The Sublime

Professor
J. Jennifer Jones

Sarabeth Grant

Professor Jones

Eng 553: The Sublime

28 March 2007

Rhetoric and the Republican Hero in Paradise Lost

In Writing the English Republic (1999), David Norbrook explores the significance of the term “restoration” for Milton and other republicans. Rather than indicating the Restoration of 1660, the term embodied a positive ideal: “The language of a return to pristine beginnings was crucially important for English republicanism” (474). Norbrook argues that Paradise Lost exposes the problematic nature of the terms “republican” and “monarchical” within this ideal. The potential slippage between these terms is particularly evident in the transformation of Satan’s discourse. While Norbrook discusses the thematic and structural implications of this slippage within the text, larger meanings need identification. Not only does this slippage compromise Satan’s position as republican hero within the poem, but it also challenges the establishment of a true republic.

Satan’s discourse at the outset of the poem seemingly establishes him as the true republican hero for whom Milton and his fellow republicans searched. Indeed, as Norbrook points out, Satan’s Hell “is not a Parliament but a ‘Councel’” (452), a distinction applauded by Milton and other republicans of the 1650s. “The great consult” (I. 798) welcomes all of the fallen angels. Discoursing on the rights of justice, “free choice” (II.19), and “merit” (II.21), Satan emphasizes that the common battle for liberty against God grants equality to all of the angels in Hell, providing them with a united purpose. He does not envision that their new surroundings will spark competition and a thirst for supremacy: “for none sure will claim in hell / Precedence, none, whose portion is so small / Of present pain, that with ambitious mind / Will covet more” (II.32-35). Satan’s words promise governance based not on hierarchy, but community in which all share equally in the misery of the fall; all with have a “small portion.” It is this commonality in suffering that Satan stresses will be their “advantage” (II.35) in their continuing war against Heaven, providing them with strength that will not be fractured by personal quests for dominance. Satan’s adoption of republican discourse seems to support the binary division between the monarchy against which the fallen angels recently rebelled and the republic they now embrace.

However, undermining the credibility of Satan’s discourse is his own personal ambition. Angry at his defeat, angry at his surroundings, angry at his fall, Satan conceals his desire for private revenge in the terms of common interest. The terminology he uses when he announces his determination to seek out Eden challenges the republican promises he had earlier made: “Wherefore do I assume / These Royalties, and not refuse to Reign” (II.450-451). The lofty tone with which he addresses his audience, coupled with the monarchical use of “royalities” and “reign,” elevates him to a “transcendent glory” (II.427) that sets Satan above the rest of the angels; clearly, Satan is not interested in keeping his portion “small.” He claims that it is for the public good that he volunteers to leave Hell in search of a new home, but his deployment of monarchical language in stating this goal seems odd, considering he just revolted against monarchy.

Norbrook views Satan’s demeanor and his use of the assembly as “merely an expression of military power” (453), demonstrating how republican ideals can become corrupted by personal ambition. It is true that the disjunction created between his subject and his discourse reveals the personal glory that ulimately motivates Satan. His “Monarchal pride” (II.428) makes him “Conscious of [his] highest worth” (II.429); his terminology of “Throne” (II.445) and “Imperial Sov’ranty” (II.446) undermine his use of “O Peers” (II.445) when addressing his audience. Yet, Satan’s invocation of monarchical rhetoric does more than just demonstrate his military prowress and thirst for revenge. The slippage between republican and monarchical discourse in Satan’s language compromises his position as a true republican hero within the poem, evidenced by Satan’s refusal to hear any objections to his plan. Described as “[t]he Monarch” (II.467), Satan “prevented all reply” (II.467), because he does not want the other angels to have the opportunity to voice their own plans and challenge his own, which could potentially create opposition, or “rivals” (II.472), to his “high repute” (II.472). He allows no time for discussion, assuming that once he makes a decision, it will be followed. While seemingly signifying a refutation of the hierarchical order of Heaven, Satan’s rhetoric proves potentially dangerous for his own credibility as an epic hero. Indeed, at the conclusion of the assembly at Pandemonium, the angels unanimously applaud Satan’s scheme and bravery. Yet, the root of their approval is not in admiration but in their dread of his “forbidding” (II.475) voice. Milton challenges and complicates the affixation of political motivations to his characters, and by extension, to the political context of the poem as a whole.

The response of the fallen angels to Satan’s discourse in Books I and II is crucial to establishing Hell as a republic. They must embrace Satan as a republican hero who has saved them from the tyranny of a monarchical Heaven in order to delineate between Hell and Heaven. Satan’s use of republican language in order to centralize his own authority should compromise the angels’ perception of him, qualifying their adoration of him as the embodiment of their liberty. Yet, instead, “Towards him they bend / With awful reverence prone; and as a God / Extol him equal to the highest in Heav’n” (II.477-479). The angels deify Satan, replacing God as monarch with Satan as monarch. They “bend” toward him, suggesting their malleability and the level of control that Satan operates over them. Their “reverence” is “awful,” indicating both “awe-inspiring” and “terrible.” He is a sublime object, no less magnificent in his fallen state, possessing characteristics equal to those of God.

This view of Satan is not in accordance with the commonality and “small portions” initially stressed in Pandemonium. The angels embrace hierarchy, not republicanism. Moreover, the angels’ adoration of Satan as sublime object contains fear, a quality not conducive to the “free choice” and “merit” extolled by Satan earlier. Norbrook justifies the angels’ response to Satan, arguing that they view Satan’s use of republican language, however damaged, as a manifestation of his “heavenly origins” (455), not as evidence of trickery or deceit. Although “a language of liberty is being exploited by him in speech-acts that magnify his personal power” (Norbrook 446), the language itself is not invalid. The fact that Satan is able to use this republican discourse speaks to that part of him that has not been corrupted by the fall, and it is this element of his character that the angels applaud when they deify him. Those “heavenly origins” of which Norbrook speaks, though, are, in their essence, hierarchical and monarchical, not models on which to create a republican community.

Moreover, Norbrook’s response to the angels’ deification of Satan does not question whether the angels recognize a disjunction in Satan’s discourse. Their inability to perceive, or their disregard of, Satan’s use of republican rhetoric for his private ends challenges their own accountability in the new republic they seek to create. Are their reasoning abilities compromised by the grandeur of Satan’s language, or have they forgotten to exercise the same rationality in evaluating their new leader as they did with their old? A true republican liberty cannot be established if the subjects in that republic accept Satan’s words out of ignorance or dread of reprisal. Milton heralds the solidarity of the assembly’s response to Satan’s plan as evidence that “virtue” (II.483) still exists among “the Spirits damn’d” (II.482). He further highlights this “virtue” by contrasting it with the disparity and fraction existing among humans. Although humans are “[c]reatures rational” and “under hope / Of heavenly Grace” (II.498-499), they do not act with the same unanimity as the fallen angels, who have no hope of preferment from God. “Devil with Devil damn’d / Firm concord holds” (II.496-497), but between humans there is only distrust and opposition. The placement of these comments immediately following the deification of Satan by the angels apparently reinforces, structurally, Milton’s claim that the assembly’s response reveals the “virtue” still remaining within the angels. However, the ambiguous nature of the angels’ wholehearted agreement with Satan challenges their “virtue” and rationality. The question of whether the angels are ignorant of, or blind to, the slippage within Satan’s discourse, coupled with Milton’s invections against human folly, suggest that the angels, like humans, misuse their rationality. Whereas before their fall they recognized and indicted God for tyrannical acts, they do not exercise the same liberty with Satan. By not commenting on or recognizing the slippage within Satan’s speech, the angels compromise the establishment of a republican ideal. Thus, the republic is not only undermined by Satan as a republican hero but also by the angels’ response to Satan’s discourse.

Satan’s temptation scene with Eve in Book IX further illustrates Satan’s diminuition as republican hero, as well as the impossibility of establishing a true republic. As Norbrook elucidates, Milton initially describes Eden as a republic: “The newly-created Adam and Eve speak for a republican delight in returning to the beginning, in stripping away false customs” (481). Satan’s initial inability to verbally persuade Eve to eat the forbidden fruit speaks to his loss of status as a republican. Since Eden is apparently a republic, Eve should be addressed in republican terms. However, as Norbrook points out, rather than republican rhetoric, Satan chooses courtly language in order to flatter Eve into capitulation. He addresses her in monarchical language as “sovran Mistress” (IX.532), praises her “Celestial Beauty” (IX.540), and deifies her as “a goddess among Gods” (IX.547). Norbrook’s insights require expansion here in order to fully appreciate Satan’s response to Eve. Satan’s admiration of “her Heav’nly form” (IX.457) elevates Eve to a position of sublimity in a manner similar to that of the angels’ response to Satan. It is not public good or his fellow angels that incites the “fierce hate” (IX.471) of his mission in Eden but rather the recognition of Eve as “pleasure not for him ordain’d” (IX.470). Satan views his inability to possess Eve as one more rebuff by God against his personal ambitions. This private, emotional response to Eve speaks not to the republican within Satan but to his desire for power and revenge. When Satan expostulates on the wonders awaiting Eve if she eats the fruit, he does not directly use the words “freedom” or “liberty” as he did in his earlier speech to the assembly at Pandemonium. Satan’s position as the republican hero over the course of the poem has been undermined by his appropriation of monarchical language in his discourse with Eve.

Furthermore, just as the angels in Hell compromise the establishment of a republic by their response to Satan’s speech, so does Eve undermine the republican principles of Eden. Eve cannot see beyond Satan’s offers of “personal power and domination” (Norbrook 485), nor can she see that “what he really offers them is a diminution, not an enhancement, of vision, a narrow perspective that loses sight of the cosmic common interest” (485). Satan applies the concepts of republicanism, such as the attainment of knowledge, to his own private revenge plot, thereby enacting the slippage between republican and monarchical discussed in the poem. This parallel between the angels’ response and Eve’s reaction to Satan is crucial for determining the integrity of the depiction of Eden as a republic. Just as Satan was able to rally the fallen angels into continuing their war with God, so is he able to persuade Eve to eat the fruit. “Her rash hand” (IX.780) guides her actions. It is not with rationality and reflection that she chooses to eat the forbidden fruit; rather she acts “[g]reedily” (IX.791) and “without restraint” (IX.791), thus challenging the rationality of her actions in a similar manner to the angels’ response to Satan.

Interestingly, Eve describes God as “Our great Forbidder” (IX.815) just as the angels described Satan’s voice as “forbidding.” This rhetorical connection between God and Satan further points to the degradation of Satan as republican hero as well as to Eve’s own fear of punishment. The angels’ fear of reprisal from Satan indicates that he is their monarchical sovereign, just as Eve’s fear of detection speaks to the monarchical rule of God over the “republican” Eden. Eve hopes that God’s “continual watch” (IX.814) and the militancy of all of his “Spies” (IX.815) missed witnessing her action. Eve’s sense of constantly being watched and judged undermines any sense of liberty and freedom within Eden. Just as the angels are not encouraged to offer opposition to Satan’s decisions, so is Eve not supposed to act contrary to God’s edicts. Eve’s disregard for God’s will, as well as her inability to discern the effect her actions will have on the general republic of Eden, speaks to the persuasiveness of Satan, as well as to the destruction of Eden as the site of republican first principles. She, like Satan, no longer considers the common good but rather her private interests.

Satan’s ability to conceal his true intentions under the guise of republican rhetoric forms the basis for his triumph in both Pandemonium and Eden. It is his manipulation of language that fosters his success in his war against God, not the integrity to which he adheres to republican language. By successively using republican terminology to conceal his private ambitions, Satan rallies the angels to continue fighting and convinces Eve to disobey God. The evolution of his language from republican to monarchical rhetoric within the poem upsets his role as republican hero and enacts the slippage that potentially exists between the two modes of discourse. The transformation of Satan’s republicanism into monarchialism demonstrates the ease with which this slippage can occur and is part of the reason why a republican ideal cannot manifest itself. By exposing the potential slippage between the two types of discourses, Milton problematizes the act of communication in a narrative that takes as its subject the “first principles” his fellow republicans espoused, suggesting that this republican ideal can never be attained. The specifically political language of Paradise Lost roots its content in a contemporary historical milieu, revealing the instability and “messiness” of English politics at this time.

_______________________________________________________________________

Milton, John. Paradise Lost. Ed. Christopher Ricks. New York: Penguin Books, 1968.

Norbrook, David. “Paradise Lost and English Republicanism.” Writing the English Republic: Poetry, Rhetoric, and Politics, 1627-1660. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999. 433-495.

Course Packet. Available at Rhode Island Book Store

Longinus, On the Sublime. 1 A.D. Trans. W. H. Fyfe; Rev. D. A. Russell. Loeb Classical Library, 1996.
ISBN: 0674995635

 John Milton, Paradise Lost. 1674. Ed. Gordon Teskey. New York: Norton, 2005.
ISBN: 0393924289

 René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy. A Bilingual Edition. Ed. George Heffernan. Notre Dame: U. of Notre Dame P, 1990.
ISBN: 0268013810

The Book of Job. Trans. Stephen Mitchell. New York: Harper Perennial, 1992. ISBN: 0060969598

Edmund Burke, A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. 1757. Ed. James T. Boulton. Indiana: U of Notre Dame P, 1993.
ISBN: 0268000859

Immanuel Kant. The Critique of Judgement. 1790. Trans. James Creed Meredith. New York: Oxford UP, 1978. ISBN: 0198245890

Anne Radcliffe. The Italian. Ed. Frederick Garber. New York: Oxford UP, 1998.
ISBN: 0198245890

Jane Austen, Northanger Abbey. Ed. Marilyn Gaull. New York: Longman, 2004.
ISBN: 0321202082

Suggested Texts

Michael Greer. What Every Student Should Know About Citing Sources with MLA Documentation. New York: Longman, 2006.
ISBN: 0321447379

Joseph Gibaldi. MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. 6th Rev. Edition. MLA P, 2003
ISBN: 0873529863

Diana Hacker. A Writer’s Reference. 5th Sprl edition. Bedford/St. Martin's P, 2003.
ISBN: 0312412622

Course Requirements

Participation (25%)
2 Short Essays (25%)
Seminar Paper (50%)