence) w i l l themselves continue to do so. They w i l l continue, too, to be disturbed by Milton's inconsistency i n representing pre-lapsarian l i f e , i n leaping back and forth between the ideal and the human i n portraying Paradisal sexuality, for example. They w i l l continue to uphold Raphael as God's voice, while at the same time c r i t i c i z i n g Milton for slipping into f l a t or contorted verse i n many of the angel's sermons. They w i l l not enjoy Raphael as an individual, who contains something of Milton the theologian, something of Milton the liberal-humanist, - 75 -something of Polonius the preceptor. Raphael i s an extremely-likeable, but, on the whole, a comic figure. These c r i t i c s , f i n a l l y , w i l l s t i l l be busy to give names to the "sins" which operate i n Adam and Eve at the P a l l , and, not feeling the Puritan guilt-complex i n the innocent post-lapsarian Adam, w i l l miss much of the pathos i n the action after the Pa l l , especially i n Book Ten. The anti-Miltonists, of course, have closed their minds to Milton; and, as I have already suggested, are motivated by considerations deeper than l i t e r a r y criticism. They miss not only the humour and humanity with which Milton half-consciously invests Eden; they miss most of the other themes and patterns i n the middle books - the grand epic-baroque force of the War i n Heaven, the controlled magnificence of the Creation of the Universe, and the "deliciousness" which Milton successfully i n s t i l s into his earthly scenes. Their dark would seem to be my ligh t - and, of course, my dark their l i g h t . I take my stand, then, on the essential v a l i d i t y of my analysis of the characters and of the action i n the garden. I t i s now my concern to discuss the significance of this interpretation, to suggest how this reading affects large areas of the poem and hence readjusts our responses to the total action. Of course, as we have been noticing throughout, the most important consequence of finding - 76 -humanity i n Eden i s that the Paradisal action i s i t s e l f greatly enriched. And, for myself at least, as I have noted, the War i n Heaven and the story of Creation take on greater colour i f they come to us as fairy-tale f i l t e r e d through the devout and childlike mind of Adam. But a humanized Eden spreads i t s effects beyond i t s e l f i n three main ways, I think. F i r s t , i t helps to put the poem on a more even keel by shifting our interest from Satan to the human action. Second, i t changes our response to that area of the poem from the Temptation through the Pal l to the Regeneration. Finally, i t gives to the much-criticized Vision of the Eleventh Book a fresh colour - although that section can never be as complete a success as the rest of the poem. With an enlivened and a richer action i n Eden, we find that our interest i n the poem does not flag after we leave the t i t a n i c scenes i n which Satan holds the centre of the stage. We are not, of course, less fascinated by or sympathetic towards Satan (we welcome him back i n the War i n Heaven and at the Temptation); but we no longer feel l e t down when he leaves the scene, because the human pair have now become paramount i n our minds and hearts. The l i s t that Satan gives to the poem i s , therefore, not so pronounced as i t formerly seemed. How, too, because Satan i s not the only "human" figure i n the poem, because - 77 -with a l i v e l i e r interest of the characters of Adam and Eve we have come to fasten our attention on them, the "degradation" of Satan, although i t w i l l always jar somewhat, i s considerably cushioned. In truth, after the F a l l Satan plainly has no real part to play; we are then concerned only with the resolution of the human dilemma. This i s assuredly not a matter that can be argued; but at least for many who w i l l enter Eden unhampered by dogma or by pre-conceptions about what Adam, and Eve and Raphael should be, this re-alignment of interest and sympathy w i l l become a poetical fact. Another poetical fact for the admirer of Paradise Lost i s that he i s i n sympathy with the human pair at the F a l l -and after, of course. This disturbs the orthodox reader; and hence such c r i t i c s as C.S. Lewis and John Diekhoff, as we have remarked, repress their sympathy here and make great efforts to rev i l e the " f r i v o l i t y " , "pride" or plain "badness" of Eve, and the "uxoriousness" or plain "badness" of Adam. And too many c r i t i c s - among them Rajan, and less markedly T i l l y a r d - while not giving way a l l the way along the l i n e , are willi n g to y i e l d ground at this point by taking sides with God fcand Milton) against Adam and Eve. Now i t seems to me to be much more profitable to determine exactly why we are not on the side of the angels than to repress our actual emotional responses i n order to take an i n t e l l e c t u a l stand with heaven. - 78 -The simple f a c t f o r the non-orthodox reader i s that he can i n no way rebuke Adam or Eve as e v i l ; he can f i n d no force i n the doctrine of o r i g i n a l s i n . I f he i s to f i n d moments of pathos and tragedy i n Paradise Lost - and they are there - he must look elsewhere than i n Genesis. He must look f o r a human s i t u a t i o n i n which imperfect man comes to terms with l i f e . He w i l l f i n d such an a c t i o n i n Paradise Lost without adopting the C h r i s t i a n scheme; and t h i s a c t i o n w i l l be the more touching the more the human agents are r e a l i z e d as i n d i v i d u a l s and hold our a f f e c t i o n s . Hence i t i s that our present approach to Adam and Eve i s s i g n i f i c a n t . The honeymoon cannot l a s t f o r too long or we w i l l t i r e of i t s sameness, and without the aura of honey-moon, l i f e i n Paradise i s inconceivable, non-human. Eve we know from the f i r s t i s pre-destined by her character to " f a l l " ; and Adam we know w i l l f o l l o w her. He has i n f a c t already shown signs that he i s not going to remain the d o c i l e Puritan that he at times shows himself to be. (His early t r a i n i n g , however, w i l l always haunt him.) A few more weeks with Eve and a few more encounters with Raphael and i t i s c e r t a i n that Adam's horizon w i l l widen. Even as i t i s he i s almost ready to break openly with Raphael over h i s love f o r Eve, just as Mi l t o n f e l l out with the Presbyterians over h i s opinions on divorce. We are ready f o r the P a l l , therefore: i t must come, and now i s the time f o r i t . And what we should be concerned with during the Ninth and Tenth Books i s not 79 -the " s i n s " motivating the human p a i r , nor the " j u s t i c e " of t h e i r punishment, nor the rightness of the orthodox redemption through C h r i s t . What we should he concerned with i s the i n e v i t a b l e r e a l i t y that the two must face as they eome up against the f a c t of s u f f e r i n g i n the world - and the pathos and beauty with which they come to understand that the readiness i s a l l . I t should be our business, rather than to be l e d by Mi l t o n to attempt a r e c o n c i l i a t i o n between Genesis and r e a l i t y , to observe how husband and wife r e c o n c i l e themselves to each other and to the world a f t e r M i l t o n gets them from the honeymoon through the P a l l into everyday l i f e . The eating of the f r u i t - the disobedience - i s not an act which we have eithe r to commend or condemn, then. For M i l t o n i t i s c r u c i a l ; f o r us i t i s merely a device to tr a n s f e r the a c t i o n from one state of existence to another. But i t does matter that Adam i s shocked by the act. That i s why h i s r e a c t i o n i s deeply moving: On the other side, Adam, soon as he heard The f a t a l trespass done by Eve, amazed, Astonied stood and blank, while horror c h i l l Ran through h i s veins, and a l l h i s j o i n t s relaxed; Prom h i s slack hand the garland wreathed f o r Eve Down dropped, and a l l the faded^roses shed: Speechless he stood and pale .... (IX, 888) I t touches us, too, that great s u f f e r i n g , deserved or not, w i l l ensue; that i s what gives force to the cosmic rea c t i o n to the act of eating: - 80 -Earth trembled from her e n t r a i l s , as again In pangs, and nature gave a second groan, Sky loured and muttering thunder, some sad drops Wept at completing of the mortal s i n O r i g i n a l . (IX, 1000) We are not r e a l l y disturbed by the " l u s t " which immediately follows the "disobedience". (At any rate I am not.) I t comes as too sudden a break with the preceding love-scenes f o r us to c r e d i t i t . Besides, M i l t o n with h i s i n c o r r i g i b l e e l evation of m&rital sex has unconsciously made the scene amusingly a t t r a c t i v e . Adam and Eve a f t e r a l l are married, and t h i s kind of wedded wenching and coquetry plays a d e l i g h t f u l , i f not a predominant, r o l e i n married l i f e . But, again, we are moved by the g u i l t which poor Adam experiences and which he i n s t i l s i n the now apprehensive Eve: 0 Eve, i n e v i l hour thou didst give ear To that f a l s e worm, of whomsoever taught, To c o u n t e r f e i t man's voice, true i n our f a l l , False i n our promised r i s i n g ; since our eyes Opened we f i n d indeed, and f i n d we know Both good and e v i l , good l o s t , and e v i l got, Bad f r u i t of knowledge, i f t h i s be to know, Y/hich leaves us naked thus, of honor void, Of innocence, of f a i t h , of p u r i t y , Our wonted ornaments now soiled.:and stained, And i n our faces evident the signs Of f o u l concupiscence; whence e v i l store; Even shame, the l a s t of e v i l s ; of the f i r s t Be sure then. How s h a l l I behold the face Henceforth of God or angel, erst with joy And rapture so o f t beheld? those heavenly shapes W i l l dazzle now t h i s earthly, with t h e i r blaze Insufferably b r i g h t . 0 might I here In s o l i t u d e l i v e savage, i n some glade Obscured, where highest woods impenetrable To star or sunlight, spread t h e i r umbrage broad And brown as evening: Cover me ye pines, Ye cedars, with innumerable boughs Hide me, where I may never see them more. (IX, 1067) - 81 -And our a f f e c t i o n s are s t i r r e d when Adam's f e e l i n g of g u i l t and f e a r of the future impel him to castigate Eve (IX, 1134). We remember Adam's defense of wedded love against Raphael's s t r i c t u r e s , and h i s r e s o l u t i o n to die with Eve. The pathos increases i n Book X when Adam, n o t i c i n g the elemental changes which take place, and seeing the human future a n t i c i p a t e d i n the animal realm: Beast now with beast gan war, and fowl with fowl, (IX, 710) i s torn by g u i l t and fear. Hoping f o r a quick death and yet f e a r f u l that such a hope i s impious; On the ground Outstretched he l a y , on the cold ground .... (X, 850) There i s no l i n e i n l i t e r a t u r e more moving. His f i n a l attack against Eve reveals Adam at h i s lowest ebb: he i s almost deranged by the g u i l t and fear which h i s r e l i g i o n has begot i n him. I t i s a p i t i a b l e Adam we see here: Out of my sight, thou serpent, that name best B e f i t s thee with him leagued, t h y s e l f as f a l s e And h a t e f u l ; nothing wants, but that thy shape, Like h i s , and color serpentine may show Thy inward fraud, tov/warn a l l creatures from thee Henceforth; l e s t that too heavenly form, pretended To h e l l i s h falsehood, snare them. But f o r thee I had p e r s i s t e d happy. (X, 867) How strong a hold h i s early t r a i n i n g has on him can he seen by contrasting one l i n e here with one l i n e from Book IX: fo r with thee Certain my r e s o l u t i o n i s to die (IX, 906) and But f o r thee I had p e r s i s t e d happy. (X, 873) He i s now a l l s e l f ; he has forgotten that he must be Eve's prop i n the coming s u f f e r i n g . But the f i n e r Adam, the Adam who w i l l always respond to the sufferings of others, i s c a l l e d f o r t h by Eve's tears. Adam has not that most unforgivable of v i c e s - the i n a b i l i t y to f o r g i v e . And now the acceptance and the r e c o n c i l i a t i o n a n t i c i p a t e the concluding l i n e s of the poem: ... let. us no more contend, nor blame Each other, blamed enough elsewhere, but s t r i v e In o f f i c e s of love, how we may l i g h t e n Each other's burden i n our share of woe; Since t h i s day's death denounced, i f aught I see, W i l l prove no sudden, but a slow-paced e v i l , A long day's dying to augment our'pain, And to our seed (0 hapless seed!) derived. (X, 958) Adam has passed through the v a l l e y of the shadow of s p i r i t u a l death: he has been won back to humanity by tears. I t i s thus - rec o n c i l e d and secure i n each other's comfort, clothed now, but s t i l l two poor bare forked animals - that Adam and Eve - 83 -walk hand i n hand with wandering steps and slow into the great world of human c o n f l i c t . Rex Warner i s correct when he says that i n Paradise Lost i t i s not God hut man who i s j u s t i f i e d . ^ The f i n a l area of the poem which gains i n colour from.a humanized Eden i s the Michael-Adam v i s i o n i n Book Eleven. This e f f e c t spreads into Book Twelve as well, hut not with equal force since the v i s u a l impact on Adam i s not f e l t to he so great. The l a s t two books of the poem are not col o u r l e s s , of course, f o r many of those who are intimately acquainted with them and who simply l i k e l i s t e n i n g to M i l t o n poetize. But even C.S. Lewis - who does love Paradise Lost - c a l l s Books Eleven and Twelve an "untransmuted lump of f u t u r i t y " . His case i s strong. Again i t i s not a matter that argument can s e t t l e . But when I read through the l a s t books with my new conception of Adam, I f i n d that they are pervaded with humour and pathos. I must once again i n s i s t that I am concerned with Adam as Mil t o n has created him, and that does not ne c e s s a r i l y mean Adam as M i l t o n at a l l points consciously intended him. The humour and pathos are relevant, therefore, to the Adam of our p o e t i c a l impressions and are not always conscious on Milton's part. As elsewhere I am dealing i n 1. John Milton. London, Parish, 1949. 2. Preface to Paradise Lost, p. 125. - 84 -essence with the Paradise Lost Milton has given me and which I think w i l l o u t l i v e C h r i s t i a n orthodoxy. Adam, we remember, i s e a s i l y affected, and he i s often moved to tears and smiles as good and bad, beauty and s u f f e r i n g , parade before h i s eyes i n the V i s i o n . He watches with the same avid and c h i l d l i k e a t t e n t i o n that held him during Raphael's s t o r i e s , but now h i s reactions are deepened because he holds himself responsible f o r the s u f f e r i n g he witnesses. There i s great pathos i n innocent Adam's misery at the picture of the l a z a r house: Immediately a place Before h i s eyes appeared, sad, noisome, dark, A lazar-house i t seemed, wherein were l a i d Numbers of a l l diseased, a l l maladies Of ghastly spasm, or racking torture, qualms Of h e a r t - s i c k agony, a l l feverous kinds, Convulsions, e p i l e p s i e s , f i e r c e catarrhs, Intestine stone and u l c e r , c o l i c pangs, Demoniac phrenzy, moping melancholy And moon-struck madness, pining atrophy, Marasmus, and wide-wasting p e s t i l e n c e , Dropsies, and asthmas, and j o i n t - r a c k i n g rheums. Dire was the tossing, deep the groans, despair Tended the sick busiest from couch to couch; And over them triumphant death h i s dart Shook, but delayed to s t r i k e , though o f t invoked With vows, as t h e i r c h i e f good, and f i n a l hope. (XI,477) Mil t o n himself, being l i k e Adam e s s e n t i a l l y kind of heart, i s softened: Sight so deform what heart of rock could long Dry-eyed behold? Adam could not, but wept. (XI,494) - 85 -There i s depth of feeling i n Adam's rebellion against what amounts to retribution on helpless man: Why i s l i f e given To be thus wrested from us? rather why Obtruded on us thus? (XI, 502) We feel i t cruel, I think, that his guilt-complex should be thus fed. For the non-orthodox reader the reconciliation (X, 958) i s what counts, not the orthodox redemption. The significant point i s , however, that we are moved to pity by the miserable Adam. Even though Adam, when he has been instructed by Michael, yields i t just that intemperance be thus v i s i t e d with horror (XI, 526), he w i l l always be affected by the sight of conflict and anguish. He i s by nature generous and gentle; his acceptance of doctrine i s never more than i n t e l l e c t u a l . Dogma and human feeling w i l l always be at war within his breast. Now ensues what I believe to be the most hilariously amusing episode i n the poem. It i s certain that Milton intended no humour here; but i t i s just as certain that i t appears, although the orthodox reader might deny i t s existence. Here are the descendants of Seth, much l i k e Adam i n piety - and, as i t turns out, i n sensuality. They remind us for a l l the world of rustics holidaying i n the ci t y : - 86 -... a different sort From the high neighbouring h i l l s , which was their seat, Down to the plain descended: by their guise Just men they seemed, and a l l their study bent To worship God aright, and know his works Not hid, nor those things last which might preserve Freedom and peace to men: they on the plain Long had not walked, when from the tents behold A bevy of f a i r women, ric h l y gay In gems and wanton dress; to the harp they sung Soft amorous d i t t i e s , and in dance came on: The men though grave, eyed them, and l e t their eyes Rove without rein, t i l l i n the amorous net Fast caught, they liked, and each his l i k i n g chose; And now of love they treat t i l l the evening star Love's harbinger appeared; then a l l i n heat They l i g h t the nuptial torch, and bid invoke Hymen, then f i r s t to marriage r i t e s invoked; With feast and music a l l the tents resound. (XI,574) Again Milton makes the "lust" rather attractive ( i t i s rather Hardyesque). Adam i s reminded here of his honeymoon and i s gladdened by the sight (especially after the lazar house); and, innocent as he i s , he exults: Such happy interview and f a i r event Of love and youth not lost, songs, garlands, flowers, And charming symphonies attached the heart Of Adam, soon inclined to admit delight, The bent of nature; which he thus expressed. 'True opener of mine eyes, prime angel blest, Much better seems this vision, and more hope Of peaceful days portends, than those two past; Those were of hate and death, or pain much worse, Here nature seems f u l f i l l e d in a l l her ends.' (XI, 593) He i s exactly the same Adam who sang a paean to wedded love in the Eighth Book. He seems to be incorrigible. But his joy i s short-lived. Michael gravely edifies him: - 87 -Judge not what i s best By pleasure, though to nature seeming meet, Created, as thou art, to nobler end Holy and pure, conformity divine. Those tents thou sawest so pleasant, were the tents Of wickedness. (XI, 603) These women, i t seems, have seduced the good men from God; they are women who neglect "domestic honour", and know only how ... to sing, to dance, To dress, and t r o l l the tongue, and r o l l the eye. (XI,619) The impressionable Adam, eager to keep the peace and to be on the side of right, recants, and amusingly tries to shift the blame on to woman: 0 pity and shame, that they who to l i v e well Entered so f a i r , should turn aside to tread Paths indirect, or i n the midway faint! But s t i l l I see the tenor of man's woe. Holds on the same, from:-woman to begin. (XI, 629) But Michael brings him up short: Prom man's effeminate slackness i t begins. (XI, 6 3 4 ) Poor Adam seems unable to cope with doctrine no matter how hard he t r i e s . It i s .essentially comical to hear the solemn Michael preaching goodness to the unsophisticated Adam. - 88 -But Adam i s f i n a l l y made happy when he beholds Noah; and he i s not admonished t h i s time: ... I r e j o i c e For one man found so perfect and so j u s t . (XI, 875) He and Noah would c e r t a i n l y have been companions, and Noah would have interceded with God, I think, f o r h i s sometimes unconsciously wayward f r i e n d . I have i n d i c a t e d the ways i n which a grasp of Adam and Eve ( e s p e c i a l l y of Adam) as " r e a l i z e d " and i n d i v i d u a l i z e d human beings enhances the reading of the epic. There i s of course more to be said on t h i s subject, but i t would not be p r o f i t a b l e to exhaust i t since that would lead to minute exposition and would soon deviate into r e p e t i t i o n of the obvious. Enough has been said, I think, to reveal that when read f o r i t s p o e t i c a l impressions, Paradise Lost becomes r i c h e r , more various, more human - hence deeper and more moving than i t i s i f one surrenders to C h r i s t i a n orthodoxy i n order to watch the a c t i o n e n t i r e l y from Milton's d o c t r i n a l point of view. M i l t o n had more than one response to h i s characters and h i s theme; and i t w i l l gain us no more to i n s i s t on Satan's p e r v e r s i t y and Adam's w i l f u l disobedience than i t w i l l to maintain that Hamlet f a l l s because he delayed i n h i s duty. No great poem i s that simple; i f i t were i t would be constantly i n danger of l o s i n g contact with - 89 -f r e s h generations of readers. For t h i s reason I think i t a d i s s e r v i c e to M i l t o n to attempt to anchor our minds i n h i s century i n order to "understand" a poem which goes deeper than any r e l i g i o u s doctrine. Already many modern readers are r e j e c t i n g Paradise Lost because they cannot accept i t s theology. I t i s my b e l i e f , therefore, that not to snatch Paradise Lost from the hands of the orthodox c r i t i c s (and those who attempt to s l i p i n t o orthodoxy f o r the purposes of reading the poem) and bo l d l y to display i t as a human document abounding i n the humour and pathos of domestic r e l a t i o n s i s almost w i l l i n g l y to l e t i t die. CONCLUSION I t would be a vain task to attempt a f i n a l exposition of the "meaning" of Paradise Lost, The orthodox c r i t i c s f a l l down i n the attempt. Paradise Lost has many meanings, some more forcefully operative with some readers, others with other readers. It has been my endeavour to set forth a significant deficiency i n Milton criticism. I have stated that one v i t a l and pervasive meaning i n the poem i s i t s humanity. The anti-Miltonists do not recognize this humanity: for them Milton i s aimply a stern Puritan who has nothing to say to us. The orthodox c r i t i c s do not recognize i t (or i f they do they tend to deny i t ) because they read the poem entirely i n terms of Milton's doctrine. They too regard Milton as a stern Puritan, but they register approval, being rather stern Puritans themselves. For them Milton has something to say, but i t i s something that non-orthodox readers do not fin d attractive or meaningful. - Against these two schools of c r i t i c s Paradise Lost has been in'some of i t s aspects ably defended, especially by Waldock and T i l l y a r d . But Waldock does not attempt a positive view of the poem and :he disappointingly accepts the common opinion that the action i n Eden i s colourless. T i l l y a r d i n his latest book (Studies i n Milton. 1950) throws some li g h t on domestic comedy i n Eden, but he discusses i t s operation only i n the quarrel scene before the F a l l . He f a i l s , therefore, to rescue the total action i n Eden from i t s detractors. - 91 -I t has been my contention that M i l t o n was a greater dramatist, had a broader, more genial humanity than c r i t i c s give him c r e d i t f o r , and that he has, sometimes unconsciously perhaps, invested h i s a c t i o n with an abundance of human v i t a l i t y , that he has made Adam, Eve and Raphael r e a l , l i f e - l i k e , i n t e r e s t i n g i n d i v i d u a l s . I have i n f a c t i n t e n t i o n a l l y implied that Adam, f a r from being a d u l l puppet, i s the most engaging, the most amusing, the most touching character i n the poem. Mil t o n had, of course, among other things, a r e l i g i o u s doctrine to impart; but he was f i r s t of a l l a poet dedicated not only to a theme but to the epic. " I t i s easy to forget," says 0.S. Lewis, "that the man who writes a good love sonnet needs not only to be enamoured of a woman, but also to be enamoured of the Sonnef't Lewis himself too often forgets t h i s , however. Mi l t o n was enamoured of the epic, and t h i s of course means that he was enamoured of i t s parts — i t s debates, i t s b a t t l e s , i t s grand scope, above a l l i t s characters and t h e i r i n t e r p l a y , f o r Paradise Lost i s the most dramatic of epics. The orthodox c r i t i c s , reading Paradise Lost s t r i c t l y i n terms of i t s doctrine, w i l l continue to derive from the poem c e r t a i n pleasures which are l o s t to the non-orthodox. !• Preface to Paradise Lost, p. 3. - 92 -And we w i l l surely not suggest that they discontinue so to read. But the non-orthodox reader w i l l f i n d r iches not apparent to - or rejected by - the orthodox c r i t i c s and those readers who pay them homage. I f stress i s l a i d only on the doctrine i n Paradise Lost, i f we read the poem e n t i r e l y i n terms of Milton's stated i n t e n t i o n s , we soon f i n d that our impressions of the act i o n often clash with those statements. A c l e a r case of such a clash occurs between Satan's sincere and moving s e l f - a n a l y s i s i n the great s o l i l o q u y i n Book IV and Milton's statement which follows i t . By c a l l i n g Satan "counterfeit", the " A r t i f i c e r of fraud", Milton t r i e s to destroy the e f f e c t he has created i n the s o l i l o q u y . The orthodox c r i t i c s t r y to resolve t h i s d i s p a r i t y between performance; and statement by surpressing t h e i r spontaneous f e e l i n g i n favour of Milton's e x p l i c i t d i r e c t i v e s about how we ought to f e e l . This approach, however, does not solve the problem -unless one has an orthodoxy f i r m enough to r e j e c t a f a c t i n favour of a dogma,, as Gosse senior i s reported to have refused to believe what he admitted seeing under the microscope. Why should we r e j e c t one f a c t - that M i l t o n has here made Satan sympathetic - f o r another f a c t - that M i l t o n claims that we should not be thus sympathetic? For i t should be asserted c l e a r l y that when we say that Milton's performances were not always what he consciously intended them to be, we are s t a t i n g a f a c t , we are not succumbing - 93 -to merely whimsical, subjective responses. Satan at t h i s point i s a character aware of. h i s flaw but unable to conquer i t : pride and revenge are h i s a l c o h o l . Our compassion goes out to him. The honesty of h i s s e l f -a n a l y s i s i s as r e a l as Milton's attempt to render i t f a l s e . There are many such d i s p a r i t i e s i n the poem -B e l i a l ' s speech and Milton's comment on i t , f o r example; and Milton's attempt to convince us that the complex and touching passions which force Adam to f a l l with Eve -passions which Milton, be i t noted, has himself made us f e e l - can be passed o f f i n the phrase, "fondly overcome with female charm". Here indeed i s a dilemma, the simple explanation of which i s , I hold, that M i l t o n the poet and Mil t o n the theologian are not always i n harmony, that Milton's f e e l i n g s sometimes c l a s h with h i s doctrine. And where such a cla s h occurs we must, unless we can f i n d s a t i s f a c t i o n i n the doctrine per se, allow our spontaneous response to override - at the very l e a s t , to co-exist with our understanding"of the stated i n t e n t i o n ; f o r a f t e r a l l we are reading a poem not a t r e a t i s e . I t w i l l not do to go with C.S. Lewis and Diekhoff to St. Augustine to f i n d out what Paradise Lost means. St. Augustine can help us to understand the doctrine of the poem, but he cannot account f o r the humour and the pathos of the human Eden which M i l t o n has created. - 94 -Now i t i s not my plea that we suggest to the orthodox c r i t i c s and t h e i r followers that they should not read Paradise Lost i n terms of orthodoxy: there remain C h r i s t i a n s who receive intense pleasure from Milton's r e l i g i o u s doctrine. But there are more things i n Paradise Lost, than are dreamt of by the orthodox c r i t i c s ; to attempt to reduce Milton's great epic to any one system i s to miss much of the paradoxical mystery which i t p r o j e c t s . For Milton, as a l l great poets, renders l i f e awesome and i n e x p l i c a b l e at the very same time that he gives i t pattern and meaning. We f e e l t h i s mystery, t h i s complexity, most strongly at the. end of the poem; and a human reading of Eden i s what creates t h i s f e e l i n g : the p i t y , one almost says the unfairness, of the gentle human p a i r being cast out of t h e i r "happy seat" to face the s u f f e r i n g that i s l i f e . And yet the rightness of i t ! The ranks of the non-orthodox are swelling -e s p e c i a l l y among those l i k e l y to encounter Milton, and i f there were not more i n Paradise Lost than the C h r i s t i a n scheme that the orthodox c r i t i c s i n s i s t on as the meaning, the poem would be a closed book to many lovers of poetry. In the poem there are other meanings, and the reader who i s not moved by the theology as truth, can be deeply s t i r r e d by the humanity of the poem: the domestic comedy i n Eden while i t i s engaging i n i t s e l f , also adds depth and complexity to the pathos of the human dilemma projected - 95 -i n the poem. For the non-Christian reader, and of course f o r those of the orthodox who do not allow doctrine to b l i n d them to the v a r i e t y of meanings i n the poem, the humanity of Paradise Lost i s of the utmost importance. Milton, representing ( i t would seem) an impossible state of existence - complete innocence - has managed to i n d i v i d u a l i z e h i s characters, to make them believable and l i k e a b l e . He has moved the human p a i r from a d e l i g h t f u l honeymoon state i n t o the r e a l world of c o n f l i c t ; he has made us s u f f e r with them - with them as i n d i v i d u a l s ; and he has brought them to a touchingly human r e c o n c i l i a t i o n - before the C h r i s t i a n 2 redemption occurs. The humanization of Eden gives the poem a v i t a l i t y and a complexity which the a n t i - M i l t o n i s t s cannot see. M i l t o n indeed has something to say to us. The orthodox c r i t i c s miss the humanity i n Paradise Lost because they f i n d i t inconsistent with t h e i r theology. They assume that l i f e i n Paradise was completely u n l i k e our l i f e , and that therefore there i s no human i n t e r e s t i n Eden; or else they see that here and there ( i n the scenes of Pa r a d i s a l sexuality and at the F a l l ) there i s l i f e - l i k e a c t i o n which i s incompatible with doctrine and which 2. The a c t i o n a f t e r the r e c o n c i l i a t i o n i s then extraneous to the s t r i c t l y human drama. But, as I have suggested i n chapter 3, Adam accepts the C h r i s t i a n scheme inquestioningly, and since we now view Adam as a r e a l and l i k e a b l e Puritan, how he s u f f e r s from, and comes to terms with, h i s r e l i g i o n a f f e c t s us even though we do not support h i s doctrine. - 96 -M i l t o n should not have created. F i n a l l y , the non-orthodox defenders of Mil t o n have not been f a i r to the act i o n i n Eden: not themselves recognizing to what extent M i l t o n the poet was enamoured of the epic, they too e a s i l y accept the middle books of Paradise Lost as d o c t r i n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t and i n many places l y r i c a l l y b e a u t i f u l , but as on the whole not i n t e r e s t i n g l y human. I t i s my b e l i e f that M i l t o n the poet and humanist has created a human drama i n Eden, a drama which comes to l i f e f o r the reader who w i l l read the poem stripped of any prejudice about Milton,the s u r l y P u r itan. And I contend that t h i s reading of Paradise Lost i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important to-day when orthodoxy, f o r better or worse, i s diminishing, and when many of the non-orthodox, l i k e LaevJs, assume that there i s i n t e r e s t only i n the f i r s t two books of a poem which i s unsurpassed by any poem i n our language. My argument throughout t h i s paper, s t r e s s i n g as i t does the p o e t i c a l impressions of Paradise Lost over the theology, might seem so to shatter the framework of j u s t i f i c a t i o n that M i l t o n erected as to destroy the unity "of the poem. I must mitigate t h i s impression; f o r Paradise Lost stands foursquare against a l l c r i t i c a l b l a s t s . In the f i r s t place, M i l t o n has transcended h i s t h e o l o g i c a l system i n h i s imaginative representation of two human f i g u r e s caught i n a world too big f o r them, too f u l l of the - 97 -i n e x p l i c a b l e to s u f f e r them to remain i n a state of b l i s s . They are forced by t h e i r very natures to t r a n s f e r them-selves i n t o the r e a l world, the imperfect world of chance and change, character and c o n f l i c t , s u f f e r i n g and acceptance, to succumb to the remorseless working of things at once with apprehensive fear and a regenerated hope born of t h e i r touching r e c o n c i l i a t i o n . Milton's presentation of t h i s human tragedy (for Paradise Lost i s t r a g i c when we focus rather on the human r e c o n c i l i a t i o n than on the C h r i s t i a n redemption) should be viewed as an a r t i s t i c success of the highest order. M i l t o n was too big f o r the doctrine he set f o r t h i n h i s poem; he has transcended i t by presenting a human tragedy that can s t i r readers of a l l b e l i e f s rather than a divine comedy to be understood only by the C h r i s t i a n . But there i s more to be s a i d . Why does Paradise Lost have an impact f a r beyond that caused by a story of two i n d i v i d u a l s who l e a r n through s u f f e r i n g how to come to terms with l i f e ? What i s i t that makes the reader of Paradise Lost, without the l e a s t shadow of sentimentality, pay homage to M i l t o n as a kind of prophet, as a poet who, while we are i n h i s hands, makes us believe i n the fu r o r poeticus? The answer to these questions l i e s g reatly i n Milton's myth-making power, and t h i s on two l e v e l s - the conscious and the subconscious. F i r s t , the C h r i s t i a n scheme, even f o r the reader who does not accept i t - 98 -inte l l e c t u a l l y , has so worked i t s way into western consciousness that when a poet of Milton's capacity treats i t imaginatively he touches deep chords of tradition and recognition i n our minds. But what i s more important i s the way i n which he operates on chords of recognition below the conscious level through the archetypal images which are the very stuff of Paradise Lost: Eden, archetype of a l l the i d y l l i c visions that man has perennially imaged as retreats from the turmoil of l i f e ; Hell, the timeless symbol of man's feelings of guil t and fear i n the face of a world i n which rebellion and transgression against a moral order stronger than any individual are constant facts; Satan, a complex and paradoxical symbol of the eternal e v i l of the w i l l and at the same time of the eternal Prometheus i n the human mind; and Chaos, a night-mare world echoed i n the dark recesses of our minds, where fantastic and te r r i f y i n g forces struggle to maintain a lunatic disorder, where even the ti t a n i c Satan i s the sport of Chance, where "Havoc and spoil and ruin" reign. Archetypal themes i n Paradise Lost i s not a subject I intend to pursue i n any detail; i t has been admirably discussed by T i l l y a r d (The Miltonic Setting) and by others, notably by Arnold Stein i n Answerable Style. I wish merely to state that there are i n Paradise Lost these archetypal themes which operate powerfully on our 3. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1953. - 99 -imaginations and which give the epic an impact greater than that of any story about two i n d i v i d u a l s . But only i i i so f a r as these archetypal patterns embody a human drama i n which l i t t l e man i s p i t t e d against huge and i n e x p l i c a b l e forces do they operate with success; and i t i s f o r t h i s reason that the humanity of Paradise Lost i s of the greatest importance. 100 A SELECTIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sburce Fletcher, Harris Francis, ed., The Complete Poetical Works of John Milton. Boston, Houghton M i f f l i n Company, 1941. Secondary Sources Books Belloc, H i l l a i r e , Milton. London, JT.B. Lippincott Company, 1935. Bush, Douglas, Paradise Lost in Our Time. New York, Peter Smith, 1948. Cecil, Lord David, "Introduction" to The Oxford Book of Christian Verse. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1940. Darbishire, Helen, ed., Early Lives of Milton, London, Constable and Company Limited, 1932. Diekhoff, Jl.Si, Milton's Paradise Lost: A Commentary on the Argument. New York, Columbia University Press, 1946. Graves, Robert, Wife to Mr. Milton. London, Cassell, 1943. Grierson, Sir Herbert, Milton and Wordsworth. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1937. Hanford, JT. Holly, A Milton Handbook, New York, Crofts and Company, 1946. Leavls, F.R., The Common Pursuit. London. Chatto and Windus, 1952. Leavls, F . R i , Revaluations. London, Chatto and Windus, 1936. Lewis, C.S., Preface to Paradise Lost. London, Oxford University Press, 1946. MacCaulay, Rose, Milton. London, Duckworth, 1934. Murry, Middleton, Studies In Keats. London, Oxford University Press, 1939. Eattison, Mark, Milton. London, MacMillan Company, 1887. 101 Raleigh, Sir Walter, Milton. London, Edward Arnold, 1905. Rajan, Bi, Paradise Lost and the Seventeenth Century Reader. London, Chatto and Windus, 1947. Saurat, Denis, Milton. Man and Thinker, London, Jf.M; Dent and Sons Limited, 1946. Smith, Logan Pearsall, Milton and His Modern Cr i t i c s . London, Oxford University Press, 1940. Stein, Arnold, Answerable Style. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1953. St o l l , E.E., From Shakespeare to Joyce, Garden City, New York, Doubleday, Doran and Company Limited, 1944. St o l l , E.E., Poets and Playwrights, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1930. Tillyard, EiM.W., Milton. London,. Chatto and Windus, 1947. Tillyard, E.M.W., The Miltonlc Settins. London, Chatto and Windus, 1947. Tillyard, E.M.W.,- Studies In Milton. London, Chatto and Windus, 1951. Waldock, A.J.A., Paradise Lost and Its Cri t i c s . Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1947. Warner, Rex, John Milton. London, Max Parrish, 1949. Werblowsky, R.JJ.Z., Lucifer and Prometheus. London, Rout ledge and Kegan Paul, 1952. Williams, Charles, "Introduction" to The English Poems of John Milton, ed. H.C. Beeching, London, Oxford University Press, 1940. Articles.In Periodicals E l i o t , T.S., "Milton", Sewanee Review. LVT, 1948. El i o t , T.S., "A Note on the Verse of, John Milton", Essays and Studies by Members of the English Association, XXI, 1936^ MUsgrove, Sv, "Is the Devil an Ass?", Review of English Studies. XXI, 1945. St o l l , E.E., "Give the Devil His Due", Review of English Studies. XX, 1944.
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
English
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use.
Graduate
Milton and the non-orthodox reader; chiefly a study of the human elements in Eden
Text