The New Compass: A Critical Review
Milton’s Justification of the Ways of God
or, The Fall into Language
A Reply to C.Q. Drummond
Ian Robinson
It might be
said that civilization can only have its epic poets in
advance. ... If you want to see an epic description of a whole
culture, you will have to look at the works of its greatest figures, hence at
works composed when the end of this culture could only be foreseen,
because later on there will be nobody left to describe it.[1]
O felix
culpa![2]
One
of the best things in the original series of The Compass was the four
essays by C. Q. Drummond under the series title of “An Anti-Miltonist
Reprise.” When I launched the Edgeways imprint of critical books Drummond got
in touch and offered a short book on Bunyan. In reply I asked about the fate of
the Milton essays and whether they could be considered for inclusion in the
same book. Drummond said yes, and so I reread the series, with admiration for
what is now a rare thing, genuine literary criticism. By genuine I mean:
addressing the question what significance this poem might have for us now,
where it comes in life and in the literature, and answering the question by
serious attention to the poem. I did want to argue, though—which is also a good
sign: as Leavis said, genuine literary criticism is creative quarrelling.
Before I had got my riposte ready the news came of Drummond’s death. Well,
discussion is immortal. He has had his say, and the book including the reprint
of the Milton essays is well on course, one of its two editors being Professor
John Baxter, founding editor of The Compass. So as I can’t say my
piece direct to Drummond I offer it instead to Drummond’s readers, and in the
hope that this may not be the end of the discussion.
My
own context is not quite the same as Drummond’s. At Downing, Leavis made us
read Milton. He had carried Paradise Lost around with him throughout the
Great War. My sense of my surviving contemporaries is that nevertheless they
are inoculated against Milton—have not only never taken him seriously but are
hardened in the assumption that there is no need to. In another genuine book my
firm has just published, J. C. F. Littlewood says, for instance,
“What a Paradise Lost we should have had if Milton had been a writer of
Lawrence’s powers,”[3] which, in respect of the relative
valuation, I have to say is frankly absurd. I am reporting the most recent
stage in the steady decline of the position of Milton since his zenith during
the Age of Reason. And so I want to have a go at the Downing constituency as
well as those who are close to Drummond’s cast of mind in Canada.
The
first surprise Drummond gave me was the reminder of how much he sees in Milton.
Drummond argues in support of Waldock’s strictures on Milton’s imaginative and
narrative shortcomings: but he also develops Waldock’s account of Adam’s fall
to the point of saying that the passage gives us “the greatest love poetry in
the language.”[4]
The
notion of a great poet with serious flaws makes the whole discussion more
interesting than if we were simply to think (as I report my friends doing,
especially those nearest to Leavis) that Milton’s shortcomings having after
some centuries become painfully obvious, he may be judged to have had his day.
The great love poetry of the language, if that is what we find in Paradise
Lost, surely ought to guarantee the work as one of our classics, whatever
its flaws. I find to my surprise, however, that I want to go a long way further
than Drummond.
William
Blake concentrated as much as Milton on the sense to be made of the ideas of
the loss of innocence and of paradise, and how they might be regained; the
upshot was poetry that many find more acceptable than Milton’s, as well as more
powerful. In the Introduction to the Songs of Experience Blake tells us
to hear the voice of the Bard
Whose ears have heard
The Holy Word
That
walk’d among the ancient trees
Calling
the lapsèd Soul
And
weeping in the evening dew,
That might control
The starry pole
And
fallen, fallen light renew!
Milton too
is trying to call the lapsèd soul and renew fallen, fallen light. The
justification I have for asking for some attention to Milton is that I think
Milton’s call deeper and clearer than Blake’s, and more necessary for our whole
language.
Blake’s
best criticism of Milton is not The Marriage of Heaven and Hell and not Milton
or anything else in the prophetic books,[5] it is the Songs
of Innocence as they balance against, or “contrary” the Songs of Experience
to make a whole greater than the parts, as in “The Lamb” and “The Tyger.”
Within this set of contraries the Experience poems are well known to be
on the whole stronger than the Innocence poems, which would apply to
“The Tyger.” “The Sick Rose” perhaps depends on a contrast with innocent love,
but only as a springboard; and the eternal yearning of “Ah Sunflower” is
self-sufficient. But a few of the Innocence poems are better than their Experience
counterparts.
We
are now so blasé about experience that some of these poems (I write here out of
experience of discussing them with students who just can’t take them) are hard
sayings. The Innocence “Chimney-Sweeper” is a scandal to the modern
mind. How much easier to rest, with Experience in this case, on denunciation—perfectly
just, certainly called for—of a social system, now happily far off in time, in
which the child is clothed with the clothes of death while his parents are
gone to praise God & his priest and king
Who make up
a heaven of our misery.
But outrage
is there too in the Innocence poem—and more deeply, and without stage
directions to us to be indignant:
When
my mother died I was very young
And my
father sold me while yet my tongue
Could
scarcely cry “’weep! ’weep! ’weep! ’weep!”
So
your chimneys I sweep, & in soot I sleep.
The
repetition of “’weep!,” as strong as the repeated “Mark” in “London,” yet has
no designs on the reader; and if the gaiety of the nursery-rhyme-like movement
of “Your chimneys I sweep” is heartrending it is not because Blake is
determined as his first objective to pluck at our heartstrings. Pity must
surely come into any proper understanding of these lines, and indignation: Are
these things done on Albion’s shore? It is pity evoked by the purest statement,
of innocence. Sold is simply, innocently terrible. The consequence, “So
your chimneys I sweep, & in soot I sleep” ought, one feels, like the lamb
misused, to breed public strife, and yet it is not a denunciation, but an
impersonal pointing in a direction that leads later in the poem not to
indignation but redemption.
Blake,
a generation older than Wordsworth and Coleridge, did not change his mind about
the French Revolution. What is so hard for us to grasp, in a still socialist
age, is that the wonder of innocence in this and a few other poems is not
directly political at all. The chimney sweeper’s vision that follows is not
ironical. Tom Dacre,[6] “who cried when his head,/That
curl’d like a lamb’s back, was shear’d,” has a vision of the thousands of
sleepers unlocked by an angel from their coffins of black who
down a green plain leaping, laughing, they
run,
And wash in
a river, and shine in the Sun.
Then naked
& white, all their bags left behind,
They rise
upon clouds and sport in the wind;
And the Angel
told Tom, if he’d be a good boy
He’d have
God for his father, and never want joy.
Joy! But
there is no atom of irony here, no hint that the Angel may be on the side of
the exploiters; the closing moral (what else to call it?) comes with absolute
innocence:
Tho’
the morning was cold, Tom was happy and warm;
So
if all do their duty they need not fear harm.
That vision
of Innocence is wonderful; it is in not being ironic that this is
so poignant. We have to overcome something in our world to take what Blake
shows as more than a pathetic story of dream-compensation.
In
the two “Holy Thursday” poems, again, Experience speaks so much more
directly to our sense of what calls for indignation and reform (“And so many
children poor?/It is a land of poverty!”)—which again is perfectly just and
true—that we may again miss the deeper Innocence and not notice it as a
more visionary account of the very same occasion. In comparison the Experience
poem is overstated:
And the sun does never shine,
It
is eternal winter there.
Never? In Paradise
Lost hope never comes, that comes to all, only in Hell. The emphasis on and
is also just a little bullying—unlike the Innocence poem, where the
purity of heart is so bold that Blake has no need of insistence.[7]
Blake’s
contrasting of innocence and experience[8] avoids the
difficulty Milton so boldly committed himself to, the difficulty of defining
these contrasts by way of telling a story with a line leading from the one
state to the other. This might in itself seem to show Blake, the more
intelligent handler of a poetic problem, as also the man of deeper
understanding. My only justification for saying anything on the subject is that
I do not think it does.
It
is when his masterfulness carries the poet into doing what he should have seen
can’t be done that Milton’s poem breaks down—at the places that have always
been recognized as weak. Milton was not the only writer to have got into
trouble trying to depict heaven, and the trouble is not altogether ascribable
to a particular moment of the Renaissance/Reformation, though as Broadbent
showed,[9] that has something to do with it. In Pearl,
that splendid medieval poem, the vision of the new Jerusalem granted to the
dreamer as a reward for his obedience is an anti-climax which he has to excuse
by ascribing to the Apostle John. The Revelation of St John itself has moments
that need apology. The last two chapters achieve an ecstasy that is amazing in
simple NT Greek, but the precious stones remain a list of objects of this world
not the next; and the cubic Holy City is not actually imaginable. I made some
relevant comments on Dante long ago, elsewhere. Trying to depict heaven the
other great Puritan writer, Bunyan, has a moment of weakness at the end of the
first part of Pilgrim’s Progress, which he rectifies in the second by
concentrating on the crossing of the dark river rather than on what is found on
the other side.[10] And Bunyan’s reworking of the Paradise
Lost story in The Holy War is worse than Milton.[11]
But the epic ambition did inevitably sharpen Milton’s difficulty, by making the
first two persons of the Trinity into the kind of character you expect to find
in the Olympian pantheon, talking to each other and to the angels assembled in
a kind of parliament. Broadbent is good both on the history of the ambition
before and after Milton and on the various failures it produced.
These
are, of course, not excuses. The seventeenth-century poets, and Bunyan, should
have seen they were in a cul-de-sac and tried some other way. In any
understandable Christian terms, the rebellious angels fall by the act of the
alienation of their wills from God: if they cease to love God that in itself
removes them from God. This is a point nicely clear for instance in that
earlier enactment of the Christian way, the York Plays. There, as soon as
Lucifer has expressed his pride he finds himself falling. Going the other way
Milton is pressing a difficult analogy in the wrong direction. If Milton had
allowed himself to see this, which is obvious enough, there couldn’t have been
those absurd uprootings of trees, invention of gunpowder &c. to keep an
actual battle going three days—permitted, God has to explain to save the
orthodoxy of his omnipotence, in order to glorify the Eternal Son.
It
was a related and equally obvious mistake to make God speak. (There was the
Homeric precedent, but the gods are a problem in the Iliad too. When
they appear to the heroes they can be divine, but what to do with the Olympian
squabbles? The best translator into English I know,
W. H. D. Rouse, thought that these scenes were all broadly comic
and translated accordingly. Presumably Milton did not intend the Father to be
comic.) In particular, it was a mistake to make him foretell the fall of Adam
and then lose his temper, exculpating himself and blaming Adam in a way that
cannot but make the reader think that God has something to hide. Every time
Richard Nixon went on the television to explain that he was quite innocent in
the poor little Watergate affair he made things worse, and anybody who trusted
him before must have been quite sure afterwards that he did it himself.
Milton’s God is like the proverbial father of the (in his view) rebellious
teenage son: “He had everything he wanted, and look how he treats me now, the
ungrateful!” Milton had no sense of his own fallibility: there is not enough in
Paradise Lost of “’Tis mystery all, th’Immortal dies/Who can explore his
strange design?” John Milton can, too easily. A republican ought to be in
difficulty with a religion that is trying to bring in the kingdom of God.[12] How can the King of Kings to be shown by a republican to
be no despot? The stupidity in Milton and Bunyan is that they seem not to have
asked themselves the question.
Milton’s
insoluble artistic problem, not recognized by himself at all, is how to unpack
Paradise Lost into a sequence of events. As Schopenhauer put it: “There is no
truer idea in Judaism than this [of the Fall], although it transfers to
the course of existence what must be represented as its foundation and
antecedent.”[13] The difficulty Milton involves himself
in, telling the fall as a long dramatized story, is in trying to imagine a
whole world of innocence, fully human but without the knowledge of good and
evil and without the prospect of death. Where is humanity, where is language,
if the voices are not heard of good, evil, death? Try and imagine what would be
left of that wonderful evocation of humanity and the divine, the Book of
Psalms! At that point I have to give up—but of course Milton didn’t. He
depicted, flat out, head on, the state of unfallen man in Eden.
T.
S. Eliot justly objects to the unrealization of the speeches Adam and Eve make
to each other in the Garden in Book IV. Shakespeare did actually look at the
world; Milton, who, as Eliot unkindly reminds us, could not look at the world
when he was writing Paradise Lost, makes Eden general in a way that
cannot but be insipid. Whether or not Milton would have agreed, this shows an
understanding of the necessary state of Eden, without the knowledge of good and
evil. It must have been a bit dull, at least for Adam and Eve, if not for the
animals. I am not even sure that the elephant would have been happy for long
amusing them with his lithe proboscis.
The
poem is immediately lifted when Satan sees the pair. This is
unmistakable in the poetry, which soars from the rather uninspired level of the
tranquil garden to something which it took the full power of a great poet to create.
Milton here solves the problem of the presentation of innocence in the only
possible way, by showing how it is viewed by experience, in this case by the
worst possible experience. Here are the last few lines about the animals,
followed by the bursting in of Satan’s view of the loving human pair:
Bears,
Tygers, Ounces, Pards
Gambold
before them, th’ unwieldy Elephant
To
make them mirth us’d all his might, and wreathd
His
Lithe Proboscis; close the Serpent sly
Insinuating,
wove with Gordian twine
His
breaded train, and of his fatal guile
Gave
proof unheeded; others on the grass
Coucht,
and now fild with pasture gazing sat,
Or
Bedward ruminating; for the Sun
Declin’d
was hasting now with prone carreer
To
th’ Ocean Iles, and in th’ ascending Scale
Of
Heav’n the Starrs that usher Evening rose:
When
Satan still in gaze, as first he stood,
Scarce
thus at length faild speech recoverd sad.
O
Hell! what doe mine eyes with grief behold,
Into
our room of bliss thus high advanc’t
Creatures
of other mould, earth-born perhaps,
Not
Spirits, yet to heav’nly Spirits bright
Little
inferior; whom my thoughts pursue
With
wonder, and could love, so lively shines
In
them Divine resemblance, and such grace
The
hand that formd them on thir shape hath pourd.
Ah
gentle pair, yee little think how nigh
Your
change approaches, when all these delights
Will
vanish and deliver ye to woe …. (IV.344-68)[14]
Several
things are happening there more complex than Milton is sometimes allowed to be.
Satan’s enviousness (old sense) is apparent, but also his deep appreciation.
Milton puts in the Argument, “his wonder at thir excellent form and happy
state, but with resolution to work thir fall”—and it takes a poet to create
wonder. Satan is Macbeth-like in seeing the good more deeply than the good see
it themselves; in fact he is so to speak reverse-tempted—to repent. For his
reasons for admiring the beauty of Adam and Eve are good and true. If he could
love them for their divine resemblance he would bless them unawares, like the
Ancient Mariner, and be relieved of the burden of his sin like Bunyan’s
Christian at the foot of the cross. Instead, like Macbeth fatally determined,
he goes into a sardonic contemplation of them from the point of view of evil.
This gets even worse when he sees their sexual love for one another (490 ff.).
To
be appreciated the innocence of the garden has to be seen by an eye not
innocent. Paradise can only be truly known as lost; which is part of the myth: tous
les vrais paradis, ce sont les paradis perdus.
What
Milton does with Satan’s sight of Innocence is like what Blake does with
the clash of contraries in the Songs: the genuineness in both cases is
the poet’s vision of paradisal incorruptibility. The vision is not itself
innocent. It is only to the experiened that innocence is a vision; to see and
wonder at innocence presupposes a fall, even without the explicit Experience
poetry. The Innocence “Nurse’s Song” is seen from the point of view of
experience, whereas the Experience Nurse is just evil. Marvell’s
prospect of Little T.C. (Marvell who was almost as preoccupied with innocence
and experience as Blake or Milton), has to be from the poet’s experienced point
of view. Little T.C. could not herself invite us to
See
with what simplicity
This
Nimph begins her golden daies!
She has no
conception of herself as a nymph beginning her golden days. As Alice discovers,
the garden, Eliot’s “first world,” is only to be seen when we are too
big to enter.
All
those celebrations of the paradisal state of childhood from Traherne to Edward
Thomas, in which the child is seen as having a visionary grasp of the reality
of the beauty of the world, are looking back from adulthood. The last-named has
a valuable meditation on the theme, set off by thinking of Traherne. “Many are
the scenes thus to be recalled without spot or stain,” he says[15]—but
only by the spotted and stained. Of a May morning:
On such a
dawn the very spirit bathes in the dew and nuzzles into the fragrance with
delight; but it is no sooner left behind with May than it has developed within
me into an hour and a scene of utmost grace and bliss, save that I am in it
myself.[16]
We can’t
know that we are innocent if the knowledge of good and evil is itself the loss
of innocence. Milton himself worked this out:
It was
called the tree of knowledge of good and evil because of what happened
afterwards: for since it was tasted, not only do we know evil, but also we do
not even know good except through evil.[17]
and in the Areopagitica:
It was from
out the rinde of one apple tasted, that the knowledge of good and evill as two
twins cleaving together leapt forth into the World. And perhaps this is that
doom which Adam fell into of knowing good and evill, that is to say of knowing
good by evill.[18]
But he could
not see the necessary consequences for his poem.
Despite
the gross and deep flaw of the attempt at sequential narrative, though, Milton
treats innocence and experience, I have to say, more deeply than Blake, and is
free from an occasional sentimentality in Blake about what is possible to us in
this fallen world. Milton is certainly not of the Devil’s party with or without
knowing it, but the devil’s-eye view is here his way of realizing innocent
beauty. The beauty is real, not a fiction of Satan’s, but only to be perceived
by a fallen eye.
Something similar happens with the great authorial
celebration of marriage later in the Book:
Here
Love his golden shafts imploies, here lights
His
constant Lamp, and waves his purple wings,
Reigns
here and revels; not in the bought smile
Of
Harlots, loveless, joyless, unindeard,
Casual
fruition, nor in Court Amours
Mixt
Dance, or wanton Mask, or Midnight Bal,
Or
Serenate, which the starv’d Lover sings
To
his proud fair, best quitted with disdain. (IV.763-70)
With the
last two lines Milton masterfully disposes to his own satisfaction of about
five hundred years of European love poetry, and anyone who dared could dispute
with him about that. My point is just that he has to create the splendours of
marriage, marriage as divinely appointed, in terms impossible to the life of
Eden. He has to bring in the Blakean contrast. Wedded love is not in the
bought smiles &c. What chance has Adam of knowing of harlots, court amours,
daungere? The wonder of the marriage is seen not by Adam’s innocent eye
but by the experienced eye of the poet.
This
may be a clue to an element of trinitarian orthodoxy in the Arian-inclined
Milton. I am not the first reader to have wondered why the Third Person of the
Trinity takes no part in the conversations between the Eternal Father and the
Eternal Son and indeed no part in the action at all. But the Holy Spirit is
mentioned right at the beginning, and is there in the poet’s disposition as
true judgement; in this case even the true seeing of Satan is subordinated to
the whole narrative.
Nothing
in Book IV, though, is as good as much of Book IX onwards. Before I re-read the
poem recently I had misremembered some phrases about Satan’s perception of Eden
as by Keats, though Milton even mentions sewers:
As
one who long in populous City pent,
Where
Houses thick and Sewers annoy the Aire,
Forth
issuing on a Summers Morn to breathe
Among
the pleasant Villages and Farmes
Adjoynd,
from each thing met conceaves delight,
The
smell of Grain, or tedded Grass, or Kine. (IX.445-50)
This is
Satan’s experience. Once more, before Satan begins his temptation, he is
reverse-tempted, prompted by Eve’s innocent beauty to repent:
Such
Pleasure took the Serpent to behold
This
Flourie Plat, the sweet recess of Eve
Thus
earlie, thus alone; her Heav’nly forme
Angelic,
but more soft, and Feminine,
Her
graceful Innocence, her every Aire
Of
gesture or lest action overawd
His Malice, and with rapine
sweet bereav’d
His
fierceness of the fierce intent it brought .... (IX.455-62)
Not, alas!
for long. What is said, sometimes justly, about Milton’s failure to realize,
doesn’t apply; and the realization is right on the spiritual target. Satan
cannot but recognize again that the kala and the agatha go
together in Eve.
Milton’s
poetry triumphs over his masterfully applied doctrine—about that I heartily
agree with Drummond, though I draw a different conclusion. It could not have
done so had not Milton been a poet in the most ordinary sense of having a great
creative gift with language. And he is at his best when he most needs to be, at
the moment of the fall itself.
Thus
Eve with Countnance blithe her storie told;
But
in her Cheek distemper flushing glowd.
On
th’ other side, Adam, soon as he heard
The
fatal Trespass done by Eve, amaz’d,
Astonied
stood and Blank, while horror chill
Ran
through his veins, and all his joynts relax’d;
From
his slack hand the Garland wreath’d for Eve
Down
drop’d, and all the faded Roses shed:
Speechless
he stood and pale, till thus at length
First
to himself he inward silence broke.
O
fairest of Creation, last and best
Of
all Gods Works, Creature in whom excell’d
Whatever
can to sight or thought be formd,
Holy,
divine, good, amiable, or sweet!
How
art thou lost, how on a sudden lost,
Defac’t,
deflourd, and now to Death devote?
Rather
how hast thou yeelded to transgress
The
strict forbiddance, how to violate
The
sacred Fruit forbidd’n! som cursed fraud
Of
Enemie hath beguil’d thee, yet unknown,
And
mee with thee hath ruind, for with thee
Certain
my resolution is to Die;
How
can I live without thee, how forgoe
Thy
sweet Converse and Love so dearly joyn’d,
To
live again in these wilde Woods forlorn?
Should
God create another Eve, and I
Another
Rib afford, yet loss of thee
Would
never from my heart; no no, I feel
The
Link of Nature draw me: Flesh of Flesh,
Bone
of my Bone thou art, and from thy State
Mine
never shall be parted, bliss or woe. (IX.886-916)
Here Milton
is at his most Shakespearean, with a wholeness of language that is one mark of
great poetry. And the power of the poetry is not deceptive and not against
Milton’s myth or his stated intention. This is what marriage is in the world:
they are indeed one flesh.
Milton’s
own characterization of this “compliance bad” is, however, notoriously, that
Adam acted
Against
his better knowledge, not deceav’d
But
fondly overcome with Femal charm. (IX.988-89)
How can he
have better knowledge without knowledge of good and evil? Adam’s fall, pace
C. S. Lewis and pace Milton himself, does not come to the
reader as a Blakean clinging to the garden of love, as all for love or the
world well lost, or any such sentimentality. It is not the foolish king Edward
VIII giving up a throne for an American divorcee. Adam tells the exact truth
when he bases his determination to stay with Eve on “the link of Nature.”
Milton’s
comment is untrue to his poem. Try the question what Adam would have been like
had he decided to obey God.
To
whom thus Adam firm resolvd began:
Fare
ill then, fond deluded Wife, whom once
I
lov’d as my Companion, in these
So
pleasant, so more pleasant by thee charm’d!
For
now my Makers will bids cast thee off
Whom
from my inmost Heart nought but such Will
Could
ever sunder. Yet be prais’d and blest
He
who has will’d it thus; his Will be done;
Which
may perchance, pitying my State forlorn
Create
in his good time another Eve
More
perdurable in these happy Haunts.
Thus
Adam, breathing from his heart a sigh. [IX.1190-1201]
No, it
wouldn’t do. What sort of a man would he have been? As Drummond
convincingly puts it, “Adam falls through love, not gregariousness as
E. M. W. Tillyard said, not through uxoriousness as
C. S. Lewis thought, not through sensuality as John Milton
thought—but through love as human beings know it at its best ….”[19] He resolves to follow her not because of his fondness
(modern sense) but because he can do no other. By this I don’t mean anything
brought inevitably upon them in a Euripidean world of fate and necessity; we
are certainly shown Adam exercising freewill. All the same, decision is
not quite the word: he willingly follows his nature, and in that sense does
what he is fated to do. Had he remained obedient he would have been not man at
all but superhuman or more likely subhuman, however pleasing to the
speechifying epic God of Book III. Milton’s poem shows us what mankind is.
Spinoza
held that the Fall stands for the necessary and beneficial attainment of adult
self-knowledge.[20] Why is it a fall, then? If the fall
constitutes human nature, if it is felix culpa, the question has to
arise why it was an evil requiring the death of God to rectify. Neither Adam
nor Eve is evil in the fall in the sense of committing any of the traditional
deadly sins, with the possible exception of pride in one particular, and Milton
is most unconvincing when in the Christian Doctrine he tries to pin all
manner of evil on them.[21]
Milton’s
is a flaw, though, in a creation as deep as Blake’s. Blake’s one outright
failure in the Songs is “The Garden of Love,” a maudlin personal wail in
which the essential vision of the series is lost. Of course “Thou shalt
not” is written over the door of the garden of love; if it were not so the love
would not be human love but the paradisal innocence of Adam and Eve unable to
see itself as such. Blake’s effort at free love comes out as mere silliness.
The last line, the contradiction (not contrary) of Tom Dacre’s vision, cannot
but be funny:
And
Priests in black gowns were walking their rounds,
And
binding with briars my joys & desires.
My joys and
desires—how can one not give the line the comic, personally complaining
emphasis? Poor William Blake, deprived of his joys & desires! But such may be
the human lot. Only in paradisal innocence can creatures always follow their
desires without offending conscience. I remember that Blake is the fountainhead
in English of the doctrine that the satisfaction of desire is the moral
imperative, but that unlike Milton he was luckily inconsistent enough to be
happily married. It is Milton who shows marriage for what it can be in our
fallen world.
The
failures of Paradise Lost, though big and drastic, are local. The story
of Adam and Eve, especially from Book IX onwards, does vindicate eternal
providence. From the fall, the marriage of Adam and Eve is a true marriage as
it could not be before. The firstfruits are concupiscence, which may well
appear as a degradation of the beautiful creatures Satan saw in Book IV and
again so recently. Then after Adam has made his great sacrifice for Eve they
fall to upbraidings and recriminations—as people do: it certainly isn’t
perfection they fall into. But then again they are contrite, ready to forgive,
even manage to show forbearance. Without these possibilities the love of man
and woman is not itself: they are part of its range. In the adversity of our
fallen state, with our knowledge of good and evil, the poet shows us the
possibility of a reality of love, both of one another and of God, that was not
called for in Eden. With the fall comes the possibility of redemption: Milton
does show that, and what more has he undertaken to show?
The
first law of literary criticism is to begin with what is living in a work of
art. The claim I have to make for Milton, and my point of disagreement with
Drummond, is that what is living in Paradise Lost, distinguishable from
what is only masterful and willed, does in itself fulfil Milton’s stated
intention to
assert Eternal Providence,
And
justifie the wayes of God to men.[22]
I
am always surprised, going back to Paradise Lost, how often and how
confidently Milton recurs to the statement of his theme as justifying
Providence. Wherever did Blake get that idea that Milton is of the Devil’s party
without knowing it? Satan is always perfectly Satanic and Milton is not of the
party of evil. He is clear all the way through about his redemptive theme: good
out of evil. Milton comments that Satan is left at large to his own dark
designs,
That
with reiterated crimes he might
Heap
on himself damnation, while he sought
Evil
to others, and enrag’d might see
How
all his malice serv’d but to bring forth
Infinite
goodness.... (I.213-17)
And
But
thir spite still serves
His
glory to augment (II.385-86)
says Milton,
truly to the story.
The
best sign is that the poem improves as it goes on. It would not be quite true
to say that Milton doesn’t put a foot wrong from Book IX onwards; there is a
characteristic flaw about the sons of God and the daughters of men, and some
self-indulgent versified geography. Milton does give us in the closing books
wonderful pictures of what life must be like—of marriage, warts and all, of
public life, of old age, diseases, deaths, of the mixtures we do find in the
world—in the aspect of the hope of redemption and with the prospect of
judgement. Adam’s love for Eve at the moment of the fall is already
self-sacrificial, but he cannot rescue himself from the consequences of the
fall. Only redemptive love can do that; but redemptive love does make it the
fortunate fall.[23]
Satan
in the form of the serpent tells lies when he says he has learned to talk by
eating the forbidden fruit; but as a myth of the origin of language what he
says is convincing. I don’t just mean to side with the theory that language
originated not in making factual propositions but in jokes and deception. What
happens to Adam and Eve is that by the assertion of their will that initially
separates them from God they complete their language and fall into humanity.
Their new lust and bickering gives them a true sight of innocence which, in
turn, means that they are miserable, i.e. capable of receiving mercy. They are
also capable of just judgement.
Such is the commentary but what does
the work is the poetry. Could there be any other way for a poet to justify the
ways of God to men?
O
goodness infinite, goodness immense!
That
all this good of evil shall produce,
And
evil turn to good; more wonderful
Then
that by which creation first brought forth
Light
out of darkness! full of doubt I stand,
Whether
I should repent me now of sin
By
mee done and occasiond, or rejoyce
Much
more, that much more good thereof shall spring,
To
God more glory, more goodwill to Men
From
God, and over wrauth grace shall abound. (XII.469-78)
It is very
pleasing that Milton should use the same phrase here as the other religious
genius of that moment of reaction against the rule of the saints, in the title of
his greatest work. It is grace abounding to the chief of sinners that
Milton displays. When Adam and Eve leave paradise, right at the end,
Som
natural tears they drop’d, but wip’d them soon;
The
world was all before them, where to choose
Thir
place of rest, and Providence thir guide:
They
hand in hand with wandring steps and slow
Through
Eden took thir solitarie way. (XII.645-49)
Such is
life! That is the claim to be made for the necessity of Milton.
The
strength of a myth is not in tying up ends, but in pointing a finger towards
what men live by. Paradise Lost is the version for England of the myth
Christendom lives by, if it lives by anything. This too is what Milton
intended.
I applied
myself ... to fix all the industry and art I could unite to the
adorning of my native tongue; not to make verbal curiosities the end, (that
were a toilsome vanity,) but to be an interpreter and relater of the best and
sagest things among mine own citizens thoughout this island in the mother dialect.
That what the greatest and choicest wits of Athens, Rome, or modern Italy, and
those Hebrews of old did for their country, I, in my proportion, with this over
and above of being a Christian, might do for mine ....[24]
Milton’s
view of Shakespeare as warbling native wood-notes wild misled generations of
romantic critics, but that Milton’s poetry is the stylistic opposite of
Shakespeare’s is an opinion not easy to reconcile with the second book of Paradise
Lost. Whether it is directly influenced by the debate between Troilus and
Hector in Troilus and Cressida I will not speculate, but both dramatists
(for Milton is obviously a dramatist here) have a comparable grasp of the clash
of character that makes a real debate. The Miltonic clench that makes so much in
Paradise Lost go wrong also makes possible, so late in the day, a
Shakespearean achievement quite unlike anything Shakespeare himself could
conceivably have attempted, the rendering into poetry, the making available to
the imagination, of the religious myth of this language.
The
need for art, says Collingwood, is that “No community altogether knows its own
heart, and by failing in this knowledge a community deceives itself on the one
subject concerning which ignorance means death.”[25] The
most important function of art, in Tolstoy’s phrase, is to show us what men
live by. Paradise Lost is the English epic because it shows the heart.
There
is indeed something wrong with Paradise Lost. Something carries over from
the controversial prose works which Drummond admires (mistakenly I think). But
why is Milton, alone of the great English poets, rebuked so severely for flaws
and imperfections? Paradise Lost does raise in an extreme form the
question of the difference between perfection and achieved splendour.[26] Milton’s flaws are not bad writing as Shakespeare is
often bad (loose and feeble) and not a split in two like George Eliot: but
there is a kind of split between Milton the dramatic poet and Milton the bossy
controversialist of towering will. Paradise Lost is an extreme case of
not trusting the artist at least in the sense of not trusting him always to
know how to go about achieving his ends. On the other hand is it any more
extreme a case than the profoundly moral Dombey and Son, which collapses
into unreality every time it brings in the heroine, the sign being outbreaks of
blank verse? Yet Dombey is a profound moral classic for all that. In
both flawed works of art, trust the tale and you get to what the teller did
intend.
Here
I have to say that criticism, including the classic criticism of Leavis, has
badly let us down. “There are only a few persons at present who perceive that
in substance the account which was given in the seventeenth century of the
relation between man and God is immortal and worthy of epic treatment.”[27] Milton is ostensibly the subject of the most important
debate in literary criticism of the twentieth century. Neither side showed as
much interest in the poetry as would become them, and that is the most
important historical fact. Leavis said this of Eliot, but it must be said of
Leavis too.
From
Johnson down to T. S. Eliot we see a progressive loss of Milton even
by those who should have seen what it was that they were losing. The defenders
didn’t do Milton the service they intended. C. S. Lewis was
well-intentioned but not sensitive enough about the poetry, ditto
Charles Williams.
The
story of Johnson’s struggles with Shakespeare is familiar to students. It went
against his Augustan grain to see in Shakespeare the great genius of the
language. Shakespeare at his most poetic is often indecorous; reading the
blanket of the dark Johnson could scarce check his risibility. But he did
it and, superbly honest man, overcame the whole set of his mind at least to the
extent of making and enforcing that large recognition.
That
Johnson had no trouble with Milton is even more surprising, for to admire
Milton he had to overcome what amounted to personal dislike as well as
political and religious disapproval. The Age of Reason took the immoderate
puritan to its heart along with the wild untutor’d phoenix. Neither of them
fitted the Augustan sensibility any more than Cranmer did, then still used in
all the churches in England. But Johnson accepted Paradise Lost and for
the right reasons.
Paradise
Lost, says Johnson, is literally of general
interest for “We all, indeed, feel the effects of Adam’s disobedience; we all
sin like Adam, and like him must bewail our offences ... in the
Redemption of mankind we hope to be included....” This makes it for Johnson our
epic. “This Milton has undertaken, and performed with pregnancy and vigour of
mind peculiar to himself.” There is a great passage about what a real poet does
with received truths: “History must supply the writer with the rudiments of
narration, which he must improve and exalt by a nobler art, must animate by
dramatick energy.”
Johnson
has not, of course, lost his critical judgement in admiration. His objections
to the flaws in Paradise Lost have been followed ever since. “Another
inconvenience of Milton’s design is, that it requires the description of what
cannot be described, the agency of spirits.” So they can be overwhelmed by
mountains, incumbered by armour: Satan is sometimes spirit and sometimes
matter. Of the war in heaven: “The confusion of spirit and matter which
pervades the whole narration of the war in heaven fills it with incongruity:
and the book, in which it is related, is, I believe, the favourite of children,
and gradually neglected as knowledge is increased.” And the life of Eden cannot
be imagined as human, “The plan of Paradise Lost has this inconvenience,
that it comprises neither human actions nor human manners,” and Johnson remarks
the poem’s “want of human interest ... none ever wished it longer
than it was.” This does make it unShakespearean. But “What Englishman can take
delight in transcribing passages, which, if they lessen the reputation of
Milton, diminish in some degree the honour of our country?”
I
have quoted Johnson on Milton from Arnold’s selection of the Lives of the
Poets, the Introduction to which is just about the best characterization of
the eighteenth-century sensibility I know, complete with a very intelligent
perception of the role played in it by prose. Arnold passes for an admirer of
Milton and includes a line from Milton as a touchstone of high seriousness in
English verse. But for Arnold, Milton’s providential theology has gone
altogether, as it must if Arnold is to sustain his own thesis of poetry replacing
dogma. Arnold’s move is to assert that Milton cannot be taken seriously on his
own terms as the narrator of Christian truth. What is left for Arnold is the
great verse.
Ruskin
lost his faith in an unusual style, but as usual the loss took Paradise Lost
with it. After rightly objecting to the War in Heaven as “evidently
unbelievable to [Milton] himself” he says,
The rest of
his poem is a picturesque drama, in which every artifice of invention is
visibly and consciously employed; not a single fact being for an instant
conceived as tenable by any living faith.[28]
Then
Leavis goes the whole hog and, concurring with Arnold—going, indeed, as far as
being very rude about Milton’s qualifications for writing a theological or
philosophical poem—turns quite crudely on his verse too. Well, it’s prejudice
still. Leavis, as Ricks established, is wrong about the verse: the reason that
so sensitive a critic got the verse wrong was that he couldn’t take the
subject. Relying on a belief in “life” he could not go so far towards
recognizing sin and mercy. Eliot too misjudged the verse and missed the myth,
and with less excuse, because Eliot was a Christian. Leavis is quite right to
note that Eliot never showed much interest in Milton—Eliot’s interests being
firstly governed by what was of use to him as a poet for whom epic style was
not an option. It seems to me nevertheless the central defect in Eliot’s career
as a critic that he elevated Dante above Chaucer and Milton.[29]
I
am therefore happy to concur for once with C. S. Lewis, except that I
think his notion of myth is too restricted:
Paradise
Lost records a real, irreversible, unrepeatable process in
the history of the universe; and even for those who do not believe this, it
embodies (in what for them is mythical form) the great change in every
individual soul from happy dependence to miserable self-assertion and thence
either, as in Satan, to final isolation, or, as in Adam, to reconcilement and a
different happiness.[30]
We
may as English speakers allow Milton to show us the constitutive myth of the
culture without ourselves believing it in anything like the way he expects. But
I don’t quite know what it would be to disbelieve Milton. Would we then be able
to make any sense at all? I will also say that I do not believe there is any
alternative to Milton. Utilitarianism and even less noble creeds, expressed or
implicit, have largely replaced Christianity, but where are their myths? None
has got such a hold on the language and on the culture. I will go as far as to
say that actually to accept Milton is a great advantage for the English critic.
In
my latter years of university work I was surprised every year at how little
difficulty my students have in understanding Milton. It is just not true that
he has been superseded by the modern world.
Leavis
was kicking against the pricks. Paradise Lost seized the eighteenth
century by a kind of critical inspiration much like the one that seized
Handel’s Messiah. Handel, a very prolific composer of genius, tried hard
as a composer-impresario of opera. The London public would not respond and
after “papering the house” for some seasons and going bankrupt Handel tried the
new form of oratorio. This made slow progress.
Two
hundred years later Handel’s operas were rarely heard (an omission we have done
something to rectify, I am glad to say) but Messiah was performed by
amateur choirs with professional SATB principals up and down the land. At that
very unpropitious mid-Eighteenth-Century moment, with the age of reason
securely established, a hundred years after the rule of the saints, Messiah
did more than catch the public fancy. It became the musical equivalent (there
being no English liturgical equivalent of the German cantata cycles) of Paradise
Lost, singing, four hundred years after the Corpus Christi plays, the myth
of our covenant with God.
I
am not saying that the art of Messiah does not deserve its place: on the
contrary, it could only occupy that place on musical merit, and the work has
something of Bach’s grammaticality. Handel made the grammar of music
subserve the English myth of salvation, and that is why the work caught the
nation’s imagination of the Age of Reason and held it into the age of
democracy.
The
universal reading of Homer went far towards constituting the Hellenistic world
as a coherent entity. For a Christian culture the Bible has a place for which
there was no equivalent in the creedless classical Greece. Shakespeare and the
Bible together are mutatis mutandis more like the English Homer: but to
them we still have to add Paradise Lost. The next step on the path of
Eliot’s criticism of Arnold[30] would be to see that after
all Milton is the great mythological poet of the English-speaking world. An
epic celebrates what men live by. Most nations (to appropriate Pope) have no
character at all. If England has a character Paradise Lost is part of
it.
Drummond
continues a long-running controversy about some lines spoken by Moloch, about which
I think Ricks is right and Drummond wrong. The passage is this:
My sentence
is for open Warr: Of Wiles
More
unexpert, I boast not: them let those
Contrive
who need, or when they need, not now.
For
while they sit contriving, shall the rest,
Millions
that stand in Arms, and longing wait
The
Signal to ascend, sit lingring here
Heav’ns
fugitives ...? (II.51-57)
Both Eliot
and Leavis objected to what they thought the unrealization of this passage. “It
might, of course, be objected [in Drummond’s report of Ricks’s report of Eliot]
that ‘millions that stand in arms could not at the same time sit
lingring’.”[32] Drummond defends Leavis: “We pass over
these matters, ‘swept along by the grand majestic flow, the Miltonic music, the
epic style’” (35) against Ricks’s defence of Milton that the “shall” introduces
a future which means that they need not be simultaneously sitting and standing.
Drummond counter-argues, convincingly, that shall “has the force of ‘must’.”
But I don’t think his conclusion follows. Even if we do take stand as
physical posture, there is still plainly continuation of time. While the
endless debate goes on, those who are now eagerly standing will tire and sit
down.
In
any case “stand in arms” is surely part of the seventeenth-century terminology
about what we still call standing armies, then much feared in England, which
had never had one. Soldiers in a standing army do sit sometimes. In Pandemonium
the millions that stand in arms are presumably sitting in the assembly. To
stand in arms is just to be in a state of military readiness, not necessarily
in a standing position. Cf. “to stand trial” when the accused may sometimes be
allowed to sit. A related sense: N.E.D. 10 cites Milton’s contemporary Evelyn:
“King James’s army would not stand,” i.e. hold their ground.
I
agree, however, that the passage makes a contrast of “stand” and “sit.” I think
it an effective one. Stand is the right verb, even if not meant
literally. (Cf. “They also serve, who only stand and wait.”) The stand/sit
contrast is certainly part of Moloch’s sarcasm. I take the contrast to be
witty. If it had been found in Donne or Shakespeare there might even have been
praise. It’s good dramatic writing! How came Leavis, I want to protest, Leavis
who knew Milton so well, Leavis who was so alert a reader, to miss the strong
characterization and dramatic force of this speech? and how came Drummond, that
sensitive and honest critic, to be convinced by his anti-Miltonist argument rather
than by this poetry?
[1] Ludwig
Wittgenstein, Culture and Value, trans. Peter Winch,
[2] “O certe
necessarium Ade peccatum et nostrum; quod Christi morte deletum est. O felix
culpa, que talem ac tantum meruit habere redemptorem.” Canticle Exultet,
Holy Saturday blessing of paschal candle, Sarum missal; cited
W. W. Skeat, Piers Plowman, Oxford, 1886, II.98. Skeat also
refers to the works of Wyclif, ed. Arnold, I.321.
[3] J. C. F. Littlewood,
Tradition and Renewal, Denton, 2002, p. 179.
[4] C. Q.
Drummond, “An Anti-Miltonist Reprise IV,” The Compass 5 (1979),
p. 19.
[5] The
Book of Thel, for instance, presents innocence terrified
which, though beautiful, is not paradise lost.
[6] I heard Mr.
George Donaldson point out in a lecture that Tom’s surname is (like Dickens’s Tattycoram)
that of an orphanage, suggesting that Tom has been sold twice, once to
the orphanage then sold on by the orphanage to the sweep.
[7] Cf. “I was
more touched by this innocent and reverent music than by any I ever heard in my
life.”—Joseph Haydn on the St. Paul’s Holy Thursday service, quoted in Dyneley
Hussey, “Joseph Haydn,” The Music Masters ed. A. L. Bacharach,
1948, repr. 1957, I, p. 220.
[8] My contrasts
rather than Blake’s own contraries or Coleridge’s opposites is
meant to suggest the Saussurean use in linguistics, where linguistic features
have their place contrastively. So innocence depends for its sense on the
contrast with experience.
[9] J. B. Broadbent,
Some Graver Subject, 1960.
[10] Drummond
makes the point in his Bunyan essay, forthcoming.
[11] Works
ed. George Offor, 1857, III p. 259a: Bunyan’s
Adam eats the fruit but Bunyan hasn’t mentioned the prohibition which Diabolus
now appeals to! Bunyan gives conversations in heaven too, even less plausibly
than Milton.
[12] Cf.,
again, Bunyan in The Holy War. Shaddai’s claims are just about the same
as King Charles I’s. Why couldn’t they both connect?
[13] Arthur
Schopenhauer, “The Christian System,” Religion: A Dialogue and Other Essays,
trans. T. Bailey Saunders, third ed., 1891, p. 115.
[14] Milton’s
poetry is quoted from the excellent edition of H. C. Beeching,
Oxford, 1900.
[15] The
South Country, Introds. Helen Thomas and R. George Thomas,
repr. 1993, p. 99.
[16] Ibid.,
my italics.
[17] The
Complete Prose Works of John Milton, Vol. VI,
New Haven, 1973; Christian Doctrine, trans. John Carey, into unMiltonic
English, p. 352.
[18] Areopagitica,
ed. Edward Arber, 1868, p. 45.
[19] The
Compass 5 (1979), p. 19.
[20] Broadbent,
op. cit., p. 253.
[21] “For
what fault is there which man did not commit in committing this sin? He was to be
condemned both for trusting Satan and for not trusting God; he was faithless,
ungrateful, disobedient, greedy, uxorious; she, negligent of her husband’s
welfare; both of them committed theft, robbery with violence, murder against
their children (i.e., the whole human race); each was sacrilegious and
deceitful, cunningly aspiring to divinity although thoroughly unworthy of it,
proud and arrogant” (pp. 383–4). It is surely far-fetched to accuse Adam
and Eve of the murder of children not yet conceived and who, if God is to be
trusted, in the simplest understanding of his threat of death, will never be
conceived. (Paradise Lost IV. 427).
[22] Paradise
Lost I.24–5.
[23] Milton
is sometimes accused of being a predestinarian in a sense that would deny
freewill to Adam and Eve. He actually believed (in the Christian Doctrine
as well as Paradise Lost) in predestination to election: “by
which GOD, BEFORE THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE WORLD WERE LAID, HAD MERCY ON THE
HUMAN RACE .... Whenever the subject is mentioned in scripture, specific
reference is made only to election ....” (Christian Doctrine, ed.
cit., p. 168).
[24] The
Reason of Church Government, 1641; Selected Prose Writings
of John Milton, ed. Ernest Myers, 1884, pp. 25–26.
[25] The
Principles of Art, Oxford, 1938; repr. 1965,
p. 336.
[26] I
am thinking of Lawrence’s phrase “Give me a little splendour and I will leave
perfection to the small fry.”
[27] Mark
Rutherford, Pages from a Journal, Oxford, 1910, pp. 110–111.
[28] Sesame
and Lilies as cited by Mark Rutherford, Pages from a Journal,
2nd ed., Oxford, 1910, p. 111.
[29] On
Dante cf. a chapter in my Chaucer and the English Tradition.
[30] A
Preface to Paradise Lost, p. 133.
[31] Cf.
my book The English Prophets, Denton, 2001.
[32] Drummond
The Compass 2 (1977), p. 34.
Robinson,
Ian. “Milton’s Justification of the Ways of God or, The Fall into Language: A Reply
to C. Q. Drummond.” The New Compass: A Critical Review 1 (June 2003)
<http://www.thenewcompass.ca/jun2003/robinson.html>