NOTES

INTRODUCTION 1. Stanley E. Fish, "Milton, Thou Shouldst be Living at this Hour," in There's No Such Thing as Free Speech, and it's a Good Thing Too (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994),272. 2. For example, Mary Nyquist, "The Genesis of Gendered Subjectivity in the Divorce Tracts and in Paradise Lost," in Re-membering Milton: Essays on the Texts and Traditions (New York: Methuen, 1987),99-127 (it is also important that Nyquist coedited this groundbreaking collection); Leah S. Marcus, "Justice for Margery Evans: A 'Local' Reading of Comus," in Milton and the Idea ofWoman, ed. Julia M. Walker (Urbana: University ofIllinois Press, 1988), 66-85; Diane McColley, Milton's Eve (Urbana: University ofIllinois Press, 1983); Christopher Kendrick, Milton: A Study in Ideology and Form (New York: Methuen, 1986); and James G. Turner, One Flesh: Paradisal Marriage and Sexual Relations in the Age ofMilton (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). 3. Fish, "Milton's Career and the Career ofTheory," Free Speech, 257-66. 4. Turner also notes the existence of "interpretative communities" among Milton scholars (viü). 5. In 1969, J ohn Carey also recognized that "Milton is an industry. . .. There is even a Milton Newsletter (provenance: Athens, Ohio" (Literature in Perspective: Milton. [London: Evans Bros, 1969], 7). One senses in the specification of where the Milton Newsletter, now the Milton Quarterly, originates some of the tensions between American and English scholars. 6. Although Kuhn published the first edition of Tbe Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962, it remains a hugely popular text. According to the ISI Web of Knowledge database (which incorporates Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index), there are literally thousands of references across the disciplines to this work from 1994 onward. As of this writing (Summer, 2004), amazon.com lists Structure among the most popular books sold at UCLA (#14), Utah universities (#4), and Arizona univer­ sities (#10). 7. E.D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation, 46, quoted in Fish, Is Tbere a Text in This Class? (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980), w. Hereafter, I will shorten the title of this book to Text. 8. Fish, "Introduction, or How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love Interpretation," Text, 13. 9. Fish, "Interpreting the Variorum," Text, 171. 10. Fish, "What Makes an Interpretation Acceptable," Text, 342. 11. In their introduction to Practicing New Historicism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), Catherine Gallagher and Stephen Greenblatt give this account of how Representations came to be: "After several years of regular meet­ ings, acknowledging the transforming importance that the informal discussions 178 NOTES

had had for each of us and the vital energy that they had contributed to our work, the group began to think about ways of extending its existence, for we knew from prior experience that the charismatic moment that bound us together, though in this case unusually intense and prolonged, could not endure. We would need a structure that would provide a set of ongoing challenges and hence a raison d'etre. We settled on the idea of a journal, for we could constitute ourselves as the editorial board and hence continue as weil as broaden our discussions, but we needed to come up with an idea and a title. After considerable debate, we settled on representation as the central problem in which all of us-literary critics and an art historian; historian and political scientist; Lacanian, Foucauldian, Freudian, neopragmatist; deconstructor and unreconstructed formalist-were engaged. It was tempting then to call the proposed journal 'Representation,' but the uneasi­ ness some of us feit with theoretical abstraction, our skepticism about the will to construct a unified theory, led us to adopt the plural," 3-4. 12. Fish, "What Makes an Interpretation Acceptable," Text, 343. 13. In "Change," Fish makes the further argument that the organizing principles behind the various interpretive communities are, at base, epistemological: they are "a way of organizing experience" and embedded in "the consciousness" of the community's members (Doing What Comes Naturally: Change, Rhetoric and the Practice of Tbeory of Literary and Legal Studies [Durham: Duke University Press, 1989], 141). 14. Thomas Kuhn, Tbe Structure of Scientiftc Revolutions, 2nd edition, enlarged (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1970), 5, 7. 15. On how the critical assumptions ofthe Miltonic interpretive community are passed on to undergraduates, see Michael Bryson's brief analysis of the glosses on Paradise Lostin Tbe Norton Anthology, 6th ed. (New York: W.W. Norton, 1996) and in Roy Flannagan's Riverside Milton (Tbe Tyranny of Heaven: Milton Rejection of God as King [Newark, DE: University ofDelaware Press, 2004],181 n. 57). 16. Kuhn, Scientiftc Revolutions, 10. 17. Fish, "Milton Thou Shouldst Be Living," Free Speech, 268, 269. 18. Kuhn, Scientiftc Revolutions, 10. 19. Michael FoucauIt, "What is an Author?" in Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews, ed. Donald F. Bouchard (Ithaca: Corneil University Press, 1977), 131. 20. C.S. Lewis, APrefaceto

the University of Illinois, Chicago. John K Leonard, on the other hand ("Did Milton Go to the Devil's Party," New York Review of Books, July 18, 2002, 28-31), skewers it: the finalline in his review is: "This is a shameful way to treat a great poet, and it is the main reason why How Milton Works doesn't." Reviews in nonacademic journals have been almost uniformly critical (e.g., "Dead Wrong," The Economist, June 16,2001,83-4; and Michael Potemra, "A Tale of Two Fishes," National Review, August 6, 2001, 47-8). But, as Graham Christian-reviewer for Tbe Library Journal-notes, "The shadow of Fish's barbed reputation is far longer than that of the man or his work itself" (Library Journal, April 15, 2001, 92), and sometimes it is not dear if the more negative reviews reject Fish's thesis in How Milton Works or Fish himself. 26. Fish, How Milton Works, 5. Later in this book, Fish gives a much more nuanced view of this matter. He grants "the co-presence in Milton's universe of absolute certainty and a pervasive indeterminacy" (505), and finds that Milton puts his reader into an impossible, almost existential, situation: "The world, in short, is a place where the one thing needful (truth, God) is already known, yet access to it is always veiled. Action is enjoined, and one cannot hold back, but the grounds of action are always shifting and challengeable" (502). Yet, Fish contains these subversions, as it were, by conduding How Milton Works saying that "everything that many readers find interesting in Milton's work-crises, conflicts, competing values, once-and-for-all dramatic moments-proceeds from error and is finally unreal" (572). While Fish grants the presence ofincertitude, even allowing that incertitude constitutes the energizing principle ofMilton's work, it is no accident that he calls the final section of How Milton Works "The Paradigm Reaffirmed," the "paradigm" being, of course, Miltonic certitude. 27. A major reason for the persistent construction of Milton as a poet of certainty is the very dose identification of Paradise Lost with religious dogma. As John Shawcross puts it, "Many people in England seem to have learned their Bible with Paradise Lost at hand, for it was considered an exposition of the orthodox creed" ("Introduction," in Milton: The Critical Heritage, ed. John Shawcross [London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970], 25). One sees an example of this conflation in C.S. Lewis's dedaration that "those who say they dislike Milton's God only mean that they dislike God" (130). 28. Lieb, Tbe Dialectics of Creation: Patters of Birth & Regeneration in «Paradise Lost» (Amherst: University ofMassachusetts Press, 1970), 6. 29. William Kerrigan, Tbe Sacred Complex: On the Psychogenesis of «Paradise Lost» (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983), 190. Despite the promise of Balachandra Rajan's title, "Paradise Lost: The Uncertain Epic," this distin­ guished critic condudes by denying the presence of any uncertainty in the epic: "If Paradise Lost is an uncertain epic, it is uncertain not because it is confused or vacillating, but because it is dear about how it must form itself" (Milton Studies 17 [1983], 117; emphasis added). 30. Regina Schwartz, Remembering and Repeating: On Milton)s Theology and Poetics (rpt. Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1993), xii. 3l. Turner, One Flesh, ix. 32. Christopher Hili, Milton and the English Revolution (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1979), 364. Still, for Hili, this tranquility is hard-won. See n. 87. 33. Mary Arm Radzinowicz, "The Politics of Paradise Lost," in Tbe Politics ofDiscourse: Tbe Literature and History of Seventeenth-Century England, ed. Kevin Sharpe and Steven N. Zwicker (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1987),206,215,216. 180 NOTES

34. Blair Worden, "Milton's Republicanism and the Tyranny of Heaven," in Machiavelli and Republicanism, ed. Gisela Block, Quentin Skinner, and Maurizio Viroli (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990),226,243. 35. Sharon Achinstein, Milton and the Revolutionary Reader (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994),202. 36. David Loewenstein, Representing Revolution in Milton and His Contemporaries: Religion, Politics, and Polemies in Radical Puritanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 206. 37. Barbara Lewalski, Tbe Life of John Milton: A Critical Biography (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), 466. 38. C.Q. Drummond, "An Anti-Miltonist Reprise I: The Milton Controversy," Tbe Compass: A Provincial Review 2 (1977),29-30. 39. Kuhn, Scientific Revolutions, 66-9. 40. G. Wilson Knight, Chariot of Wrath: Tbe Message ofJohn Milton to Democracy at War (London: Faber and Faber, 1942), 121. 41. E.M.W. Tillyard, Milton (rpt. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1967),245. 42. Carey, Literature in Perspective, 7. 43. For example, David Aers and Bob Hodge note that despite the challenge put for­ ward by William Empson in Milton's God (London: Chatto & WIndus, 1961), such "neo-Christian critics" as c.A. Patrides and John G. Halkett "proceed as though Empson had not written" (" 'Rational Burning': Milton on Sex and Marriage," Milton Studies 13 [1979], 123). Also, Joan Bennett refuses to take seriously anyone who finds a parallel between Charles I and God, dismissing such views as "Romantic" and "widely considered to have been mistaken" (Reviving Liberty: Radical Christian Liberty in Milton 's Great Poems [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989], 33). 44. Fish, "Transmuting the Lump," Doing What Comes Naturally, 257. 45. For Tillyard, writing in 1930, the "Satanic school" ofMilton criticism was "the best known and still, in England, the most popular" (234). On Knight, see Fish, "Transmuting the Lump," Doing What Comes Naturally, 257-9. 46. On the various responses to Paradise Lost in the years immediately following its publication, see Nicholas von Maltzahn, "The First Reception of Paradise Lost (1667)," The Review ofEnglish Studies, n.s. 47 (1996),479-99 and "Laureate, Republican, Calvinist: An Early Response to Milton and Paradise Lost," Milton Studies 29 (1993), 181-98. 47. Joseph Wittreich continues: "There was also an effort to create distance between expectations of Paradise Lost and Milton's supposed achievement. This was done through a maneuver that, first, disengages the poem from the context of Milton's prose writings with which it enjoys an elaborate and meaningful inter­ textuality and that, then realigns this poem with the literary and generally con­ servative tradition of epic," in Feminist Milton (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987), 5. See also pp. 22-3. 48. I am quoting Marvell's poem from Flannagan's Riverside Milton. 49. One finds the same process of flattening subversion into orthodoxy at work in John Dryden's rewriting of Milton's epic, The State of Innocence and the Fall of Man (1671). See Wittreich, "Milton's Transgressive Maneuvers: Receptions (Then and Now) and the Sexual Politics of Paradise Lost," in Milton and Heresy, ed. Stephen B. Dobranski and John P. Rumrich (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998),247-9. 50. William Empson, "Milton and Bentley," in Some Versions ofPastoral (New York: New Directions, 1960), 141-84. NOTES 181

5l. Richard Bentley, Milton)s

(e.g., "[ God's] dwelling 'in unapproached light' should have been relatively unapproached; the incessant contradictions and improvisations should have been rigorously suppressed. If God is omniscient then as little as possible should be said about angels serving as his 'Eyes'" [17; the first emphasis is the author's, the rest are mine]). Wittreich also cites an early-nineteenth-century instance of an editor (John Aiken) dedaring Milton's contradictions evidence of "defective artistry" (Feminist Milton, 14). This strategy recurs every so often. Drummond, e.g., states "that Milton didn't sufficiently understand how badly compromised he was by the contradictory demands of the two antagonistic styles [biblical and epic] with their attendant conceptions of reality" ("An Anti -Miltonist Reprise: II. Antagonistic Styles and Contradictory Demands," Tbe Compass 3 [1978], 51). James G. Turner implies artistic incompetence when he writes that "Milton cannot make up his mind whether Eve could hear Raphael's narrative at all" (One Flesh, 285), and Dennis Danielson ascribes the problems resulting from God's speech at the beginning ofBook 3 to a failure on Milton's part rather than risking any possible slight to Milton's God: "Although the difficulty may be literary and not ultimately doctrinal, one cannot readily justifY Milton for placing God in what appears such a doctrinally awkward situation" ("The Fall and Milton's Theodicy," in The Cambridge Companion to Milton, ed. Dennis Danielson, 2nd ed. [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999], 152). 61. Dennis H. Burden, The Logical Epic: A Study of the At;gument of «Paradise Lost» (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967), 1. 62. Steven Jablonski "'Freely We Serve': Paradise Lostand the Paradoxes ofPolitical Liberty," in Arenas ofConJlict, 107. 63. Kolbrener, Milton's Warring Angels, 5. 64. David Norbrook, Writing the English Republic: Poetry, Rhetoric and Politics 1627-1660 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999),475,478,479. 65. Strictly speaking, chutzpah is not quite opposed to humility, but to a kind of cowardice. According to the famous definition, an example of chutzpah is the child who murders his parents and then asks for mercy because he is an orphan. Danielson, "Milton's Theodicy," Cambridge Companion, 158. 66. Wittreich, "'He Ever was a Dissenter,'" Arenas of ConJlict, 36, quoting A. Bartlett Giamatti, A Free and Ordered Space: The Real World ofthe University (New York: Norton, 1990),29-30. 67. Fish, How Milton Works, 500. 68. The two chapters on Samson Agonistes date from 1969 and 1989, respectively. 69. Fish, Text, 7, 355. 70. Fish does not say which edition he uses for this passage, and in the interests of consistency, I have replaced his quote with a quote from the Riverside Milton. 71. Fish, Text, 4. 72. See, e.g., Fish's comment that "the reader is drawn into the poem, not as an observer who cooHy notes the interaction of patterns ... but as a participant whose mind is the locus of that interaction" (Surprised by Sin: The Reader in «Paradise Lost,» 2nd ed. [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997], 11). 73. Fish, Surprised by Sin, 13. 74. Reprinted in Doing What Comes Naturally, 247-93. 75. Fish, "Transmuting the Lump," Doing What Comes Naturally, 247. 76. Fish, How Milton Works, 12. 77. The essays coHected by Gary A. Olson and Lynn Worsham in Postmodern Sophistry: Stanley Fish and the Critical Enterprise (Albany: SUNY Press, 2004), NOTES 183

further substantiate my contention that Fish's work on Milton and his work on literary theory address two different interpretive communities that do not over­ lap with each other. In the introduction, the editors claim a very wide focus for their volume. Postmodern Sophistry, they write, "offers an intensive examination of the theoretical writings of cultural and literary critic Stanley Fish. Fourteen prominent scholars representing a range of academic disciplines-including legal studies, criticallegal studies, political science, Jewish studies, rhetoric, and liter­ ary studies-explore various aspects of Fish's work on critical and legal issues" (1), and they divide the book into three parts: "Interpretive Authorities," "Philosophical Interventions," and "Political Prospects." Indeed, it would seem that Postmodern Sophistries intends to cover the entirety of Fish's career. Yet, there is no essay analyzing Fish's work on Milton (despite his proud claim to the Milton Society that he is "Stanley Fish-the Miltonist"), and while the index lists a number of citations to Milton, almost all are passing references-nothing substantive. While Fish himself cites a number of his works in the "Mterword" (e.g., Doing What Comes Naturally [266], Text [278], Professional Correctness [281]), the only piece on Milton he cites is-wonderfully enough for my purposes-"Transmuting the Lump" (271). So fur as this book is concerned, Surprised by Sin (rpt. 1998) and How Milton Works (2001) do not exist. I do not attribute the reason for this absence to bad editing, but to the opposite. Both the editors and Fish have correccly identified what aspects of Fish's career interests their intended audience. Postmodern Sophistry, published by a press noted for its interest in literary theory, is aimed at the interpretive community of literary theorists, not the interpretive community of Miltonists; hence, the emphasis on Fish's contribution to theory and to his career as a public intellectual and the very scant attention to Fish's career as a Miltonist. 78. While some parts of this book appeared in Critical Inquiry, Glyph, and Ferguson's and Nyquist's revisionist anthology, Re-membering Milton, the majority of the essays first appeared in such venues as Milton Studies, Loewenstein's and Turner's Politics, Poetics and Hermeneutics in Milton's Prose, and Calm of Mind: Tercentenary Essays on «Paradise Regained" and «Samson Agonistes" in Honor ofJohn S. Diekhoff 79. Bryson, The Tyranny ofHeaven: Milton's Rejection ofGod as King; Forsyth, Tbe Satanic Epic; Kolbrener, Milton's Warring Angels; Ronald Levao, " 'Among Unequals What Society': Paradise Lost and the Forms of Intimacy," Modern Language Quarterly 6l.1 (2000),79-108; Catherine Girnelli Martin, Tbe Ruins ofAllegory: «Paradise Lost" and the Metamorphosis ofEpic Convention (Durham: Duke University Press, 1998); Norbrook, Writing the English Republic; John Rogers, The Matter of Revolution: Science, Poetry, and Politics in the Age of Milton (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996); Rumrich, Milton Unbound; Richard Strier, "Milton's Fetters, or, Why Eden is Better than Heaven," Milton Studies 38 (2000), 169-97; Elizabeth Sauer, Barbarous Dissonance and Images of Voice in Milton's Epics (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1996); Jeffrey Shoulson, Milton and the Rabbis: Hebraism, Hellenism, & Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001); Shari A. Zimmerman, "Disaffection, Dissimulation, and the Uncertain Ground of Silent Dismission: Juxtaposing John Milton and Elizabeth Cary," ELH 66.3 (1999), 553-89; Zimmerman, "From Insufficiency to Imaginary Mastery: The Illusory Resolve of the Miltonic Subject," Essays in Literature 23.1 (1996), 21-4l. 80. Kuhn, Scientific Revolutions, 90. 184 NOTES

8l. Fish, "Milton's Career," Free Speech, 16. 82. Lee Patterson, "On the Margin: Postmodernism, Ironie History, and Medieval Studies," Speculum 65.1 (1990),91,92. 83. The following works raise Fish's ire: Norbrook, Poetry and Politics in the English Renaissance (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984); Marcus, "Justice for Margery Evans," Idea of Woman; Michael Wilding, "Comus, Camus, Commerce: Theatre and Politics on the Border," in Dragon's Teeth: Literature in the English Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987); Richard Halpern, "Puritanism and Maenadism in A Mask," in Rewriting the Renaissance: Tbe Discourses of Sexual Difference in Early Modern Europe, ed. Margaret W. Ferguson et al. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 88-105; David Aers and Bob Hodge, "Rational Burning: Milton on Sex and Marriage." 84. Kolbrener, Melton's Warring Angels, 109. 85. Kuhn, Scientific Revolutions, 9l. 86. For example, Tobias Gregory, "In Defense of Empson: A Reassessment of Milton's God," in Fault Lines and Controversies in the Study of Seventeenth­ Century English Literature, ed. Claude J. Summers and Ted-Larry Pebworth (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2002), 73-87. While Victoria Silver quotes Richard Strier's 1995 talk to the Milton Society of America on the occa­ sion of Empson's posthumous designation as Honored Scholar, as evidencing the revival ofEmpson's reputation (Imperfect Sense: The Predicament ofMilton's Irony [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001], 348 n. 2), this move was not accomplished without considerable resistance. Strier begins his talk by noting "The wonderfulness and the strangeness" of the honor, which, Strier speculates, neither Empson nor traditional Miltonists would have wanted. The very title of Strier's talk-"Crowning the Enemy, or, On the Strangeness of this Occasion (Empson and the Milton Society)"-acknowledges to the open hostility of Miltonists toward Empson, and Strier makes the antipathy even more explicit in his opening comments: "I believe it would not have been possible to get the members to agree, say in the early '60s-imagine Douglas Bush's reaction" ([1995], 1; I am grateful to Prof. Strier for allowing me to read his unpublished lecture). Furthermore, Empson remains controversial. Strier told me, in private conversation, that the Society had difficulty finding someone to speak on Empson's behalf, and Lewalski omits any mention of Empson in her otherwise magisterial The Lift ofJohn Milton (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000). She does not even include Empson's Milton's God in her exhaustive bibliography. 87. Kerrigan, Tbe Sacred Complex, ix. See also chapter 5, pp. 107-08 and 208 n. 9. 88. Rumrich, Milton Unbound, xi-xii. 89. Silver, Imperfect Sense, 4. 90. Bryson, The Tyranny ofHeaven, 177 n. 3. 9l. Lieb, Milton and the Culture of Violence (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994),70. 92. That the Restoration constituted, as Tillyard puts it, "the greatest shock" of Milton's life is, of course, not a new insight (Milton [rpt. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1967],295). Christopher HilI also emphasizes the enormous effect of the Revolution's defeat on Milton's imagination: "The contradictions in Milton are fascinating historical evidence: we must not arbitrarily resolve them one way or another ... The calm and distanced effect of Paradise Lost . .. is also decep­ tive. Not to grasp the magnitude of the disaster which had overwhelmed the poet would be a serious failure of imagination" (355-6), and in his brilliant NOTES 185

Milton and the Rabbis, Jeffrey Shoulson proposes that the "rabbis and Milton both shaped their identities in relation to the religious and political forces to which they had evidently lost out" (5). Traditionally, up until the 1970s, Miltonists have been readier to interpret Paradise Regained and Samson Agonistes in the light of Milton's "experience of defeat" than Paradise Lost. See chapter 4, p. 83. 93. Rumrich, Milton Unbound, 7, 22. Neil Forsyth also argues that Milton "was brave enough to put [indeterminacy] at the center of his theodicy" (73), but at the end of his excellent book, he returns to a more "normal" interpretation: "However we define the new possibilities opened by the book divisons of 1674, the new organization serves to reassert or restore the divine plot by which Satan's plot is contained and converted" (323). 94. My argument originates in Empson's brilliantly iconoclastic treatment of God in Milton)s God, to whom he attributes "infinite malice" (38) and compares to "Uncle Joe Stalin; the same patience under an appearance ofroughness, the same flashes of joviality, the same thorough unscrupulousness, the same real bad tem­ per" (146). While I am deeply indebted to Empson, both in terms of specific details and in his being among the first to ask hard questions of Paradise Lost without assuming that the answer must conform to orthodoxy, we differ on the matter of certainty. Simply put, I see Milton as productively confused; Empson, like most other critics before and after him, retains a sense of Milton's certainty, even if his sense of what Milton is certain about is the opposite of what most critics assume. 95. Rumrich, Milton Unbound, 24.

"WARRING CRAINS OF SIGNIFIERS": METAPHORIC AMBIVALENCE AND THE POLITICS OF PARADISE LoST 1. For twentieth-century criticism, see James Whaler, who argues that Milton's similes "often display an unprecedented congruity or 'homologation'" ("The Miltonic Simile," PMLA [1931], 1034-74); Ricks, Milton)s Grand Style, 118-50, esp. 128-32; Geoffrey Hartman, "Milton's Counterplot," Milton: Modern Essays in Criticism, ed. Arthur E. Barker (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), 386-97; Fish, Surprised by Sin, 22-37; James P. Holoka, " 'Thick as Autumnal Leaves'-The Structure and Generic Potentials of an Epic Simile," Milton Quarterly 10 (1976), 78-82; John Gorecki, "Milton's Similitudes for Satan and the Traditional Implications ofTheir Imagery," Milton Quarterly 10 (1976), 102-08: Linda Gregerson, "The Limbs of Truth: Milton's Use of Simile in Paradise Lost," 135-52. Balachandra Rajan asserts that the "most important characteristic" of Milton's similes is "the extraordinary completeness with which the similes translate what they purport to resemble," "Banyan Trees and Fig Leaves: Some Thoughts on Milton's India," 01 Poetry and Politics: New Essays on Milton and His World, ed. P.G. Stanwood (Binghamton: MRTS, 1995),217. 2. In Milton)s Epic Process, Christopher Grose notes that many of the similes insti­ gate "perceptual crises," 141, 150. 3. Tbe "Art» 01 Rhetoric, trans. John Henry Freese (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932), III.7. 4. Institutes, trans. H.E. Butler (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1919), vol 3; VIII.iii.77 (emphasis in the original). 186 NOTES

5. Henry Peacham, The Garden 01 Eloquence (London, 1577), sig. B.ii; Abraham Fraunce, Tbe Arcadian Rhetorike (1588), ed. Ethel Seaton (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1950), 15. 6. Milton, Tbe Art 01 Logic, Tbe Works 01John Milton, vol. xi, ed. and trans. Allan H. Gilbert (New York: Columbia University Press, 1935), 193, 197. See Grose, Milton)s Epic Process, 126. 7. See also Grose, Milton)s Epic Process, 127-8. 8. Lucy Newlyn, «Paradise Lost)} and the Romantic Reader (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 65. For example, although Christopher Ricks recognizes that the comparison ofSatan to Jacob in 3.510-25 implicitly suggests a likeness between the two, he gets rid of the problem by redefining its terms: "The length and power of the allusion forces us to choose between damaging irrelevance, or like­ ness turning grimly into disparity. My own view is that the disparity is meant to be recognized" (Milton's Grand Style, 128). That the passage might complicate the distinction between the two is a possibility that Ricks dismisses out of hand: "If a contrast of this kind is not present, then we ought to deprecate the passage (however beautiful), since it would seem to suggest either that Satan was good, or that Jacob was bad" (128; emphasis added). 9. I am not suggesting that Milton is a deconstructionist avant la lettre, but that Derrida's terms allow us to take into account the multivalence of the metaphors' resonances. Lucy Newlyn also criticizes previous treatments of Milton's allusive language for privileging "singleness rather than doubleness of meaning" (Tbe Romantic Reader, 66). Although Newlyn applies Wittgenstein's "duck-rabbit" (66-9) rather than Derrida, our goal-the recovery of Milton's ambiguities­ remains the same. 10. Jacques Derrida, Dissemination, trans. Barbara Johnson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981). Numbers within parentheses are page number citations of this text. 11. R Hackforth translates this term as "recipe" ("Phaedrus," The Collected Dialogues 01 Plato, ed. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns [Bollingen Series 71, NewYork: Pantheon Books, 1966], 274e, 520). 12. For a succinct exposition of the various interpretations ofTitans and Giants, see Arme Lake Prescott, "Titans," Tbe Spenser Encyclopedia (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990), 69l. See also Albert C. Labriola, "The Titans and the Giants: Paradise Lost and the Tradition of the Renaissance Ovid," Milton Quarterly 12 (1978), 9-16. 13. Edmond Spenser, The Faerie Queene, ed. Thomas P. Roche., Jr (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1978). 14. Fraunce, The Third Part 01 the Countesse 01 Pembroke's Ivychurch (London, 1594; rpt. New York and London: Garland, 1976), sig. A4v. 15. Alexander Ross, Mystagogus Poeticus or The Muses Interpreter (London, 1648; rpt. New York: Garland, 1976), sig. P7r, 223. I am grateful to Ira Clark and Stephen Buhler for giving me this reference in response to a query posted on the FICINO list. 16. William King, An Historical Account olthe Heathen Gods and Heroes, ed. Hugh R Williamson (London, 1710; rpt. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1965),58. 17. In Milton)s God, William Empson also emphasizes that Satan rebels in part because he "believes God to be a usurper," although "how God managed to usurp [or whom he deposed] we never hear the rebels discuss" (40, 50). See chapters 3 and 4 for an extended treatment of Milton's politics. NOTES 187

18. In his edition, Merritt Y. Hughes notes that Briareos fought on the side of the gods (Complete Poems [Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1957; rpt. 1983], 216 n. 197), as does Charles G. Osgood (Tbe Classical Mythology of Milton's English Poems [New York: Haskell House, 1900], 17). Most Miltonists, how­ ever, proceed as if the alternative tradition does not exist. Alastair Fowler, for example, in his edition, says that Briareos is a Titan whereas Typhon is a giant, but devotes the rest ofhis note to explicating Typhon (Paradise Lost, 55). John Broadbent provides this gloss: "The issue of earth (Ge) included gigantic Titans, and serpentine monsters such as Briareus and Typhon (Typhoeus) who rebelled against divine arents or rulers and were shut under volcanoes for it" (Paradise Lost: Books I-lI [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972], 57). See also Paradise Lost, ed. Roy Flannagan (New York: Macmillan, 1993), Bk. 1, n. 97; John Steadman, Milton's Epic Characters: Image and Idol (Chapel Hill: University ofNorth Carolina Press, 1968),292; Labriola, "The Titans and the Giants," 11; and Grose, Milton and the Epic Process, 15l. 19. In Book VI, Vergil includes Briareos among the sights of the underworld (376-80; Mandelbaum trans.). In Book X, he compares Aeneas's fury to Briareos fighting against Jove: "Just as Aegaeon, / Who had a hundred arms and hands-they say- / and fire burning from his fifty mouths / and chests, when he clanged at Jove's thunderbolts / with fifty shields, each one just like the other, / And drew as many swords; so does Aeneas / rage on ... " (778-84). That such a comparison does Aeneas no credit should not go unnoticed. 20. Quoted in DeWitt T. Starnes and Ernest William Talbert, Classical Myth and Legend in Renaissance Dictionaries (Chapel HilI: University of North Carolina Press, 1955), 243. 21. According to Gautruche, "Amongst the Besiegers was ... Briareus . .. with a hun­ dred hands which he did imploy in casting up against Jupiter the Rocks of the Sea­ Shore" (Tbe Poetical Histories [London, 1671; rpt. New York and London: Garland, 1976], sig. B6r). Pomey gives slightly more: "Aegaeon, was another prodigious and fierce Giant of this Number of extraordinary note: having one hundred hands, and fifty heads, according to Virgil ... wherefore he was epitheted centumgeminius; and the Grecians called him Briareus. He hurled a hundred Rocks against Jupiter at one throw" (Tbe Pantheon [London, 1694; rpt. New York: Garland, 1976], sig. X5r). See also, Ross, Mystagogus Poeticus, sigs. B6r-7r, 11-13. 22. D.C. Allen, Mysteriously Meant: The Rediscovery of Pagan Symbolism and Allegorical Interpretation in the Renaissance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1970), 86. 23. Hesiod, (Theogony» and "1Vorks and Days,» trans. M.L. West (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 2l. 24. Mythologiae (Venice, 1567; rpt. New York: Garland, 1976), sig. Ccc; Mythologiae, trans. Jean Baudoin (Paris, 1627; rpt. New York: Garland, 1976), sig. HHh. In what might be a simple error or a case of misreading a text in order to make it fit a particular interpretive paradigm, John Steadman asserts erro­ neously that Conti describes Briareos as arebel (Milton's Epic Characters, 292). 25. King, An Historical Account, 58. 26. By my count, Merritt Y. Hughes, e.g., cites Conti at least 32 times in his edition. By way of contrast, Catari rates only one citation. On Milton and Hesiod, see William M. Porter, Reading the Classics and «Paradise Lost» (Lincoln and London: University ofNebraska Press, 1993), 53-66. Significantly, in order to achieve stability, most interpretations elide the fact of Briareos's multiple inter­ pretations. See Steadman, Grose, Flannagan, and Broadbent. 188 NOTES

27. See the recent duster of essays on Vallombrosa in Milton in Italy: Contexts Images Contradictions, ed. Mario A. Di Cesare (Binghamton: MRTS, 1991): John R Mulder, "Shades and Substance," 61-70; Neil Harris, "The Vallombrosa Simile and the Image of the Poet in Paradise Lost," 71-95; Charles A. Huttar, "Vallombrosa Revisited," 95-112; and Edward Chaney, "The Visit to Vallombrosa: A Literary Tradition," 113-46. Nonetheless, these critics generally seek to tarne the unruly references by assuming, apriori, that uncertainty has no place in this poem. Mulder, e.g., asserts that "Only faith can resolve the reader's ambivalence" (63), and Charles Huttar admits the existence of positive references, but then contains the subversion by positing that "the images in question have, in book 1, become infected by their infernal environment" (109). 28. Mario Praz assumed that the lines reflect personal experience (On Neoclassicism [Evanston: University of Illinois Press, 1969], 30), and Hughes also says that "Milton may have visited the shady valley, Vallombrosa, during his stay in Florence" (219). 29. Huttar, "Vallombrosa Revisted," in Milton In Italy, 110. 30. See Roland M. Frye, Milton)s Imagery and the Visual Arts: Iconographic Tradition in the Epic Poems (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), 94, and Chaney, "The Visit to Vallombrosa." 3l. Annotations on Milton)s Paradise Lost (1695), 19; quoted in Harris, "The Vallombrosa Simile," 80. 32. As Harris writes, "Vallombrosa is no charming idyll, but a mirror for Hell and all its potentialities" ("The Image of the Poet," 77). 33. See Empson, Milton)s God, 76. 34. For example, John Simons admits that it is "difficult to see where the condem­ natory implications lie," but then finds a way of making the reference exdusively "condemnatory" ("Bees and Fallen Angels: A Note on Paradise Lost," Milton Quarterly 2l.1 [1987], 21). See also John F. Hundey, "The Ecology and Anatomy of Criticism: Milton's Sonnet 19 and the Bee Simile in Paradise Lost, 1. 768-76," Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 24 (1966), 388; Thomas Watson, "Milton's Use of Bees in Paradise Lost," American Notes and Queries 24.3-4 (1985), 38-9; and James A. Freeman, Milton and the Martial Muse: «Paradise Lost» and Europeasn Traditoins of War (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), 186-98. 35. Hartman, "Milton's Counterplot," Essays in Criticism, 392. 36. Similarly, Roland Frye proposes that "any note of pastoral tranquility is heavily qualified by irony" (Milton)s Imagery, 98). 37. I have deliberately elided Hartman's condusion that the simile once more reveals the counterplot. Given that Hartman published his essay in 1958, long before Derrida's advent, one wonders iftoday he would make different use ofthe same evidence, especially since both he and Derrida use the image of the pivot to describe the workings of their respective texts. 38. Gorecki, "Milton's Similitudes for Satan," 105-06; Bennett, Reviving Liberty, 36-9. 39. On the dose connections between Satan's republicanism, in particular his lan­ guage in Book 5, and the language of The Readie and Easie Way, see chapter 4, pp. 86-88 as well as Worden, "Tyranny of Heaven," Machiavelli and Republicanism, 235-7. 40. See Merritt Y. Hughes, "Satan and the 'Myth' of the Tyrant" (Ten Perspectives on Milton [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965], 173). Stella Revard, on the NOTES 189

other hand, grants that "thelogical, political, and sodal traditions exerted considerable influence" on Paradise Lost, but claims that "the literary tradition exerted still more" (Tbe War in Heaven: «Paradise Lost» and the Tradition of Satan)s Rebellion [Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980], 10). 4l. Nonetheless, the anti-historicist bias noted above is suffidently strong for even these critics to register some misgivings about their project. Davies explidtly argues against any topical inferences: "Any suggestion of a one-to-one ratio between Milton's creation ofthe king ofHell and the by-gone king ofEngland is not only fruitlessly reductive but ridiculous" (1l-12). Even so formidable a historicist as Achinstein worries about the appropriateness of her project: "We are treading on the dangerous terrain of analyzing Paradise Lostfor topical polit­ ical intention. Of course, Paradise Lost is no political pamphlet. But in his mas­ terpiece of poetry, Milton expresses ethical concerns that arise out of his political moment, though they are not restricted to it" (205). Can one imagine similar apologies for situating Spenser's Pairie Queene or Shakespeare's Henriad within their political contexts? 42. Joshua Sprigge, e.g., asserts in his history of the dvil war, Anglia Rediviva: Englands Recovery (London, 1647) that the entire story manifests God's intervention in human affairs: "Into this Harbour GOD now brought our English Bark; Of this Peace, and the immediate Action that wrought it out, doth this History give you a prospect, wherein I hope GOD is drawn through all, and Providence is in the fairest colour, and the greatest letter in the Book" (sig. B3v). Michael Hawke, in Tbe Right of Dominion and Property of Liberty (London, 1655) similarly claims that Cromwell "exceeded the expectation ofthe Sagest ... through the divine assistance and humane providence" (sig. H3r). 43. Bennett, Reviving Liberty, 53. 44. John Broadbent also admits that "Milton might even be satirising Cromwell" (1l5), but, as so often happens, he retreats from this insight: "It is a pity that the satire should be confused by historical valuations pressed on us in propria persona, for Milton's intimacy with high politics qualified him as no English poet has been since the early 18th Century. When he leaves the verse to do its own work the satirical revelation of base motives under high counsel is devastating ... But Milton's engagement, however destructive of this satire, is endearing" (Some Graver Subject: An Essay on Paradise Lost [New York: Barnes & Noble, 1960], 118). Worden, however, argues for both Milton's inconsistency and self-examination (243). 45. HilI, English Revolution, 356. Hili also points out that in the aftermath "Clarendon's view that God had intervened miraculously to restore Charles II seemed more plausible than the view that the routed Parliamentarians had been the interpeters of God's will" (347). See also Don M. Wolfe, Milton in the Puritan Revolution (1941; rpt. London: Cohen & West, 1963), 342-3. That Milton may have expressed different views on this topic in other works only proves the validity of Corn's thesis ("Some rousing motions ... ") that ideolog­ ical consistency was never Milton's strong suit, that he was perfectly capable of expressing contrary opinions in works that are almost contemporaneous. 46. Achinstein, Revolutionary Reader, 182-93 and Diane T. Benet, "Hell, Satan, and the New Politidan," Literary Milton: Text, 91-113. 47. Achinstein, Revolutionary Reader, 180. My point is that the conclusion is "bizaare" only if one assumes that Milton could not possibly mean what his text seems to mean. 190 NOTES

48. The Sabines, we should remember, are the victims rather than perpetrators of evil, i.e., the rape of their women. 49. Mulder, Shades and Substance, 68, 69. 50. Michael Wilding, Dragons Teeth, 226-7; Stevie Davies, Images of Kingship in «Paradise Lost»: Milton's Politics and Christian Liberty (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1983), 51-88. 5l. Both are quoted in Davies, Images of Kingship, 5l. 52. I am grateful to Christopher Orchard for bringing these references to myatten­ tion in response to a query addressed to the Milton List on the internet. It is pos­ sible that The Parliament ofWomen (London, 1656) also feminizes Cromwell's parliament. Although the body of the text partakes of the "Good Gossip" genre, unlike virtually every other example of this genre, the story takes place in ancient Rome suggesting a strategy for evading censorship. Also, the cover woodcut depicts eight women in distinctly Puritanical dothes, which are quite similar to those depicted in the Royalist Parliament of Hell satires. 53. Antonia Fraser, Cromwell: The Lord Protector (New York: Knopf, 1974),477. 54. Newlyn, The Romantic Reader, 68. 55. According to Marie Tanner, "Vergil deeded to the literary tradition a new amal­ gam ofRoman history and Trojan myth that structured imperial ideology for the next two millennia" (Tbe Last Descendant of Aeneas: The Hapsburgs and the Mythic Image ofthe Emperor [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993], 1), and the tradition of using the language of the Aeneid to talk about contemporary political events was quite alive in England throughout the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries (Donna B. Hamilton, Virgil and «The Tempest»: Tbe Politics ofImitation [Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1990], ix-x). Thus, there would have been nothing surprising or unusual to a contemporary reader to read an epic allusion politically. 56. Lawrence Venuti, "Tbe Destruciton of Troy: Translation and Royalist Cultural Politics in the Interregnum," Journal and Medieval and Renaissance Studies 23.2 (1993),206,207. 57. Nigel Smith, Literature and Revolution in England: 1640-1660 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 39l. 58. See John Ogilby, Tbe Entertainment of His Most Excellent Majestie Charles 11 in His Passage through the City of London to his Coronation (London, 1662); facsimile edited by Ronald Knowles (Bingharnton: MRTS, 1988). I am grateful to Sara Vandenburg for this reference. 59. Quoted in Smith, Literature and Revolution, 230. On Milton and Harrington, see Worden, "Tyranny ofHeaven," Machiavelli and Republicanism, 227. 60. I am grateful to Chris Orchard for this reference. 6l. On this volume generally, see Gerald MacLean, Time's Witness: Historical Representaiton in English Poetry, 1603-1660 (Madison: University ofWisconsin Press, 1990), 237. 62. Payne Fisher, Veni, Vidi, Vici, Tbe Triumph of the Most Excellent & Illustrious Olver Cromwell, trans. Thomas Mansly (London, 1652). In the dedicatory epistle, he writes: "Consider how with more than Herculean strength he strook off the Head of those Hydraes of superstition with his Conquering sword? How many Centaures breathing forth nought but slavery he tamed?" (sig. B4). As the title indicates, Cromwell was also frequently compared with Julius Caesar. 63. Tbe Poems ofEdmund Waller, ed. G. Thorn Drury (New York: Scribner's, 1893). NOTES 191

64. Even so, it is interesting that Milton restricts bis classical references to Fairfax, especially since bis exhortation to Cromwell, bis constant warning to bim of the need to hew to bis principles, is so double-edged. 65. See e.g., Barbara Lewalski, «Paradise Lost» and the Rhetoric of Literary Forms (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985), 17-28. 66. The allusions operate more along the lines that Paul de Man finds constitutive of metaphor: "we have no way of defining, of policing, the boundaries that separate the name of one entity from the name of another; tropes are not just travellers, they tend to be smugglers and probably smugglers of stolen goods at that" (Paul de Man, "The Epistemology of Metaphor," Critical Inquiry 5 [1978J, 19). 67. Hughes, "Satan and the 'Myth,'" Ten Perspectives, 173. 68. Newlyn, The Romantic Reader, 66. Nor is this insight necessarily dependent on post-modern theories oflanguage, as G. Wilson Knight argued back in 1942 that Paradise Lost "offers no synthesis" (Chariot ofWrath, 115).

2 PARAD/SE LoST, THE MILTONIC "OR," AND THE POETICS OF INCERTITUDE 1. Albert C. Labriola, " 'All in All' and 'All in One': Obedience and Disobedience in Paradise Lost," in <

12. Theogony, lines 618-717 «Theogony» and «Works and Days,» trans. M.L. West [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988], 21) and the Iliad, lines l.396-406 (Lattimore trans.) 13. See chapter 1, pp. 1-18. 14. Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, and Proust (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979),72. 15. Christopher Grose, e.g., writes that "Milton omits the conclusion-at leastitis not rehearsed-but the ending, like the meaning of the simile, is hardly in doubt" (Milton's Epic Process: «Paradise Lost» and its Miltonic Background [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973], 152), and Linda Gregerson agrees: "the morning will presumably disclose to the pilot his doom" ("The Miltonic Simile," Milton Studies 14 [1980], 142), as do Roland M. Frye: "Just as Leviathan lured seamen to anchor on the seeming security ofhis great bulk, only then to plunge to the bottom ofthe sea and destroy them, So Satan had already lured his angelic followers to Hell and would so lure many deceived men and women in future ages" (Milton's Imagery and the Visual Arts: Iconographic Tradition in the Epic Poems [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978],93), Roy Flannagan (Riverside Milton, 360 n. 80), and Bryan Adams Hampton, who concludes his article on the sources of this metaphor thus: "Thinking themselves safe in their 'luxury' and without discernment, the civil and ecclesial governments, too, have moored upon Leviathan. And, as is soon to be the case of our sailor, these institutions have been corrupted and destroyed by their careless attachment ... " ("Milton's Parable of Misreading: Navigating the Contextual Waters ofthe 'Night-Foundered Skiff' in Paradise Lost, l.192-209," Milton Studies 43 [2004], 106). Grose also notes that many of the similes precipi­ tate "perceptual crises" (141, 150), but he concludes that the disjunctions are only apparent, not actual: "But judging from this and other images, it would seem that in Paradise Lost he deliberately blurs any static pattern we might discover, pretend­ ing to discover instead multiple or ambiguous correspondences, and even an entire world of analogy" (153; emphasis added). The "error" (meaning both mistake and wandering) of the similes "bring us closer ... to the highest kind of awareness in the poem, contained ultimately in God's 'prospect high' ... " (154). 16. de Man, Allegories of Reading, 76. 17. "What are sheaves bound up in a Barn to the Phalanx, that hem'd Satan? Where's the least Similitude?" (Milton's «Paradise Lost»: A New Edition [London, 1732], sig. T3r). 18. I am indebted to Elizabeth Sauer's important book, Barbarous Dissonance, for her resonant parsing of the multiple voices in Paradise Lost. Sauer, however, comes to a different conclusion than I do: "In each chapter I also identifY strategies adopted by the poet to order the confusion and to create a community of voices that remains for Milton a conceptual rather than areal possibility" (10). In my analysis, Milton does not order the confusion as confusion is the point. James G. Turner argues that the sense of "continual discovery" in Paradise Lost "is generated by the narrative design itself, which guilds up a texture of overlapping views, and thus subjects the passion of Adam and Eve to a refined scrutiny that anticipates the epistolary novel" (One Flesh, 266). Joseph Wittreich also notes that the poem is about "competing interpretations [and] the status that should be accorded each ofthem" (" 'Inspir'd with Contradiction,'" LiteraryMilton, 142). 19. To be sure, sometimes the differing narratives are in synch with each other. Both God and Satan, e.g., admit that Adam and Eve are deceived, and the Creation accounts by Urial and Raphael are also in agreement (Wittreich, " 'Inspir'd with NOTES 193

Contradiction,' " 143; Professor Wittreich also made this point to me in a private correspondence). The agreement, however, between these two (who one would think would agree about nothing) only puts into relief the Epic Narrator's assertion that only Eve is deceived. 20. For a more in -depth treatment of the relationship between gender, God, and the Fall, see chapter 6. 2l. See chapter 6 for a more detailed analysis of gender in Paradise Lost. 22. Adam's version of events seems to dovetail with God's speech to the Son: " ... weil thou know'st how dear / To me are all my works, nor Man the least / Though last created" (3.277-9). The difference, however, is that while Adam recognizes Eve's existence, God never does in either this speech or in His (in)famous initial address to the Son (3.80-135). For Milton's God, "Man" means Adam-a fact which God makes explicit when he enjoins the Son-"Thir Nature also to thy Nature join; / And be thyself Man among men on Earth ... / Be thou in Adam's room. The head of all mankind, though Adam's son" (3.283-6). 23. Although critics have noted that Adam and Eve present different versions of their first meeting, the relationship between these two versions has not received exten­ sive treatment, the dominant assumption being that Adam's narrative dominates Eve's in an exact parallel to how men are supposed to dominate women within patriarchy. See Christine Froula, "When Eve Reads Milton: Undoing the Canonical Economy," Critical Inquiry 10.2 (December 1983), 328; Diane K. McColley, Milton's Eve (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1983), 80-5; Marshall Grossman, "Servile/Sterile/Style: Milton and the Question ofWoman," Milton and the Q;testion of Woman, ed. Julia M. Walker (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988), 151; Martin, The Ruins of Allegory, 267-8; Elizabeth Mazzola, "Milton's Eve as Closed Corpus, Open Book and Apocryphal Text," in <

ehronologies of Paradise Lost, both loeate the "First exaltation" in Book 5, although neither indieates when the second one oecurs (Fowler, Milton, Paradise Lost, 26, Loewenstein, Milton: Paradise Lost [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993], xv). John Rumrieh, in a private correspondenee, suggests that Books 3 and 5 "partieipate in the eternal moment as it is dilated in time." 26. For example, Donald Bouehard, Milton: A Structural Reading (Montreal: MeGill­ Queen's University Press, 1974), 130; MarkA. Woilaeger, "Apoeryphal Narration: Milton, Raphael, and the Book ofTobit," Milton Studies 21 (1985), 137-56, esp. 144; Turner, One Flesh, 278-9; and Sauer, Barbarous Dissonance, 63-4. 27. See Leslie Brisman, Milton's Poetry of Choice (Ithaea: Corneil University Press, 1973), and Peter C. Herman, Squitter-Wits and Muse-Haters: Sidney, Spenser, Milton and Renaissance Antipoetic Sentiment (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1976), 183-93. 28. Fish, "Problem Solving in Comus," in Illustrious Evidence: Approaches to English Literature ofthe Early Seventeenth Century, ed. Earl Miner (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1975), 128. 29. Fish, "Reason in The Reason of Church Government," in Self-Consuming Artifacts: The Experience of Seventeenth-Century Literature (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972), 265-302; "Truth and Indeterminaey in Areopagitica," in Re-Membering Milton: Essays on the Texts and Traditions, ed. Mary Nyquist and Margaret W. Ferguson (New York: Methuen, 1987),234-54; "Wanting a Supplement: The Question of Interpretation in Milton's Early Prose," in Politics, Poetics, and Hermeneutics in Milton's Prose, ed. David Loewenstein and James G. Turner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990),41-68. 30. Norbrook, Writing the English Republic, 479. William B. Hunter has disputed Milton's authorship of the Christian Doctrine ("The Provenanee of the Christian Doctrine," SEL 32, 1 [Winter, 1992], 129-42, now expanded into a book, Visitation Unimplor'd: Milton and the Authorship of «De Doctrina Christiana" [Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1998]), but he has not convineed the majority of Miltonists, including Rumrieh. See Milton Unbound, 154 n. 39, and his introduetion, coauthored with Stephen B. Dobranski, to their anthology, Milton and Heresy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 6-11, as weil as his article in the same volume, "Milton's Arianism: Why it Matters," 75-7. 3l. Norbrook, Writing the English Republic, 479. 32. On the ineonsistencies of the Christian Doctrine, see Kolbrener, Milton's Warring Angels, 84-104. 33. For example, "The second kind of external efficiency is commonly ealled CREATION. Anyone who asks what God did before the ereation of the world is a fool; and anyone who answers him is not mueh wiser" (eh. VII, "Of the Creation," 1174; that Milton devotes signifieant amount of Paradise Lost to answering this supposedly foolish question should not go unnoted); "The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not a saerament, as is eommonly thought, for saeraments are meant to be used, not abstained from; but it was a kind of pledge or memorial of obedienee" (eh. X, "Of the Speeial Government of Man Before the Fall," 1180); "But the first and more important point is the mutual consent of the parties coneerned, for there ean be no love or good will, and therefore no marriage, between those whom mutual eonsent has not united" (eh. X, 1185). On Milton's appropriation of Biblieal authority for his OWll, see NOTES 195

"Citation, Authority, and De Doctrina Christiana," in Politics, Poetics, and Hermeneutics in Milton's Prose, 227-40. 34. Jacques Derrida, "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences," in Tbe Structuralist Controversy: Tbe Languages ofCriticism and the Sciences of Man, ed. Richard Macksey and Eugenio Donato (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972),247-8. 35. Schwartz, "Citation, Authority, and De Doctrina Christiana," Politics, Poetics, and Hermoneutics in Milton's Prose, 228. 36. Derrida, "Structure, Sign, and PIay," Tbe Structuralist Contioversy, 248. 37. As such, I have in mind a much more quotidian definition of anxiety than that empIoyed by John N. Tanner in Anxiety in Eden: A Kierkegaardian Reading of

3 "ENGLANDA FREE NATION": MILTON'S PROSEAND THE ANCIENT CONSTITUTION 1. Empson, "Milton and Bentley," Some Versions ofPastoral, 141. 2. See Introduction, pp. 20-21 and chapter 5, pp. 107-08. 3. Empson, "Milton and Bentley," Some Versions ofPastoral, 141. 4. See my summary of Richard Strier's unpublished paper on Empson, "Introduction," p. 184 n. 86. 5. Empson, Milton's God, 146. 6. For example, Fish's Surprised by Sin and Danielson, Milton's Good God (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982). 7. Empson, Milton's God, 244. See, e.g., Christopher Norris (William Empson and the Philosophy of Literary Criticism [London: Athlone Press, 1978J, 138-42), who does not mention Empson's political argument. The exceptions are Stevie Davies (Images ofKingship in «Paradise Lost» [Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1983J, 4), and John Rogers (Tbe Matter ofRevolution, 127). 8. Empson, Milton's God, 76. 9. Tbe Tenure ofKings and Magistrates, 3.220. 10. Empson, Milton's God, 77-8. The fact that Empson was himself a Yorkshireman, and chose to work at Sheffield University partly because of its Iocation, under­ scores the degree of his identification both with Satan and with English Iocal traditions. See Paul Fry, William Empson: Prophet Against Sacriftce (London: Routledge, 1991),46,154 n. 37. 11. Empson, Milton's God, 77. On England as a mixed monarchy, see Z.S. Fink, The Classical Republicans: An Essay on the Recovery of a Pattern of Thought in Seventeenth-Century England (Evanston: U niversity of Illinois Press, 1945); John Guy, "The Henrician Age," in Tbe Varieties of British Political Thought, 1500-1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1993), 13-46, esp. 17-19; Donald W. Hanson, From Kingdom to Commonwealth: Tbe Development ofCivic Consciousness in English Political Tbought (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970),240-52; and Robert Eccleshall, Order and Reason in Politics: Theories of Absolute and Limited Monarchy in Early Modern England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978). 196 NOTES

12. Rogers also notes that Empson "understood more clearly than any critic of Milton the political force of Satan's vitalism" (The Matter of Revolution, 127). On the continuity of the Ancient Constitution in medieval and early modern eulture, see Janelle Greenberg, The Radical Face of the Ancient Constitution: St. Edward's «Laws» in Early Modern Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). The analysis provided is deeply indebted to Greenberg's work. 13. Critics ofMilton's politics generally diseuss this body ofwork in terms of either the bible or classical republicanism. Martin Dzelzainis's entry on "Republicanism" in A Companion to Milton, ed. Thomas N. Corns (London: Blackwell, 2002), 301-04, is typical in his foeus on the "neo-Roman" sources of Milton's politics. Historians have also not explored how Milton fits in with constitutional debates of the seven­ teenth century. Greenberg argues that "Milton hardly merits inclusion in the ancient constitutionalist lists" (12), as does Glenn Burgess, who considers Milton "primarily a rhetorical user of the language of ancient constitutionalism" (The Politics of the Ancient Constitution: An Introduction to English Political Thought, 1603-1642 [University Park: Penn State University Press, 1992],256 n. 61). Blair Worden, Victoria Kahn, Nicholas von Maltzahn, and Janel Mueller are the only crit­ ics who have paid significant attention to this issue (although none credits Empson). See Worden, "Tyranny of Heaven," Machiavelli and Republicanism, 231-3; von Maltzahn, Milton's «History of Britain: Republican Historiography in the English Revolution» (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), 198-23; Kahn, "The Metaphorical Contract in Milton's Tenure ofKings and Magistrates," in Milton and Republicanism, ed. David Armitage, Armand Himy, and Quentin Skinner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 82-105; and Janel Mueller "Contextualizing Milton's Nascent Republicanism," in OfPoetry and Politics: New Essays on Milton and His World, ed. P.G. Stanwood (Binghamton: MRTS, 1995), 277. In his review of David Norbrook's Writing the English Republic, Thomas N. Corns also notes how Norbrook "detaches the poetry he considers from other anti-court discourses, pre-eminently the language ofthe ancient constitution" (The Review of English Studies, n.s. 51 [2000], 282). I am gratefUl to Prof. Corns for bringing this review to my attention. 14. I am not arguing that the Ancient Constitution replaces classical or continental republicanism and Protestant resistance theory in Milton's thought; Rather, the Ancient Constitution subsurnes these categories. 15. See J.N. Figgis, The Divine Right of Kings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922) and Richard C. McCoy, Alterations of State: Sacred Kingship in the English Reformation (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002). 16. Constance Jordan, Shakespeare's Monarchies; Ruler and Subject in the Romances (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997),4. 17. Geoffrey Elton, "The Rule ofLaw in Sixteenth-Century England," in Studies in Tudor and Stuart Politics and Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), vol. 1,268. 18. In a letter to James written in January, 1585-86, Elizabeth declared "Since God hathe made kinges, let them not unmake ther authorite, and let brokes and smal rivers acknowledge ther springes, and flowe no furdar than ther bankes. I praise God that you uphold euer a regal rule" (Letters of Queen Elizabeth and King James VI of Scotland, ed. John Bruce [Camden Society; Old Series], vol. 46 [1849], 27; one wonders if by "regal rule," Elizabeth has in mind Forteseue's phrase, dominium regale). NOTES 197

19. See J.E. Neale's two volume work, Elizabeth I and her Parliarnents: 1559-1581 and 1584-1601 (New York: St. Martin's, 1958). 20. Quoted in Francis Oakely, "Jacobean Political Theology: The Absolute and Ordinary Powers ofthe King," Journal ofthe History of Ideas 29.3 (1968),324. 2l. Although Elizabeth clearly believed in monarchy's divine origins, neither she nor her advisors had much patience with James's political views. According to David Harris Willson, Walsingham "told James that his power was insignificant, that he was too young to judge affairs of State, that he should rejoice in such as friend as Elizabeth, and [most interestingly] that young kings who sought to be absolute were apt to lose their thrones" (King Jarnes VI and I [London: Jonathan Cape, 1956], 51; emphasis added). 22. Quoted in Oakeley, "Jacobean Political Theology," 325. 23. See Somerville, Politics and Ideology in England 1603-1640 (London: Longman, 1986),127-30, and Oakely, "Jacobean Political Theology," 323-46. 24. See especially Jordan and Greenberg, and also Annabel Patterson, Reading ccHolinshed)s

W.O. Hassall, A Catalogue ofthe Library ofSir Edward Coke (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950), 34. On Selden's annotations to Fortescue, see Burgess, Ancient Constitution, 6-7. 33. John Fortescue, "In Praise of the Laws of England," in On the Laws and Governance of England, ed. Shelley Lockwood (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 17. 34. For clarity's sake, I will cite Lockwood's translation of the middle English in the main body of the text and give the original in the notes. "Ther bith ii kyndes of kyngdomes, of the wich that on is a lordship callid in laten dominium regale, and that other is callid dominium politicum et regale. And thai diversen in that they first kynge mey rule his peple bi such lawes as he makyth hym self. And therefore he mey sett uppon thaim tayles and other imposicions, such as he wol hym self, withowt thair assent. The secounde kynde may not rule his peple bi other lawes than such as thai assenton unto. And therefore he mey sett upon non imposicions withowt thair owne assent" (Tbe Governance of England: Otherwise Called «Tbe Difference between an Absolute and a Limited Monarchy,» ed. Charles Plumer [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1935], 109. All references to the original will be to this edition, and I have silently adopted the modern usages ofu/v and ijj) 35. "The first institucion of thes ii realmes uppon the incorperacion of thaim is cause of this diversite. Whan Nembroth be myght for his owne glorie made and incor­ perate the first realrne, and subdued it to humselfbi tyrannye, he wolde not have it governyd bi ony other rule or lawe, but bi his owne wille; bi wich and for the accomplisshment thereof he made it. And therfore though he hade thus made hym arealme, holy scripture disdeyned to call hym a kynge, quia rex dicitur a regendo; wich thynge he did not, but oppressyd the peple bi myght, and thefore he was a tirraunt and callid primus tirranorum. But holy write callith hum robus­ tus venator coram Domino. Ffor as the hunter takyth the wilde beste for to sle and ete hum, so Nembroth subdued to hym the people with myght, to have their service and thair godis, using uppon thaim the lordshippe that is callid dominium regale tantum" (lU). 36. "For thus the kingdom of England blossomed forth into a political and royal dominion out of Brutus' band of Trojans, whom he led out of the territories of ltaly and the Greeks" (22). 37. "But aftirwarde, whan mankynde was more mansuete, and bettir disposed to vertu, gret comunaltes, as was the felowshippe that came in to this lande with Brute, willynge to be unite and made a body poilitike callid a reawme, havynge an hed to governe it" (112). Lockwood changes "mansuete" to "civilised," although the OED defines this term as "to tarne, become tarne." 38. Greenberg, The Radical Face, 18. The quotes from Pocock and Burgess are from Tbe Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law, 276, and The Politics of the Ancient Constitution, 212. 39. For example, Hall does not depict the deposition ofRichard II as a crime against an anointed monarch that resulted in God punishing England with civil war. Instead, his treatment of this key moment demonstrates that kingship is a privilege revocable by parliament. First, Hall includes a speech by the Archbishop of Canterbury asking Henry Bolingbroke to "take upon [himself] the high power, governance, and scepter ofyour native country" (HaWs Chronicle [original title: Tbe Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Famelies of Lancastre & Yorke], ed. Sir Henry Eilis [London: J. Johnson et al., 1809], 7). Hall then emphasizes how charges are laid "against [Richard] in the open parliament," how "it was thought NOTES 199

by the most part the King Richard was worthy to be deposed," and, therefore, how "instruments authentie and solemn to depose ... were made" (11). Richard's deposition is orderly, by process of law, and accomplished with the sanction of both the Church and Parliament. It is, in sum, aperfect example of the Ancient Constitution in action. The blame for the "unquiet time of king Henry the Fourth"-who, Hall reminds the reader, "with one voice both of the nobles and commons was published, prodaimed and dedared" king (13)-rests with two noblernen, Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March, and Richard, Earl of Cambridge, because these men "were with these doings neither pleased nor content" (13). Aristocratic ambition, in other words, caused the ensuing civil strife, not the orderly deposition of a bad monarch. (This paragraph draws on from my entry on Hall in the Oxford Dictionary ofNationaIBiography.) (Peter C. Herman, "Hall, Edward [1497-1547]," Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [accessed November 3, 2004: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/ artide/11954]). 40. See Patterson, "'Holinshed)s Chronicles' "; Herman, "Rastell's Pastyme," 275-308; and "Henrician Historiography," 261-83. 4l. Of the Laws of Ecclesiasticall Politie, 8.3.1-4, quoted in Howell A. Lloyd, "Constitutionalism," in The Cambridge Companion of Political Thought 1450-1700, ed. J.H. Bums and Mark Goldie (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991),282. 42. John Foxe, Tbe Acts and Monuments ofJohn Foxe, ed. George Townsend (rpt. NewYork: AMS Press, 1965), vol. 2, 89. 43. Tbe Mirror for Magistrates, ed. Lily B. Campbell (London: Cambridge University Press, 1938),73,77. 44. Donna B. Hamilton, "The State of Law," 9. See also Jordan, Shakespeare)s Monarchies, for how the Ancient Constitution functions in Shakespeare's later works. 45. Christopher Marlowe's Edward the Second (1594) similarly portrays a dash between nobles representing the Ancient Constitution and a monarch who believes, like Richard II, that nothing can wash the balm of an anointed king. The Younger Mortimer, disgusted with Edward's infatuation with Gaveston, says that he and his allies ought to "depose him [Edward], and elect another king" ("Edward the Second," in Tbe Complete Plays, ed. rB. Steane [rpt. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1985], !.iv.55), and the battle cries before the final confrontation illustrate the incompatibility of absolutism and the Ancient Constitution:

WARWICK: Adesperate and unnatural resolution! Alarum! To the fight! Saint George for England, and the baron's right! KING EDWARD: Saint George for England, the King Edward's right! (III.iii.33-5 )

46. Tbe Fift Part ofthe Reports of Sr. Edward Coke (1605), sig. Aiiiiir-v. 47. Quoted in Sommerville, Politics and Ideology, 153. 48. Proceedings in Parliament 1610, ed. Elizabeth Read Foster (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966), vol. 2, 109. 49. Hakewill's speech would be printed in 1644 as Tbe Liberty ofthe Subject: Against the Pretended Power of Impositions. 50. Quoted in Sommerville, Politics and Ideology, 157. 5l. Quoted in Burgess, Ancient Constitution, 200. 200 NOTES

52. Tbe Petition of Right, Divine Right and Democracy: An Anthology of Political Writing in Stuart England, ed. David Wootton (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1986),168-9. 53. Barry Coward cites two more examples ofhow those outside London considered Charles's financial and legal maneuvers an affront against their liberties. The Yorkshire commissioners refused to collect ship money because "haveing noe legal1 power to Levie the same upon the subject wee dare not presume to doe itt," and the recorder of Taunton complained about the enforced billeting of troops: "Every man knowes there is no law for this ... We know our houses are our castles" (Tbe Stuart Age: AHistory ofEngland 1603-1714 [London: Longman, 1980], 139). 54. Kenneth Fincham, "The ludges' Decision on Ship Money in February 1637: the reaction of Kent," Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 57 (1984), 230-7. All further references to this text will be cited parenthetically. While Twysden despised the ship money decision, the proceedings of the Long Parliament, in particular the attack on bishops, the charges against Laud, and the execution of Strafford, which he considered "a fearful precedent against the lib­ erty of the subject," alienated him from their cause. See the entry on Twysden in the ODNB: David L. Smith, "Twysden, Sir Roger, Second Baronet (1597-1672)," Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 (accessed November 10, 2004: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/ artide/27929). 55. In Fincham's transcription of this letter, he has "my proceedings is a businesse"; I assurne that "is" is an error for "in." 56. Burgess, Ancient Constitution, 183. 57. lohn Fielding, "Opposition to the Personal Rule of Charles I, the Diary of Robert Woodford, 1637-41," Historical Journal 35 (1992),778. 58. Tbe Fift Part ofthe Reports, sig. Aiiiiir-v. 59. I borrow this phrase from Louis A. Montrose, "Spenser and the Elizabethan Political Imaginary," 69 (2002): 907-46, ELH. I am grateful to Professor Montrose for allowing me to read his essay in advance of publication. 60. Tbe Riverside Milton, ed. Roy Flannagan 1117. 61. Blair Worden suggests that the commonplace book "shows how Milton's read­ ing, and the intimacy it brought him with minds distant from his own time and place, freed him from the conceptual limitations of contemporary political debate" ("Tyranny of Heaven," Machiavelli and Republicanism 231). Barbara Lewalski, on the other hand, posits that the entries under "Property and Taxes" and "Official Robbery or Extortion" "vent Milton's bourgeois anger over Charles' hated levies" (Lift of Milton, 126-7). 62. In "lohn Milton and the Politics of Slavery," Quentin Skinner argues that the arguments in the 1628 and 1640 parliaments about rights being "miserably violated" derive "not from the common law but from the law ofRome" (Prose Studies 23.1 [2000],2; this artide is reprinted in Milton and the Terms ofLiberty, ed. Graham Parry and load Raymond [Woodbridge, Suffolk: D.S. Brewer, 2002], 1-22). I am very grateful to Ron Corthell for bringing Skinner's artide to my attention. 63. In addition to Severus, Milton cites Machiavelli ("A commonwealth is preferable to a monarchy" [421]) and Guicciardini ("The kings of Aragon do not have royal authority that is absolute in all things" [442]). Unlike Fortescue, Milton finds evidence that France is a limited monarchy: "The King ofFrance considers NOTES 201

it necessary, as Claude Sesellius writes [La Grand Monarchie de France {1519}, translated into Latin in 1545 by Johannes Sleidan as De Monarchia Franciae Sive Dr Republica Galliae et Regum Officiis], to submit to the decrees ofhis general parliament, which Sesellius calls the 'bridle' of the King" (458). 64. In her note on this passage, Ruth Mohl mistakenly says that "Milton's 'c.3' must refer to the signature or section ofthe book, which appears at the bottom on p. 21" (424). In fact, the passage Milton copies is on pages 4-5 of this book, under the rubric, "THE BEGINNING OF LAWES" (Archeion, ed. Charles H. McIlwain and Paul L. Ward [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957], 10-11). 65. Given Milton's later dislike of merchants and the merchant dass, it is odd that he chose to record this item from the list of artides brought against Richard (see Steve Pincus, "Neither Machiavellian Moment nor Possessive Individualism: Commercial Society and the Defenders of the English Commonwealth," Tbe American Historical Review 103.3 [1998], 705-36). He could, e.g, have excerpted item 14, "he said, that the lawes of the realme were in his head, and sometimes in his brest, by reason of which fantasticall opinion, he destroied noble men, and impoverished the poore commons" ("Holinshed's 'Chronides'," ed. Henry Ellis [London: J. Johnson et al., 1807], vol. 3, 860). 66. On Milton's debt to this text, see Patterson, Reading Holinshed's «Chronicles," 273-4. 67. cr Worden, who suggests that Milton's interest in the coronation oath is "pre­ cocious" ("Milton's Republicanism," 232). 68. On this issue, generally, see Michael Mendle, Dangerous Positions: Mixed Government, the Estates of the Realm, and the "Answer to the xix Propositions" (Birmingham, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1985). Cf. John Morrill, who argues that "there were three quite distinct and separable perceptions of mis­ government or modes of opposition ... the localist, the legal-constitutionalist, and the religious" (The Nature of the English Revolution [London: Longman, 1993],47). The examples ofRoger Twysden (who combines the first two) and the perceived threat of the bishops to Magna Carta (combining the latter two) suggest that Morrill's three categories are less then completely distinct. 69. The "Root and Branch" petition is reprinted as an appendix to the first volume of Milton's prose. 70. As we will see in the next chapter, the obverse is also true, that the Ancient Constitution has, according to some, a divine origin. 71. I presume Milton refers here to Magna Carta. 72. Although his argument would logically extend to attacking royal authority, Milton is not yet at that point. In fact, in Of Reformation and The Reason of Church Government, he is very solicitous of the monarch's powers. In the former text, he mis-attributes the phrase, "No bishop, no king," to the bishops (582), and in the latter, explicitly declines to extend his argument to Charles's expansion of royal prerogative. His dedaration that "your typical chain of King and Priest must unlink" (771) overtly contradicts James's "No bishop, no king," and his refusal to accept that monarchy's authority has any typological justification at all: "the right of Kings neither stands by any type nor falls" (771), meaning, that Christ in no way prefigures present-day kings or queens, similarly undercuts one of absolutism's main pillars. But having made these incendiary statements, Milton immediately pulls back, and grants exactly what he had just denied: "We acknowledge that the civill magistrate weares an autority of Gods giving, and ought to be obey'd as his vicegerent" (771). 202 NOTES

73. Magna Carta (1215) and Carta de Foresta (1217). 74. Tbe Fift Part ofthe Reports, sig. Aiiiiir-v. 75. Mary Lyndon Shanley, "Marriage Contract and Social Contract in Seventeenth Century English Political Thought," Western Political Quarterly 32 (1979), 80-1. See also Constance Jordan, "The Household and the State: Transformations in the Representation of an Analogy from Aristotle to James I," Modern Language Quarterly 54.3 (1993), 307-26. 76. Dudley Digges, Unlawfulnesse ofSubjects (1644), sig. PI. 77. Henry Parker, Jus Populi (1644),3-4; quoted in Shanley, 84. 78. Patterson, "Milton, Marriage and Divorce," in A Companion to Milton, ed. Thomas N. Corns (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), 281. 79. See Kahn, "The Metaphorical Contract," Milton and Republicanism, 86. 80. For example, "And after such time also, as greedinesse of enjoying the fat of the Land had moved debate and dissention ... but yet so, that alwayes the mightier and more mischievous, did (as Bulls in the Heard) gore and grieve the weaker and better sort. Then fled men (as Cicero conjectureth) to some one among them, excelling others in Vertue, and submitted themselves unto him, praying that hee would by equity save them from injury, and maintaine both the mightieste and the meanest in one indifferencie of right and justice. And truly, so long as they found this at his hand, they looke for law whatsoever hee pronounced, and they obeyed (as an Orade) whatsoever was commanded by him" (Lambarde, Archeion, 10; emphasis added). Lambarde's qualifying phrase implies that the moment they stop finding "this" at his hand, they would be justified in no longer obeying his commands as laws. For Fortescue, see earlier. 81. In Tbe Trew Law of Free Monarchies (1598), James flatly denies that "any such contract to be made then, especially containing such a dause irritant [i.e., the right to abrogate the contract if the monarch breaks it] as they allege" (Divine Right and Democracy: An Anthology of Political Writing, ed. David Wootton [Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1986], 103). 82. By repeatedly calling God's laws "statutes," Milton implies that God rules through parliamentary procedure, not by fiat, as an absolute monarch would. 83. See p. 72 and p. 202 n. 64. 84. See p. 63. 85. Puritanism and Liberty [Tbe Putney Debates}, ed. A.S.P. Woodhouse (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1951), 118-19. 86. "England's Miserie and Remedie," in Divine Right and Democracy, ed. David Wootton (London: Penguin, 1986),281 87. von Maltzahn, Milton 's «History of Britain," 199. On the dating of the History, see also von Maltzahn, 23. 88. Cf. Milton's use of Saxon history in A Defence of the People of England (IV.479-86). Thomas N. Corns also argues that "Milton's indifference to precedent and to the contemporary consequence of what may have happened formerly leads him to ignore the arguments of radical constituionalists that pre-Conquest England manifested a legal system or an ancient and mixed con­ stitution that could usefully be invoked in his own age" ("Milton and History," unpublished paper delivered at the Seventh International Milton Symposium [2002]). I am once again grateful to Prof. Corns for sending me a copy of this paper. 89. Thomas Hobbes, Behemoth, or The Long Parliament, ed. Ferdinand Tönnies (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1990), 195-6. NOTES 203

90. On Milton's disillusionment, see Arthur E. Barker, Milton and the Puritan Dilemma: 1641-1660 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1942; rpt. 1976), 262-3; Kolbrenner, Milton's Warring Angels, 29-30; David Armitage, "John Milton: Poet Against Empire," in Milton and Republicanism, ed. David Armitage, Armand Himy, and Quentin Skinner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995),211-14; Laura Lunger Knoppers, "Milton's Tbe Readie and Easie Wayand the English Jeremiad," in Politics, Poetics, and Hermeneutics in Milton's Prose, eds David Loewenstein and James G. Turner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990),213-25, the jeremiad, as Knoppers notes, being "a prophetie lament over the apostasy of a chosen nation" (213); Pincus, "Neither Machiavellian Moment," 726; Norbrook, Writing the English Republic, 411-16. See also Knoppers, "Late Political Prose," in A Companion to Milton, 310-11. 91. A Letter to a Friend, Concerning the Ruptures of the Commonwealth (drafted October 20, 1659); Proposalls of Certaine Expedients for the Preventing of a Civill War (composed November 1659); The Readie and Easie Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth (published February 1660); Tbe Present Means and Brief Delineation of a Free Commonwealth (February-March 1660); Readie and Easie Way, 2nd edition (April 1660); BriefNotes upon a Late Sermon (April 1660). The dates are taken from volume 7 of the Yale prose. See also Martin Dzelzainis, "Milton and the Protectorate in 1658," in Milton and Republicanism, 182-3. 92. See Evert Mordecai Clark's edition of Tbe Ready and Easy Way (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1915),21. 93. In addition to The Readie and Easie Way, Milton puts forward this proposal in A Letter to a Friend (VII.329), Proposalls (VII.337-8), and Tbe Present Means (VII.394). 94. Robert W. Ayers, "Preface," in BriefNotes Upon a Late Sermon (VII.464). 95. The "great Lawyer" is Sir Edward Coke, and the quote is from Tbe Fourth Part ofthe Institutes ofthe Laws of England (1644),36 (Ayers' n. 67, VII.464). On Coke and the Ancient Constitution, see Richard Helgerson, Forms ofNationhood: Tbe Elizabethan Writing of England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992),65-104, and Herman, " 'Bastard Children ofTyranny,'" 977-84. 96. George Puttenham, Tbe Arte of English Poesie (facsimile reproduction; Kent: Kent State University Press, 1988), 195, sig. N2r. 97. Elizabeth McCutcheon, "Denying the Contrary: More's Use of Litotes in the Utopia," in Essential Articles for the Study ofTbomas More, ed. R.S. Sylvester and G.P. Marc'hadour (Hamden: Archon Books, 1977),265. 98. VII.462, n. 235.

4 "NEW LAws, NEW COUNSELS": THE PROBLEM OF POUTIes IN PARADISE LoST 1. For a similar view of recent criticism, see Michael Bryson, " 'His Tyranny Who Reigns': The Biblical Roots of Divine Kingship and Milton's rejection of 'Heaven's King' in Prose and Poetry," in Tbe Tyranny ofHeaven, 42-76. 2. Samuel Tayler Coleridge, "Lecture X," in Milton Criticism: Selections from Four Centuries, ed. James Thorpe (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1951),97. 3. Norbrook, Writing the English Republic, 433. Unfortunately, Norbrook does not expand upon why this view would achieve such popularity during this period. 4. See, e.g., Hill, Milton and the English Revolution; Davies, Images of Kingship; Bennett, Reviving Liberty; Radzinowicz, «Paradise Lost,)) The Politics of Discourse; Worden, "Tyranny of Heaven," Machiavelli and Republicanism; 204 NOTES

David Quint, Epic and Empire: Politics and Generic Form from Virgil to Milton (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 268-324; Fallon, Divided Empire; Rogers, Tbe Matter of Revolution, 103-43; Norbrook, Writing the English Republic, 433-95; Loewenstein, Representing Revolution, 202-41. 5. Leland Ryken, The Apocalyptic Vision in «Paradise Lost» (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1970), 17-18. 6. The phrase is from Stanley Fish, Text, 343. See also my introduction, pp. 6-8. 7. Ryken, The Apocalyptic Vision, 18. 8. Kuhn, Scientific Revolutions, 5. 9. Radzinowicz, «Paradise Lost,» The Politics of Discourse, 226. 10. Loewenstein, Representing Revolution, 206; Worden, "Tyranny of Heaven," Machiavelli and Republicanism, 243. 11. Worden, "Tyranny ofHeaven," Machiavelli and Republicanism, 239. 12. Norbrook, Writing the English Republic, 480. 13. Lewalski, The Lift ofJohn Milton, 466. Radzinowicz, similarly, states that "God's heavenly enthronement offers no model for a human state" (209). Fallon also proposes that Milton intends the parallels between the Heavenly and earthly courts to illustrate how only God could have such a court, and therefore, earthly monarchs should not even try: "in showing how God mles, he drew a picture of government truly sublime and warned temporal mlers not to reach for it" (DividedEmpire, 36). Roger Lejosne makes a similar argument: "Ifthe sole truly legitimate king was 'the son of God,' then whatever Salmasius and the other roy­ alists said of earthly kings was true of him, but him only ... In other words, Salmasius was right and Milton wrong in Heaven, but only in Heaven" ("Milton, Satan, Salmasius and Abdiel," in Milton and Republicanism, 117). See also Bennett, Reviving Liberty, 28. 14. Worden, "Tyranny of Heaven," Machiavelli and Republicanism, 243. JefITey Shoulson also notes the tendency in much Milton criticism to "seek to diminish the transgressive nature ofMilton's images ofkingship" (Milton and the Rabbis, 98). 15. On the controversy surrounding De Doctrina's authorship, see p. 194 n. 30. 16. Worden, "Tyranny of Heaven," Machiavelli and Republicanism, 235-7; Norbrook, Writing the English Republic, 478. 17. Norbrook, Writing the English Republic, 45. Sharon Achinstein also notes in answer to the question, "Who first seduc'd them to that foul revolt?" (1.33) that the Epic Narrator "reels off a political narrative" (Revolutionary Reader, 183). 18. I will cite two examples-one from the beginning and the other from the ending of Milton's career as a pamphleteer. In Of Reformation, Milton writes, "Now if conformity of Church's Discipline to the Civill be so desir'd, there can be noth­ ing more parallel, more uniform, then when under the Soveraigne Prince Christs Vicegerent using the Scepter of David ... [the best ministers] are consecrated to that holy and equall Aristocracy" (1.600), and in Tbe Readie and Easie Way, he claims that monarchy itself is illegitimate because Christ did not leave "the least shaddow of a command for any such vicegerency from him in the State ... but hath expressly declar'd, that any such regal dominion is from the gentiles, not from him, and hath strictly charg'd us, not to imitate them therein" (Vl1.429). 19. Worden, "Tyranny ofHeaven," Machiavelli and Republicanism, 242. 20. Richard McCoy also notes that in Paradise Lost, politics "are neither renounced nor transcended but remain indefinitely unsettled" (Alterations of State, 112). NOTES 205

21. See Skinner, "Politics of Slavery," 1-22 and Roger Lejosne, "Milton, Satan, Salmasius, and Abdiel," in Milton and Republicanism, 107-09. In Tbe Tyranny ofHeaven, Michael Bryson gives a short but trenchant analysis of Milton's using Satan as a "mouthpiece for Protestant theories of rebellion that spell out the 'proper' relation ofthe subject to a king" (101-11). 22. Worden, "Tyranny ofHeaven," Machiavelli and Republicanism, 326. 23. Milton added this passage to the second edition of The Readie and Easie Way, and the almost identical phrasing in Paradise Lost suggests that the echo is deliberate. 24. In another important parallel, Beelzebub's warning that God will not forgive ("for what peace will be giv'n / To us enslav'd, but custody severe, / and Stripes, and arbitrary punishment / Inflicted?" [2.332-5]) echo es Milton's warning in Tbe Readie and Easie Way that if kings return, "it cannot but prove pernicious. For kings to com never forgetting thir former ejection, will be sure to fortifie and arm themselves sufficently for the future against all such attempts hereafter from the people: who shall be then so narrowly watchd and kept so low, that thought they would never so fain and at the same rate of thir blood and treasure, they never shall be able to regain what they now have purchasd and may enjoy, or to free themselves from any yoke impos'd upon them" (VII.449). 25. See Skinner, "Politics of Slavery," passim. 26. Norbrook, Writing the English Republic, 452. 27. According to Robert Fallon, there are significant parallels between "the regime in Hell and the governments ofthe English Republic." The political structure of Hell bringing "to mind the traditional structure of Parliament, a larger, elective House of Commons and a smaller, hereditary House of Lords." Even further, the fact that " 'the great consult' exercises the authority of an executive body" makes it resemble "the Protectorate Council of State" (Divided Empire, 63). 28. See also Constance Jordan, Shakespeare)s Monarchies, 183-6. 29. Proceeding in Parliament 1610, 192. See also Jordan, Shakespeare)s Monarchies, 84-5). 30. Proceedings in Parliament 1610,328. 31. Commons Debates 1628, ed. Robert C. Johnson and Maija Jansson Cole (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), vol. 2, 66. 32. I have followed Skinner's emendation of "snake" to "slave" ("Politics of Slavery," 4, 19 n. 24). 33. Commons Debates 1628, vol. 3,269. 34. Common Debates 1628, vol. 3,269. 35. Proceedings in Parliament 1610, 190. 36. Commons Debates 1628, vol. 2, 72. 37. In Divine Right and Democracy, 284. 38. Commons Debates 1628,70. 39. Common Debates 1628,74. 40. In Divine Right and Democracy, 168. 41. In Divine Right and Democracy, 172. 42. Davies, Images ofKingship, 103; Tanner, Anxiety in Eden, 139. See also BuWer, "Kingly States," 62. 43. Loewenstein, Representing Revolution, 211, 213. 44. Achinstein, Revolutionary Reader, 203. 45. See chapter 1, pp. 38-42. 206 NOTES

46. William M. Porter, Reading the Classics, 153. Cf. Bennett, Reviving Liberty 54, who reads this passage without taking into account the contrary resonances. 47. Tbe Case ofShipmoney (London, 1640), sig. B. 48. Peter notes how "odd" it is that Moloch "should make no reply to Belial's taunting criticism of his proposals," A Critique of «Paradise Lost" (New York: Columbia University Press, 1960),41. 49. Fallon, Divided Empire, 67-8. Norbrook asserts "the council has been rigged" (453). Loewenstein draws attentions to what he calls Satan's "secretive collusion with Beelzebub" (Representing Revolution, 222), and in his chapter in the Blackwell Companion to Milton, Loewenstein seems to suggest that the source of Beelzebub's speech is so obvious that it scarcely requires comment: "Beelzabub's malicious proposal to destroy or conquer earth and its 'puny inhabitants' origi­ nates of course with Satan" (352). For other examples, see Davies, Images of Kingship, 61; Bennett, Reviving Liberty, 42; Lewalski, Lift of Milton, 469; Corns, Regaining «Paradise Lost,» 135-6; and Achinstein, Revolutionary Reader, 203. In his gloss on this passage, Flannagan approvingly quotes David Daiches's comment that "Beelzebub is put up to propound as though it were his own the scheme already determined on by his master" (Riverside Milton, 391 n. 83). 50. See Waldock, «Paradise Lost,» 80. 51. In the next chapter, we will deal more fully with the problem of the unreliable narrators in Paradise Lost. 52. Richard Strier also notes that the Muse's commentary "makes no sense whatever in the narrative context. Apart from the paradoxes of felix culpa, wouldn't it be better for the cosmos if the fallen angels had adopted a policy of 'ease' and 'sloth,' and been 'ignoble'?" ("Milton's Fetters," 177). 53. For example, Fallon quotes only the first part of this passage, omitting the rhetorical question: "Beelzebub's 'devlish Counsel, first devis'd / By Satan' (2:379-80), is a model of compromise, satistying the advocates of all parties to the debate" (69). 54. Irene Samuel, "The Dialogue in Heaven: A Reconsideration of Paradise Lost, III.I-417," PMLA 72.4 (1957), 604. 55. See chapter 3, pp. 80-1. 56. Puttenham, English Poesie, 195, sig. N2r. 57. See McCoy, Alterations of State, 109-10. 58. Fallon, Divided Empire, 26-7. 59. Worden, "Tyranny ofHeaven," Machiavelli and Republicanism, 238. 60. Jeffrey Shoulson, Milton and the Rabbis, 98, 99. 61. Worden, "Tyranny ofHeaven," Machiavelli and Republicanism, 239. 62. See Buhler, "Kingly States," 50. 63. Waldock calls Gabriel's charge a "high-handed piece of unsupported calumny" (81), whereas Empson finds this quote "quite enough to prove that God had already produced a very unattractive Heaven before Satan fell" (Milton's God, 111). Michael Bryson also notes that the key to this passage is that the "unfallen angels do not disagree" with Satan's characterization ofHeaven (The Tyranny of Heaven, 45; emphasis in the original). Fallon uses this passage to prove the "strict hierarchy" among the angels, but does not take into account the resonances of Gabriel's diction (Divided Empire, 28). 64. In identitying the object of address as Beelzebub, I am following Flannagan's gloss (Riverside Milton, 497 n. 198). Milton does not explicitly say to whom Satan talks. NOTES 207

65. Worden, "Tyranny ofHeaven," Machiavelli and Republicanism, 236. 66. It is interesting that Milton would capitalize "Power" in this context, but not "right." 67. "And it is worth noting that nothing is harder to manage, more risky in the undertaking, or more doubtful of success than to set up as the introducer of a new order" (Machiavelli, The Prince, trans. Robert M. Adams [New York: Norton, 1992], 17). 68. Fortescue, Laws ofEngland, 26. 69. On Coke and immemorality, see Pocock, The Ancient Constitution, 30-55, and also Helgerson, Forms of Nationhood, 81. 70. Quoted in Burgess, Ancient Constitution, 21. 71. Sir Henry Spelman, "Of the Union," in Tbe Jacobean Union: Six Tracts of 1604, ed. Bruce R. Galloway and Brian P. Levack (Edinburgh: Scottish Historical Society, 1985), 181. 72. Quoted in Burgess, Ancient Constitution, 23. 73. "Spelman, A BreifConsideracion ofthe Unyon," in The Jacobean Union, 146. 74. On "new counsels" generally and how they contributed to the breakdown lead­ ing to the Civil War, see Burgess, Ancient Constitution, 179-211. 75. Quoted in Samuel. R. Gardiner, History ofEngland from the Accession ofJames I to the Outbreak ofthe Civil War (London: Longmans, Green, 1896), vol. 6, UO. 76. Quoted in Kevin Sharpe, Tbe Personal Rule of Charles I (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), 58. Sharpe's thesis, however, is that Charles effected no such fundamental break with the past. Whether he actually did or did not is not ger­ mane. Clearly, some ofCharles's subjects thought so, and Milton was among them. 77. Quoted in Richard Cust, "Charles I, the Privy Council, and the Forced Loan," Journal ofBritish Studies 24.2 (1985), 212. 78. Commons Debates 1628, vol. 3,493. 79. Commons Debates 1628, vol. 2, 69-70. 80. Peter Clark, English Provincial Society, 381; quoted in Sharpe, 632. 81. On Twysden, see chapter 3, pp. 68-70. 82. Kenneth Fincham, "The Judges Decision on Ship Money in February 1637: The Reaction ofKent," Bulletin ofthe Institute ofHistoricalResearch 17 (1984),235. 83. Of course, absolutist thinkers derived the opposite condusion, i.e., that the king is above the law (or whatever pleases the king is the law), and the king's subjects had to obey the monarch in all cases. 84. For the printing and translation history of this text, see "Bibliography of Editions," in St. German's «Doctor and Student," ed. T.F.T. Plucknett and J.L. Barton (London: Selden Society, 1974), lxvix-lxxvi. A redaction of this text, An Exact Abridgement of that Excellent Treatise Called Doctor and Student, first appeared in 1630 and was reprinted in 1658 (since this text is the dosest to Milton, I have chosen to cite from it). Plucknett and Barton concentrate on the sixteenth century, and the entries for Doctor and Student in Donald Wing's Short-Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England ... 1641-1700, suggest that the 1658 edition of the exact Abridgment seems to have sparked a small revival of interest in St. German, as full editions of Doctor and Student appeared in 1660, 1668, and 1673. 85. An Exact Abridgement, sig. B2. 86. Sig. B3, B4. 87. Sig. B2v. See Doctor and Student, 11. 88. Doctorand Student, 327. This section was added to the 1531 publication ofthe second dialogue. 208 NOTES

89. Quoted in Sommerville, Politics and Ideology, 105. 90. Norbrook, Writing the English Republic, 445. 91. See Roger Lejosne, "Milton, Satan, Salmasius and Abdiel," Milton and Republicanism, 107-09. 92. Norbrook, Writing the English Republic, 464. 93. See chapter 7, pp. 157-60, for the eventual result in Paradise Regained of Michael's dictum. 94. Norbrook, Writing the English Republic, 467.

5 INCERTITUDE,AuTHORITY,AND MILTON'S GOD 1. Peter, Critique of «Paradise Lost," 9 . 2. "Milton has so far violated the popular creed (if this shall be judged to be a vio­ lation) as to have alleged no superiority of moral virtue to his god over his devil" Percy Bysshe Shelley (A Defence of Poetry, in Milton Criticism: Selections from Four Centuries, ed. James Thorpe [New York: Rinehart, 1950]), 358. 3. Empson, Milton's God, 146. Toward the end, Empson is even harsher, asserting that "no god had ever known before how to be so eerily and profoundly wicked," and describing Heaven as "settling down to hold kind God's hand for all eternity and watch old mother being ripped up so much more satisfYingly than [one] could ever have imagined" (248,250). 4. Kuhn, Scientiftc Revolutions, 24. 5. Fish, Surprised By Sin (2nd ed.), 46; Bennett, Reviving Liberty, Uo. 6. Anthony Low, "Milton's God: Authority in Paradise Lost," Milton Studies 4 (1972),20. 7. Galbraith Crump, "Materials," in Approaches to Teaching Milton's «Paradise Lost" (New York: MLA, 1986), 31. 8. Kerrigan, Tbe Sacred Complex, ix. 9. To give but two recent examples, see Amy Boesky, "Milton's Heaven and the Model of the English Utopia," SEL 36 (1996), 93 and Barbara Riebling, "Milton on Machiavelli: Representations of the State in Paradise Lost," Renaissance Quarterly 49 (1996), 584. The reviews of Milton's God, although generally appreciative of the book's style, nonetheless refuse to admit the valid­ ity of Empson's main point. David Daiches calls it "a serious and sparkling book," but one that is "far-fetched"; John Broadbent concludes that "to sketch a critique of Christianity in terms of Paradise Lost dulls both"; and John Steadman sums up the book's initial critical reception and predicts its future when he declares Milton's God "an interesting and entertaining failure" (all quotes are from Frank Day, Sir William Empson: An Annotated Bibliography [NewYork: Garland, 1984], 165, 167). Even though the Milton Society named Empson an "Honored Scholar" in 1995, Richard Strier testified to the continuing strength of the hostility toward him by titling his paper honoring Empson "Crowning the Enemy." See p. 184 n. 96. The exception to this rule is Christopher Ricks, who praises Empson throughout Milton)s Grand Style (e.g., he calls Empson's "Milton and Bentley" "exciting and provocative"), 9. 10. Kuhn, Scientiftc Revolutions, 35. U. On Waldock and Peter, see Introduction, p. 15 and p. 181 n. 60. According to Danielson, while the problem of God "may be literary and not ultimately doc­ trinal, one cannot readily justity Milton for placing God in what appears such a doctrinally awkward situation" ("The Fall and Milton's Theodicy," 152). Strier NOTES 209

writes that the attempt at theodicy "produces most of the aesthetic and religious failures of the poem" ("Milton's Fetters," 169), and C.Q Drummond calls the poem "disastrously flawed" ("An Anti-Miltonist Reprise," 33). 12. Lewis, Preface to «Paradise Lost," 130. Lewis, however, also blames Milton's faulty writing for the misunderstanding: "The theological flaws (however we assess them) would not be poetically disastrous if only Milton had shown more poetical prudence. A God, theologically speaking, much worse than Milton's, would escape criticism if only He had been made sufficiently awful, mysterious, and vague" (130). 13. Fish, Surprised by Sin, 83. 14. Rumrich, Milton Unbound, 4. See Fish's extensive response to Rumrich in the preface to the second edition of Surprised by Sin (ix-lxix). 15. Fish, Surprised by Sin, 81. 16. Jeffrey Shoulson, e.g., offers further support for Fish's posltlon: "By repre­ senting the Father as initially unreasonable, the poet gives hirnself room to explore the full ethical and interpretive implications of his literary theodicy. In both midrash and Paradise Lost unflattering depictions of God as earthly tyrant are exploited for their value in shifting the responsibility of interpretation (and by extension, human agency) to the reader" (Milton and the Rabbis, 115-16). 17. See Dennis Danielson, "Milton's Theodicy," Cambridge Companion, 152; Danielson, Milton)s Good God: A Study in Literary Theodicy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982); Peter F. Fisher, "Milton's Theodicy," Journal of the History of Ideas 17.1 (1956), 28-53; Low, "Milton's God" Samuel, "The Dialogue in Heaven," 601-11; Shoulson, Milton and the Rabbis; Margaret Stocker, "God in Theory: Milton, Literature and Theodicy," Literature & Theology 1.1 (1987),70-88; and Silver, Imperfect Sense. 18. Danielson, Milton)s Good God, 229. Danielson also ties the aesthetic success of Paradise Lost to the success of its theodicy: "If Milton presents a God who is wicked, or untruthful, or manipulative, or feeble, or unwise, then his epic poem must suffer accordingly. But if that poems recognizes the case that is brought against the Christian God and counters it (even if not conclusively) with a high degree of philosophical and literary credibility, then the poem and the poet must be praised accordingly" (ix). Danielson does not explain why a poem praising God must be better than a poem that renders God problematic. 19. Stocker, "God in Theory," 71. 20. Low, "Milton's God," 23,25. 21. Stephen M. Fallon, e.g., notes that in God's speech at the start of Book 3, "Calvinist and Arminian perspectives coexist no more peacefully here than they did at the Synod of Dort," and that the tensions between the two are "unre­ solvable" (" 'Elect Above the Rest': Theology as Self-Representation in Milton," Milton and Heresy, ed. Stephen B. Dobranski and John P. Rumrich [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998]),96. 22. Shoulson, Milton and the Rabbis, 40. 23. Silver, Imperfect Sense, 5. Silver also differs from Shoulson in her sense that Paradise Lost is less bound to Milton's specific historical situation, that the poem is more "universal" than topical (see 12-13, 44). On the other hand, Michael Bryson argues that when one seeks to "justity the ways of God to men," the a priori assumption of the verb "to justity" is accusation. To support this con­ tention, Bryson cites Richard Baxter's definition of justification in his Aphorismes 210 NOTES

ofJustiftcation (1649) as "the acquitting ofus from the charge ofbreaking the Law" (Tbe Tyranny ofHeaven, 120). 24. Shoulson, Milton and Rabbis, 99. 25. Silver, lmperftct Sense, 74. 26. Bryson, The Tyranny ofHeaven, 115. 27. J. Allan Mitchell, "Reading God Reading 'Man': Hereditary Sin and the Narrativization of Deity in Paradise Lost, Book 3," Milton Quarterly 35.2 (2001),73. 28. Drummond, "An Anti-Miltonist Reprise: IH. Satan; or, God Damns His Angels," Tbe Compass4 (1978), 59. 29. Kuhn, Scientiftc Revolutions, 5. 30. Rnmrich, Milton Unbound, xi-xii. 31. To my knowledge, the only critic aside from Empson to adopt such a position is John Rumrich: "Like Empson, however, I do believe that the struggle of Milton's theodicy is genuine and that the poet presumes no certainty as to cos­ mic justice" (Milton Unbound, xii). 32. HilI, English Revolution, 351. 33. Muggleton's book, thus, participates in the revival of republicanism in the late seventeenth century. See Blair Worden, "English Republicanism," in Tbe Cambridge History ofPolitical Thought 1450-1700, ed. J.H. Burns with the assis­ tance of Mark Goldie (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 458-61. 34. Allusions to Job show up fairly frequently in the popular drama. See, e.g., Christopher Marlowe's Tbe Jew of Malta, 1.2.181 ff. (in English Renaissance Drama, ed. David Bevington et al. [New York: Norton, 2002]), and the anony­ mous play, Selimus, Emperor ofthe Turks, scene 17,66-76 (Tbree Turk Plays, ed. Daniel J. Vitkus [New York: Columbia University Press, 2000]). It is probably not accidental that in both plays, the allusions to Job are put in the mouths of characters who are "Other," and, therefore, safely distanced from the audience and from conventional morality. 35. Sermons ofMaster John Calvin, upon the Booke ofJob. Translated out of French by Arthur Golding (London, 1574; rpt. 1580 and 1584); Theodore de Beze (Theodore Beza), Jobus, Theodori Bezae partim commentarijs partim paraphrasi illustratus (London, 1589), translated that same year as lob expounded by Tbeodore Beza, partly in manner of a commentary, partly in manner of a para­ phrase (London, 1589). 36. To be sure, the literature on the Psalms (308 citations for this period) still dwarfs the literature on Job, but one finds constant interest in the Psalms, whereas the interest in Job is more a product of a specific period. 37. For example, An Exposition with Practicall Observations upon the Tbree First Chapters ofthe Book ofJob, first published by G. Miller for Henry Overton, Luke Fawn, and John Rotherwell in 1643, was republished seven times (1644, 1647, 1651,1664,1669 [twice], and 1676). The first three editions are by the original publishers and printers. The 1651 edition is printed for Luke Fawne, H. Cripps, and L. Lloyd, 1664 by S. Simmons. The first 1669 edition is by S. Simmons and the second by N. Simmons. As the various volumes overlapped, at any time between 1643 and the publication of Paradise Lost, there were at least two new editions of Caryl's commentaries available through various printers and book­ sellers. Judging from the list of editions in Wing, the books must have seemed rather ubiquitous. For some reason, only the book on chapters 35-7, published in 1664, was not reprinted. NOTES 211

38. On the economics of the book trade, see Peter Blayney, "The Publication of Playbooks," in A New History of Early English Drama, ed. John D. Cox and David S. Kastan (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), 389,410-13. 39. See Jean-Frans:ois Senault, A Paraphrase upon Job (London, 1648), and Arthur Brett, Patienta Victrix, or, The book ofJob (London, 1661). 40. For example, Arthur Golding's epistle to the reader introdudng his translation of Calvin's lectures on Job: "All men can skill to complain with Job, that this short life of ours is fraught with many miseries, afflictions, and adversities, and yet it experience sheweth it too bee so .... Hereby it is manifest that whereas every of us hath the name of patience in his mouth, fewe knowe what right patience is, and in maner none at all do put it in use .... Therefore unto all suche as love the true Nobilities ... it shalbe very good too consider, not onely the generall commendation which the holy Ghoste giveth unto Job ... but also the particular protestations which Job hym selfe maketh ... (Sermons ofMaister John Calvin, vpon the booke of lob [London, 1580], sig. Al-3). Frands Quarles calls Job "The ruefull Argument of all Tragick bookes" (sig. Job Militant, with Meditations Divine and Moral [London, 1624], B3v). 41. Senault, "The Translator to the Reader," in A Paraphrase Upon Job, sig. A4-5v, ASr. 42. Dictionary of National Biography, vol. 3, 1162-3. 43. "To the Christian Reader," Practical Observations (London, 1643), sig. A2. 44. An Exposition with Practical Observations Continued Upon the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Chapters ofthe Book ofJob (London, 1656), sig. A. Caryl wrote this epistle in 1645. 45. The printer's choice of font emphasizes the contrast: "the sword" and "so much" are emphasized, as are "The pen" and "so little." 46. An Exposition with Practicall Observations Continued upon the Tbirtieth and Tbirty First Chapters ofthe Booke ofJob (London, 1659). 47. In the prefuce, Brett writes "I need not ... dispute, Whether Job was an Absolute Prince or no, since, whatsoever quality he was of whom Providence in those dayes singled out to be successively the Subject of the extremest misfortune and greatest prosperity, we are sure that part hath in this Age been acted by a Mighty Monarch; against whom there have risen up such as by their actions surely meant to prove the Sabean plunderers unskilful in their own art ... " (sig. A3r-v). 48. In a remarkable parallel to the paradigm ofMiltonic certainty, much Job critidsm has preferred to omit or explain away his more disturbing aspects: "both traditional and some modern readings Job have either ignored this sceptidsm altogether, or, after acknowledging some kind of sceptical element, have then drawn back from the juli implications of seeing Job as scepticalliterature" (Katherine J. Deli, Tbe Book ofJob as Sceptical Literature [Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1991],2). 49. An early biographer, Jonathan Richardson, Sr., reported that Milton remained "so dejected that he would lie awake whole nights" (quoted in William Riley Parker, Milton: A Biography, 2nd ed. [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996]), vol. 1, 577. Parker wonders "how much credence to give Richardson's assertion" (577), at least partly because, as he writes in his notes, the information is third-hand: "Richardson ... goes on to say that heard this from Dr. Tancred Robinson (1658?-1748), who had it 'from a relation of Milton's, Mr. Walker of the Temple'" (vol. 2, 1088). But, at the same time, Parker also thinks that "it is cer­ tain that [Milton] had tried to put politics out of his mind, so that he could resurne the composition ofhis epic" (vol. 1,577). Dejection over the Restoration, thus, conflicts with Parker's belief in Milton as a transcendent, apolitical poet. 212 NOTES

50. Kerrigan, Tbe Sacred Complex, 17l. 5l. The presence 00ob, on the other hand, in Samson Agonistes has been the subject of much more scrutiny. Ann W. Astell, however, does address the presence oOob in Paradise Lost, but she concentrates on the presence of Job in "the virtuous figure of Adam, who falls, despairs, repents and finally puts his visionary faith, as Job does, in Christ ... This version ofthe Job story emphasizes the morallesson to be derived from it and essentially combines the unfallen Job or Christological allegory with the fallen Job of literal despair to create an imitable narrative of personal redemption" (Job, Boethius, and Epic Truth [lthaca: Cornell University Press, 1994]), 190. 52. Forsyth, Tbe Satanic Epic, 323. 53. On Milton's refusal to accept an intellectually unintelligible Christianity, see Strier, "Milton's Fetters," 169-74, and Stephen M. Fallon, " 'Elect Above the rest': Theology as Self-Representation in Milton," in Milton and Heresy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998),93. 54. John Shawcross, The Uncertain World of «Samson Agonistes» (Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK: D.S. Brewer, 2001), ix. The full quote is as follows: Samson Agonistes "has much of uncertainty about it, which will not be and need not be removed, but ... it depicts yet once more Milton's consistency ofbelief" (ix). As perhaps a result of the shifts within academic criticism generally and Milton stud­ ies in particular, Shawcross grants that Samson Agonistes has problematic aspects that cannot be ignored, but like so many Miltonists, he then contains these subversions by imposing exactly the certainty that I seek to remove. 55. Fallon, "Elect Above the Rest," 94. 56. Fallon, "Elect Above the Rest," 102. 57. Fallon does not address the problem of dating De Doctrina, although his argu­ ments assumes that Milton finished his theological treatise after Paradise Lost. 58. Norbrook, Writing the English Republic, 479. 59. Bentley, with his ever-keen ear for detecting Miltonic problems, resolves the issue by assuming that the serpent could not speak, and, therefore, could not defend itself: "I believe the Author gave it MUTE, and for that reason unable to plead for Himself and lay the Fault upon Satan" (Milton's Paradise Lost, sig. SfV-r). 60. For example, the early English reformer William Tyndale, urged readers to expe­ rience the Bible for themselves and come to their own conclusions (within cer­ tain limits, of course). Thus, in one of his prefaces, he urges the reader to: "Cleave unto the text and playne storye and endeavaure thi self to serch out the meaning of all that is described therein and the true sense of all manner of speakyngyes of the scripture, of proverbs, similitudes, and borrowed speech, whereof I entreated in the end of the obedience, and beware of sotle allegoryes. And note everything ernestly as things partayning unto thine own herte and soule" (quoted in Evelyn Tribble, "The Open Text: A Protestant Poetics of Reading and Teaching Book 1," in Approaches to Teaching Spenser's Faerie Qßeene, ed. David L. Miller and Alexander Dunlop [New York: MLA, 1994], 60). Similarly, in his preface to the Pentateuch, Tyndale justifies his translation of the Gospels into English on the grounds that everyone should read the text for him­ self or herself: "Which thing only moved me translate the new Testament. Because I had perceived by experience, how that it was impossible to establish the lay-people in any truth, except the scripture were plainly laid before their eyes in their mother-tongue, that they might see the process, order and meaning of NOTES 213

the text" ("Preface to the Five Books of Moses," in Doctrinal Treatises and Introduetions to Different Portions of the Holy Seriptures, ed. Henry Walter [Cambridge: The Parker Society, 1848; rpt. 1968]),394. 61. Bouchard, A Struetural Reading, 109-10; Kerrigan, Tbe Prophetie Milton (Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 1974), 139-40; Sauer, Barbarous Dissonanee, 82-4; Wittreich, "Inspir'd with Contradiction," Literary Milton, 143,242 n. 13. Even so, it is still conventional to conflate the voices of the Muse and the poet. For example, David Loewenstein writes that "The poet of Paradise Lostunderscores that the malleable Satan can feign 'so weil' (3.639)" (Representing Revolution, 209). In fact, it is the Muse who is speaking at this point. Strier does the same: "Out of the poet's loathing for the event and the malicious agent of it ('foul revolt ... infernal serpent'), a larger story, with more specific terms of description, begins to emerge: 'hee it was ... '" ("Milton's Fetters," 174). Again, the Muse speaks these words. 62. Wittreich, e.g., analyzes the many places where Raphael's and Adam's narratives are at odds ("Inspir'd with Contradiction," Literary Milton, 143). See also Bryson, The Tyranny ofHeaven, 128. 63. See chapter 4, pp. 94-96. 64. Waldock, «Paradise Lost,» 78. 65. Waldock, «Paradise Lost,)) 79; Peter, Critique of «Paradise Lost,)) 8; Drummond, "An Anti-Miltonist Reprise: H," 56-7; Strier, "Milton's Fetters," 177. 66. Strier, "Milton's Fetters," 176. 67. Matei Calinescu, Rereading(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), 17. See also the essays in Seeond Tboughts: A Foeus on Rereading, ed. David Galef (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1998). Catherine Gimelli Martin also notes that Paradise Lost demands the constant forward and "back scanning that has caused Walter Ong to identifY it as the first fully 'literate' epic" (Tbe Ruins ofAllegory, 27). 68. There are three exceptions to this unquestioning acceptance of God's version of events. J. Allen Mitchell explores God's "suppression of significant narrative details" (76), but we come to different conclusions about the reasons. John Peter also notes that God speaks "half-truths" and that "the whole tone of the speech is wrong," but as always, he ascribes this pattern to the artistic error of "an imperfectly anthropomorphic presentation" (Critique of«Paradise Lost,)) 11,18). Third, Michael Bryson posits that in the dialogue between God and the Son in Book 3, "the Father, having been confronted by the Son, claims that the Son was merely speaking aloud what he, the Father, had in mind the whole time," even though this is manifestly not the case. "Tbe father has been eaught out," Bryson continues, "and he has had neither the courage nor the honesty to admit it. The Father, in short, lies" (125; emphasis in the original). 69. Millicent Bell also argues that for Milton, the Fall "was a complex affair not to be compassed by any one-factor explanation" ("The Fallacy of the Fall," PMLA [1953], 869). 70. Waldock, «Paradise Lost,)) 101. 71. The OED notes that this definition is now obsolete, but one finds the word used in this way from Chaucer through to the nineteenth century. 72. The three angels also do not inspire much confidence. When they catch up with Satan, Gabriel accuses him ofbeing "Imploi'd it seems to violate sleep" (4.884). 73. Shoulson, Milton and the Rabbis, 124. 74. Mitchell, "Reading God Reading 'Man'," 76. 214 NOTES

6 "THE MORE TO DRAW HIS LoVE": PARADISE LoST AND THE CRITIQUE OF MISOGYNY 1. Karen Edwards divides these camps into "prosecutorial" and "apologetic" critics ("Resisting Representation: All about Milton's Eve," Exemplaria 9.1 [1997], 231-9). She also notes that the two camps are not evenly matched, that "apolo­ gists outnumber prosecutors in part because, as Nyquist puts it, 'an apologetic tendency is a feature of much North American literature on Milton' " (233 n. 1). 2. Sandra Gilbert, "Patriarchal Poetry and Women Readers: Reflections on Milton's Bogey," PMLA 95.3 (1978), 368-82; Nyquist, "Gendered Subjectivity," Re-membering Milton, 99-127; Froula, "When Eve Reads Milton," 321-47. 3. Barbara K. Lewalski, "Milton and Women-Yet Once More," Milton Studies 6 (1974): 3-20; Joan M. Webber, "The Politics ofPoetry: Feminism and Paradise Lost," Milton Studies 14 (1980), 3-24; McColley, Milton)s Eve. At the end ofher short but trenchant article, Kay Gilliland Stevenson asks, "how rigidly patriarchal is the poet who gives Eve the last word, and that the crucial thematic word 'restore'?" ("Eve's Place in Paradise Lost," Milton Quarterly 22 [1988], 127). 4. McColley, Milton)s Eve, 35. 5. Nyquist, "Gendered Subjectivity," Re-membering Milton, 101. 6. Desma Polydorou, e.g., asserts that Milton "may have been the first seventeenth­ century canonical English writer to advance an arguably egalitarian view of woman" ("Gender and Spiritual Equality in Marriage: A Dialogic Reading of Rachel Speght and John Milton," Milton Quarterly 35.1 [2001],22). 7. Lee Morrissey, "Eve's Otherness and the New Ethical Criticism," New Literary History 32 (2001), 327-45; Elisabeth Liebert, "Rendering 'More Equal': Eve's Changing Discourse in Paradise Lost," Milton Quarterly 37 (2003), 152-65. 8. Edwards, "Resisting Representation," 239. 9. Liebert calls for "a reading that acknowledges Eve as subordinate and privileged simultaneously" (152), and Morrissey uses ethical criticism "to reconci1e the 'pros­ ecutorial' and the 'apologetic' approaches'" (327). Edwards, on the other hand, does not attempt to reconcile the two, but takes a radically new approach to the problem altogether, arguing that representing Eve as "the first or perfeet female human subject ... is an impossibility and that [the poem] enacts its own dilemma, that of trying to represent what cannot be represented ... " (239). See also Kristin A. Pruitt, Gender and the Power ofRelationship: «United as one individual soul» in «Paradise Lost» (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 2003), who, as is so com­ mon with Milton critics, seeks to resolve the contradictions: Milton "envisions a universe based on both reciprocity (a sharing of the abundant gifts of male and female ) and hierarchy" (47). This approach is anticipated by Virginia R Mollenkott, who argues for a "dignified and honest conciliation" between Milton's (supposed) belief in the subordination ofwomen and a man "whose rela­ tionships with women were warm and respectful" ("Milton and Women's Liberation: A Note on Teaching Method," Milton Q;tarterly 7 (1973), 99. 10. "Milton's method does not permit us to isolate a single cause" for the Fall (Bell, "The Fallacy of the Fall," 866). 11. My argument is anticipated in part by Joseph Wittreich, who argues that "Paradise Lost figures majorly in the formation of a feminist consciousness, through its acts of critique and reinterpretation exploring woman's relationship to the divine and quietly subverting patriarchal paradigms," " 'He Ever Was a Dissenter,'" Arenas ofConflict, 34. NOTES 215

12. All references to Edward Phillips, "The Life ofJohn Milton" (1694), will be to the edition included in Flannagan, Tbe Riverside Milton, and cited parenthetically. 13. The usual assumption is that the masculinist bias always wins out. See, e.g., Nyquist, "Gendered Subjectivity," Re-membering Milton, 105. See also Turner, One Flesh, 215-21. Cf. however, McColley, MiltonJs Eve, 30,47. 14. Nyquist, "Gendered Subjectivity," Re-membering Milton, 111-12. 15. McColley, MiltonJs Eve, 30. 16. Milton uses a feminine pronoun for "soul" in only one other passage in his prose: "til the Soul by this means of over-bodying her self" (Of Reformation, 1.522). 17. Cf. James G. Turner, who argues that in this passage, Milton "has in mind a spe­ cial kind of voluptuousness into which the man can escape from the pressures of contemplation and action in the outside world" (One Flesh, 207). 18. On the autobiographical subtext of the Doctrine, see Annabel Patterson, "No Meer Amatorious Novel?," reprinted in Patterson, ed. John Milton (Essex: Longman, 1992), 87-101; and Stephen M. Fallon, "The Spur of Self­ Concernment: Milton in his Divorce Tracts," Milton Studies 38 (2000),220-42. 19. Patterson "No Meer Amatorious Novel?," 92. 20. Cf. John Halkett, who argues that Milton's "meet and happy conversation" does not involve intellectual communication, but on companionship (Milton and the Idea ofMatrimony [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970], 58). 21. In the preface, Milton defines marriage as "the apt and cheerfull conversation of man with woman" (II.235), and in chapter 3, Milton refers to absurdity ofthe canon law taking no note of "the unconversing inability of minde" (II.249) and worries about the possibility of marrying someone "with a minde to all other conversation inaccessible" (II.250). In chapter 4, Milton returns to the positive case when he writes that Paul has in mind the soul's desire to join itself "in con­ jugall fellowship a fit conversing soul" (II.251). 22. It is also possible that God gives Adam what he genuinely wants (his "hearts desire"), a highly sexual woman. 23. See Levao, "Among Unequals," 87-92. 24. Wittrreich, " 'Inspir'd with Contradiction,'" Literary Milton, 141. 25. Cf. Deborah A. Interdonato's assertion that while Eve may feel incomplete and inferior, she suppresses those feelings "prior to her Fall" (" 'Render Me More Equal': Gender Inequality and the Fall in Paradise Lost," Milton Quarterly 29.4 [1995],95). On Eve and the invention ofsubjectivity, see Linda Gregerson, Tbe Reformation of the Subject: Spenser, MiltonJ and the English Protestant Epic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 158-63. 26. Lieb, "'Two of Far Nobler Shape,'" Literary Milton, 117. See also McColley, MiltonJs Eve, 40; Helen Gardner, A Reading of «Paradise Lost» (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965), 81; and Michael Wilding, "'Thir Sex Not Equal Seem'd': Equality in Paradise Lost," in Of Poetry and Politics: New Essays on Milton and His World, ed. P.G. Stanwood (Binghamton: MRTS, 1995), 173. Julia M. Walker, on the other hand, argues "the first two uses [of'seem'd' in this passage] would, to the knowledgeable reader, connote appearance, the third ['thir sex not equal seemJd]-within the context of the poem-reality" (" 'For Each seem'd either': Free Will and Predestination in Paradise," Milton Quarterly 20 [1986], 14). 27. Wilding, "Sex Not Equal," Poetry and Politics, 173. See chapter 3, passim. 28. Also, in the Doctrine, Milton exclaims "Who can be ignorant that woman was created for man, and not man for woman" (11.324). 216 NOTES

29. Cf. Fish, who proposes that Milton never changed his mind or altered his views over time ("Milton hirnself changed very little, except to offer slight variations on a few obsessions that were his from the very beginning," How Milton Works, vii). I suggest that in tracing the differences between the Divorce Tracts and Paradise Lost, we see Milton doing exactly what Fish claims he does not do, i.e., revisit and revise his earlier positions. 30. According to Edward Phillips, Mary Powell's family set the reconciliation in motion partly because they heard that Milton wanted to marry someone else, and partly because of"the declining State ofthe King's Cause" (Riverside Milton, 24). 3l. See Flannagan's headnote on this sonnet, 258-9, for a summary ofthe conflict­ ing views. 32. Even so, Milton's relationship to his daughters seems to have been strained. He did not see to their education, a fact that Phillips notes with disapproval ("It had been happy indeed if the Daughters of such a Person had been made in some measure Inheritixes of their Father's Learning" (28)), forcing them to read out loud to their father in languages they did not understand (28). Yet Milton saw to their financial well-being after his demise, and complained oftheir unkindness toward him. See Phillips, in The Riverside Milton 28, and Lewalski, Life ofJohn Milton, 458-9,537-8. 33. Interestingly, Sir Robert Filmer noticed that Milton's politics also posed a threat to patriarchy (Observations Concerning the Original! of Government, in

poses to Raphael in Book 8" (" 'Heav'n's last best gift': Eve and Wisdom in Paradise Lost," Modern Philology 95.1 [1997],49). See also Lewalski, Rhetoric of Literary Forms, 189, and her earlier essay, "Innocence and Experience in Milton's Eden," New Essays on «Paradise Lost» (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971), 101-08. 45. Kietzman, "Conversation with Eve," 59. 46. For more examples, see earlier n. 16. 47. Gregerson, Reformation ofthe Subject, 172. 48. Wittreich, " 'Inspir'd with Contradiction,' " Literary Milton, 152. 49. As Wittreich sharply puts it, "To turn from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2, from Raphael's voice to Adam's, is to turn from fuct to fiction-to a fiction so self-aggrandizing that Adam loses stature, not Eve" (" 'Inspir'd with Contradiction,' " Literary Milton, 152). Cf. Nyquist's account of these passages in "Gendered Subjectivity," Re-membering Milton, 116-17. 50. Cf. Edwards, "Resisting Representation," 239. 51. See Wittreich, " 'Inspir'd with Contradiction,' " Literary Milton, 154. 52. Theresa M. DiPasquale, "'Heav'n's Last Best Gift': Eve and Wisdom in Paradise Lost," ModernPhilology 95.1 (1997),49. Marilyn R. Farwell also argues for "Milton's emphasis on Eve's rational abilities" ("The Renaissance Idea of Androgyny," Milton Studies 16 [1982], 14). 53. See, e.g., Ronald Levao, "Among Unequals," 91; Kerrigan, Tbe Sacred Complex, 70-1; James W. Earl, "Eve's Narcissism," Milton Quarterly 19 (1985), 13-16; Grossman, "Servile/Sterile/Style," Idea ofWoman, 148-68; Nyquist, "Gendered Subjectivity," 123; and Keitzman, "Conversation with Eve," 69. Furthermore, the negative inferences concerning Eve's preferring her reflection to Adam's presence are qualified by Milton's casting Eve's introduction to Adam as a kind of mini-Fall from a seemingly mutually supportive, reciprocal relationship, one which seems to satisty Eve's own "wanting soul" with "answering looks / Of sympathie and love" (4.463-4), to one defined by harsh subjection ("with that thy gentle hand / Siesd mine" [4.487-8]), and as we noted earlier, Milton almost never uses "seize" positively (chapter 2, p. 54). 54. Metaphysics, trans. W.D. Ross, 982b (in Tbe Basic Works ofAristotle, ed. Richard McKeon [New York: Random House, 1941], 692). 55. DiPasquale, "Heav'n's Last Best Gift," 49. See also Arm Torday Gulden, "Milton Eve and Wisdom: The 'Dinner-Party' Scene in Paradise Lost," Milton Quarterly 32.4 (1998), 138. 56. Diane McColley's treatment ofthis scene in Milton)s Eve, 166-81, remains both the most complete and the best. See also Joan S. Bennett, Reviving Liberty, 94-118, and Keitzman, "Conversation with Eve," 73-5. 57. Keitzman, "Conversation with Eve," 75. See also Farwell, "The Renaissance Idea of Andrgyny," 15-16. 58. McColley also points out that Adam's response contradicts his analysis of Eve's dream (171). 59. Empson, Milton)s God, 76. At the same time, just as Satan's use ofrepublicanism suggests Milton's awareness of republicanism's limitations, of how easily that rhetoric can be adapted to malign purposes, so does Eve's reliance on Areopagitica suggest a potential rethinking of that text's thesis, an awareness of what might really be at stake when virtue tests itself against evil. 60. Alastair Fowler exaggerates when he notes in his gloss on these lines that Milton "is unusually fuvourable to Eve" (471). To be sure, there are many examples of 218 NOTES

commentators refusing to grant Eve any critical intelligence at all. According to Aquinas, after the snake spoke to Eve, "her mind was puffed up, the result being that she believed the demon to have spoken truly." Augustine accuses Eve ofhav­ ing "a certain lover of her own power and a certain proud self-presumption" (both are quoted in J.M. Evans, «Paradise Lost" and the Genesis Tradition [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968]),274. Closer to Milton's time, Andrew Willet, in his early-seventeenth-century commentary on Genesis, asserted that Eve "was carried away with the voice and goodly promises delivered from the serpent, not being so much intent from whom they came ...." (Hexepla in Genesis, Tbat is, A Sixfold Commentary Upon Genesis [London, 1608], sig. D6r). John White, in his Commentary Upon the First Three Chapters ofthe First Book ofMoses Called Genesis (1652) also writes that "the woman took no time for advice," and therefore, we should give the matter the "due consideration" Eve did not display (sig. Dd2). Yet, counter-traditions also thrived. Several commentators sought to explain Eve's sin on the ground that she was legitimately deceived. Gervase Babington, e.g., turning to the question, "How was it that the woman was not afrayde when the Serpent came to her," dismisses the interpretation "the woman in simplici­ ties thought such other creatures spake aswe11 has hee": "Better me thinke answere they, that say, because as yet there was no enmities set betwixt the woman and him [the Serpent" (Certaine Plaine, Briefe, and Comfortable Notes upon Every Chapter of Genesis [London, 1592], sig. C8r-v). Arthur Jackson thinks that the entire question is silly, because Eve could not be expected to think otherwise: "Why the woman was not astonished to heare a dumb creature speak, is but a curious and causeless question: there is nothing said here to the contrary but that she might at first be afraid, and yet afterwards be imboldned to talk with him" (A Help for the Understanding ofthe Holy Scripture [Cambridge, 1643], sig. B6v). Alexander Ross, on the other hand, notes that Eve, unlike Adam, was deceived, but in answer to the question of whose sin was greater, he refuses to distinguish, thereby implicicly refuting the misogyny evinced by Augustine, Aquinas, and Willet: "If we consider both their persons, then Adam did sinne more grievously, because hee was wiser and stronger than Eva . ... Yet in two respects, Eva's sin was greater than Adams" (An Exposition on the Fourteene first Chapters ofGenesis [London, 1626], sig. E8r). Furthermore, Eve's co11oquy with Satan has a significant analog in Hugo Grotius, Adamus Exul, Act 4, 11. 1035-250. In particular, Grotius's Eve also wonders about how the snake can speak in terms that very closely approximates Milton's: "Can this be so? Does reason dweIl indeed in breast / Other than man's? Surely this creature is a brute, / But never has a brute been known to utter words" (Hugo Grotius, Adamus Exul, in Tbe Celestial Cycle, ed. Watson KirkconneIl [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1952],11. 1219-21). One also has the example of Aemilia Lanyer's Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum, sufficiencly popular to have merited two editions in 1611, and her extensive answer to the misogynists, "Eve's Apologie in Defence ofWomen" (sigs. D-D3). One should also not ignore the existence of the many texts defending women written on the continent and in Latin (see Constance Jordan, Renaissance Feminism: Literary Texts and Politics Models [Ithaca: Corne11 University Press, 1990]). In sum, Milton's treatment of Eve has many analogs, and while the tradition represented by Aquinas and Augustine may constitute the majority opinion (and I am not altogether convinced that it does), then a very significant minority opinion, inte11ectually highly respectable, competed with it for attention, and NOTES 219

Milton likely availed himself ofthis tradition in bis portrayal ofEve. See also Kari Boyd McBride and John C. Ulreich, " 'Eve's Apologie': Agrippa, Lanyer, and Milton," in «All in AlP': Unity, Diversity, and the Miltonic Perspective, ed. Charles W. Durham and Kristin A. Pruitt, 100-11. 61. McColley, Milton's Eve, 196-7. 62. Eve's lines echo in both their content and their rhetorical structure this key sen­ tence from Areopagitica: "He that can apprehend and consider vice with all her baits and seeming pleasures, and yet abstain, and yet distinguish, and yet prefer that wbich is truly better, he is the true warfaring Christian" (11.514-15). 63. «Paradise Lost": A Concordance, compiled by Gladys W. Hudson (Detroit: Gale, 1970),205. 64. Liebert astutely notes that "Eve falls through a thirst for knowledge, [while] Adam because he is sensitive to the necessity of relationsbips" ("Eve's Changing Discourse," 155). 65. The line is identically translated in both versions. 66. Adam also repeats the untruth that Eve "beguil'd" bim (10.880). 67. McColley, Milton's Eve, 210. 68. Virginia Woolf, A Writer's Diary (New York: Harcourt, 1954), 5-6.

7 PARADISE REGAINED, SAMSON AGONISTES, AND THE CONCLUSION OF MILTON'S CAREER 1. Milton's Quaker friend and student Thomas Ellwood, claimed in bis autobiog­ raphy that after reading a manuscript of Paradise Lost in 1665, he said: "Thou hast said much here of Paradise Lost, but what has thou to say of Paradise found?" Milton "made no answer, but sat some time in a muse; then brake off that discourse and fell upon another subject." Sometime later that year, Milton returned to London, where he "showed me bis second poem, called 'Paradise Regained,' and in a pleasant tone said to me, 'this is owing to you, for you put it into my head by the question put to me at Chalfont, wbich before I had not thought of'" (Thomas Ellwood, Tbe History of the Lift of Tbomas Ellwood [London: Methuen, 1900], 90, 145). Neither Parker nor Barbara Lewalski thinks much of Ellwood's claim. Parker comments that "the poet's silence was compounded of disappointment and moody self-criticism" William Riley Parker (Milton: A Biography [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996], vol. 1, 597), and Lewalski dismisses bis claim as "perhaps inflated" (Lift ofMilton, 682 n. 6). When Milton composed Samson Agonistes remains a mystery. Edward Phillips says "It cannot certainly be concluded when he wrote bis excellent Tragedy entitled Samson Agonistes" (Riverside Milton, 27), although critics generally agree that he probably wrote the poem around or so on after the Restoration. For a summary of the controversy, see Mary Arm Radzinowicz, Toward «Samson Agonistes": Tbe Growth of Milton's Mind (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978), appendix E, 387-408; Flannagan, Riverside Milton, 792; and Lewalski, "Milton's Samson and the 'New Acquist ofTrue [Political] Experience,'" Milton Studies 24 (1989),244,250 n. 5. 2. For a wise summary of the problems raised by the concatenation of the two poems, see Arthur E. Barker, "Calm Regained through Passion Spent: The Conclusions of the Miltonic Effort," in Tbe Prison and the Pinnacle, ed. Balachandra Rajan (Toronto: University ofToronto Press, 1974), 13-15. See also Rajan's essay, " 'To Which is Added Samson Agonistes,' " in the same volume, 83-110. 220 NOTES

3. On the 1671 volume as a cohesive whole, see Stephen B. Dobranski, "Text and Context for Pardise Regain)d and Samson Agonsites," in Altering Eyes: New Perspectives on «Samson Agonistes» (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2002), 30-53. See also John Shawcross, Tbe Uncertain World of «Samson Agonistes» (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2001),17-20. 4. On Paradise Regained and Milton's earlier works, see Samuel GIen Wong, "Echoes of Paradise: Epie Iteration in Milton," in Part Two: Reflections on the Sequel, ed. Paul Budra and Betty A. Schellenberg (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998), 68-94. Anne Baynes Coiro also notes that "Samson Agonistes uses Milton's own earlier poetry, both Paradise Lost and the Poems, so that the tragedy is embedded with allusions to Milton the Poet" ("Fable and Old Son: Samson Agonsites and the Idea of a Poetic Career," Milton Studies 36 [1998], 128). 5. Wong also notes that "the subtlety of Paradise Lost is elided by the certainties of Paradise Regainetf' (73). 6. Anne W. Astell,fob) Boethius) and Epic (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994), 195. 7. As Barbara Lewalski notes, "the character Job is named on six occasions (1.147, 369,425; II1.64, 67, 95), the Book is quoted twice (1.33, 368), and either the Book itself or the tradition of commentary explaining it is alluded to on at least ten other occasions" (Milton)s Brief Epic: Tbe Genre) Meaning) and Art of

12. As Blair Worden writes, in Paradise Lost, "the monarchical qualities of 'heaven's high king,' of 'heaven's matchless king,' are underlined again and again" ("Tyranny ofHeaven," Machiavelli and Republicanism, 236). 13. See the summary of opinions in Lewalski, Milton)s BriefEpie, 282; Louis Martz, Tbe Paradise Within (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964), 194; and Fish, How Milton Works, 339. See, especially, Tillyard's honest bafflement at what Milton is up to in this speech (Milton, 262-3). This crux also provides yet another opportunity for observing the prime imperative of the Miltonic inter­ pretive community-the eradication of all tension and ambiguity-at work. The Son's rejection of all classicallearning defies the construction of Milton as syn­ thesizing classical and Christian learning, and so critics openly set out to resolve this Kuhnian anomaly. Donald Swanson and lohn Mulryan, e.g., announce their aim in the title of their jointly written article, "The Son's Presumed Contempt for Learning in Paradise Regained: A Biblical and Patristic Resolution," and they assert that the reader's burden is to solve the problem rather than use the problem as a critical guide: "the reader of Paradise Regained must somehow resolve the tension between the poet's vaunted reverence for Greco-Roman thought and his divine persona's generic disparagement of that same tradition" (Milton Studies 27 [1991], 248; emphasis added). Why the reader must resolve the tension through any means possible ("somehow") is a question the authors do not address. 14. Fish, How Milton Works, 339. 15. The Son's position repeats and confirms Fish's analysis of Areopagitica as sup­ porting "a corollary conclusion that whatever we make available to a wise man will not be essential to his wisdom, for he will be wise with any book, 'yea with­ out book'" ("Truth and Indeterminacy in Areopagitica," Re-membering Milton, 240-1). 16. Fish, How Milton Works, 344-5. 17. The OED uses this quote from Areopagitica as an example of this definition: "And there also [Plato in The Laws] enacts that no Poet should so much as read to any privat man, what he had writt'n, until the ludges and Law-keepers had seen it, and allow'd it" (II.522). 18. See chapter 2, pp. 49-50. 19. Bryson, Tbe Tyranny of Heaven, 169-70. Cf. both Norbrook and Coffey, who argue that the poem may counsel patience, but is insistent "that one day the Son will come in glory and in power to crush the satanic forces" (Coffey, "Patient Militant," 164), or as Norbrook writes: "Paradise Regained creates an expectation of a denouement in which resolution and restoration will come" ("Republican Occasions," 139). Neither, however, takes into account the poem's finallines. 20. See also Shoulson, Milton and the Rabbis, 246-7 for more parallels between Samson and Paradise Lost. 21. Ashraf H.A. Rushdy, The Empty Garden: The Subject of Late Milton (Pittsburgh: University ofPittsburgh Press, 1992),281-2. 22. On the complicated politics of Samson Agonistes, see Quint, Epic and Empire, 278-81; Laura Lunger Knoppers, Historicizing Milton: Spectacle) Power and Poetry in Restoration England (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1994), 42-66,142-63; Blair Worden, "Milton, SamsonAgonistes, and the Restoration," in Culture and Society in the Stuart Restoration, ed. Gerald MacLean (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 111-36; Sharon Achinstein, 222 NOTES

"Samson Agonistes and the Drama of Dissent," Milton Studies 33 (1996), 133-58; David Loewenstein, "The Saint's Revenge: Radical Religion and Politics in Samson Agonsites," in Representing Revolution in Milton and His Contemporaries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 269-91; David Norbrook, "Republican Occasions," 122-48. 23. See William Riley Parker, Milton)s Debt to Greek Tragedy in «Samson Agonistes)) (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1937); Don Cameron Allen, Tbe Harmonious Vision (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1954); Radzinowicz, «Samson Agonistes,)) 5; Edward Tayler, Milton)s Poetry: Its Development in Time (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1979), 105-22; and Shawcross, Tbe Uncertain World, 104-11. 24. Wittreich, Shifting Contexts: Reinterpreting «Samson Agonistes)) (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 2002), xvü. I am deeply indebted to Wittreich's view of Samson. 25. On Samson's indeterminacy, see Fish, How Milton Works, 432-73, in which he proposes, contra his overall thesis of Miltonic certainty, that "there is a hole at the center [of this poem] that has the effect of distributing its absence over the field of facts designed to fill it" (448). See also Joseph Wittreich's magisterial books, Interpreting «Samson Agonistes)) (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986) and Shifting Contexts. Cf. David Loewenstein, who argues that "there is no need to turn Samson Agonistes into a drama of indeterrninacy where all meanings-especially in relation to Samson's ruptured and painful career, as weil as his last divine prompting-are simply ambiguous and doubtful" (Representing Revolution, 273). For a summary of the many controversies surrounding just about every aspect of Samson-from what the poem means to when Milton wrote it-see Lewalski, "Milton's Samson," 233-4. 26. See chapter 5, p. 114 and p. 212 n. 53. 27. "For Milton, Christianity never offends natural reason" (Strier, "Milton's Fetters," 171). 28. On the many verbal parallels between Job and Samson, see Radzinowicz, "Samson Agonistes," 152-3. 29. For example, see John Guillory, "Dalila's House: SamsonAgonistesand the Sexual Division of Labor," in Re-Writing the Renaissance: The Discourses of Sexual Difference in Early Modern Europe, ed. Margarat W. Ferguson et al. (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1986), 106-22; John C. Ulreich, Jr., "'Incident to All Our Sex': The Tragedy ofDalila," in Milton and the Idea ofWoman, ed. Julia M. Walker (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988), 211-29; Jacqueline DiSalvo, "Make War Not Love: On Samson Agonistes and Tbe Caucasian Chalk Circle," Milton Studies 24 (1988), 203-32; Hope Parisi, "Discourse and Danger: Women's Heroism in the Bible and Dalila's Self-Defense," in Spokesperson Milton: Voices in Contemporary Criticism (Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University Press, 1994),260-74; Elizabeth Sauer, "The Neo-Christian Bias and its Discontents: Milton Studies and the Case of Samson Agonistes," Renaissance and Reformation/Renaissance et Reforme 25.4 (2001),157-70. 30. Sauer, "Neo-Christian Bias," Renaissance and Reformation, 161. I owe my read­ ing of the Dalila episode to Professor Sauer. 31. For a very different view of Eve and Dalila, see Mary Ann Radzinowicz, "Eve and Dalila: Renovation and the Hardening of the Heart," in Reason and the Imagination: Studies in the History of Ideas 1600-1800, ed. Jerome A. Mazzeo (New York: Columbia University Press, 1662), 155-83. NOTES 223

32. Curiously, Milton never uses this word in his verse. 33. Wittreich, Interpreting «Samson Agonistes,» 72. 34. In Pro Populo Anglico Deftnsio (1651), Milton is equally unsure "whether Samson acted in pursuance of a command from heaven or was prompted by his own valour only" (quoted in Tayler, Milton's Poetry, 107). 35. Radzinowicz, «Samson Agonistes," 184-5. 36. Keith N. Hull, "Rhyme and Disorder in Samson Agonistes," Milton Studies 30 (1993), 166. 37. Quoted in Loewenstein, Representing Revolution, 274. 38. In his broadside pamphlet, A Distinction between the Phanatick Spirit and the Spirit ofGod (London, 1660), George Fox distinguishes between those who are genuinely inspired by God and those possessed by a "phanatick spirit." The for­ mer are peaceful although the latter are "full of fury, mad, rage, blind zeal, that persecute, and murder, and kill." Samson, needless to say, acts more like some­ one possessed by a "bad spirit" than "the same Spirit and Power that the Prophets, Christ, and the Apostles had ... " 39. John Carey, "A Work in Praise of Terrorism? September 11 and Samson Agonistes," Times Literary Supplement, September 6, 2002, 15. I am grateful to Joseph Wittreich for supplying me with a copy of this article. 40. Carey, "A Work in Praise," 15. 41. Wittreich, Interpreting «Samson Agonistes," 73-80, and Shifting Contexts, 220-6. See also Derek N.C. Wood, Exiled from the Light: Divine Law, Morality, and Violence in Milton's «Samson Agonistes» (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001),129-39. 42. Lieb, Culture ofViolence, 261. 43. The slaughter of the Philistines at the end of Samson has occasioned a great deal of comment, with critics divided over whether the violence is justified or not. Wood, e.g., finds Samson's bringing down the temple "God's work assuredly" (139). Knoppers writes that "the spectacle of apocalyptic violence recounted at the end of Samson Agonistes is thus clearly an act of iconoclasm against the idol­ atrous Philistines" (Historicizing Milton, 60). Loewenstein agrees: "Milton ... dramatizes at the end of Samson Agonistes the crucial activism of the vengeful godly saint whose destructive agency is interwoven with powerful divine forces" (Representing Revolution, 290), as does Barbara Lewalski, who finds that the vio­ lence at the poem's end "is based on reasoned moral and political principles, which Samson, Milton, and Milton's God share" (Life of Milton, 435). Wittreich, on the other hand, argues that "Milton does not allow us to accept this mass slaughter unquestioningly" (Interpreting «Samson Agonistes, » 79), and so does Irene Samuel (" Samson Agonistes as Tragedy," in Calm ofMind: Tercentenary Essays on «Paradise Regained» and «Samson Agonistes,» ed. Joseph Wittreich [Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University Press, 1971]),237-57. The events, however, of September 11, 2001, continue to lend new urgency to the debate, as the spectacle of a man committing mass slaughter of the infi­ dels while claiming divine sanction bears a terrible resemblance to the justification used by Al Qaeda to justifY their acts. The question is no longer, "did Milton justifY violence," but can Samson Agonistes be interpreted as a work praising terrorism? See John Carey, "A Work in Praise of Terrorism?" Nor can the dis­ turbing resonances ofMilton's be restricted to Muslim terrorists practicingjihad against the West. In "Jesus and Jihad," the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof reveals that in the final installment ofTim F. Lahaye's and Jerry B. Jenkins's 224 NOTES

"Left Behind" series, Glorious Appearing: The End ofDays (Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, 2004), the authors consign all non-Christians into everlasting fire: "Jesus merely raised one hand a few inches and a yawning chasm opened in the earth, stretching far and wide enough to swallow all of the me. They tumbled in, howling and screeching, but their wailing was soon quashed and all was silent when the earth closed itself again." Not even their animals are spared: "The rid­ ers not thrown leaped from their horse and tried to control them with the reins, but even as they struggled, their own flesh dissolved, their eyes melted, and their tongues disintegrated ... Seconds later the same plague afflicted the horses, their flesh and eyes and tongues melting away, leaving grotesque skeletons standing, before they too rattled to the pavement" (quoted in Kristoff, New York Times July 17, 2004, 13). Kristoff's point is that there is little difference between the fantasies of Islamic radicals and the portrayal of Jesus "presiding over a sea of blood" (13). My point is that Milton invites us to look critically at precisely this confluence of religion and mass murder. 44. Shoulson, Milton and the Rabbis, 249, 25l. 45. Bryson, The Tyranny ofHeaven, 169. 46. Wittreich, Shifting Contexts, 217. 47. Loewenstein also argues that one finds "a profound indeterminacy about the 1671 volume ... In one poem he envisioned what it might be like to repudiate all temporal kingdoms and powers and establish the inward Kingdom of J esus through humble actions ... ; in the other he envisioned what it might be like, in a spectacular act of holy violence and revenge, to destroy the idols and theater of Dagon and his worshippers" (Representing Revolution, 295). 48. Fish, How Milton Works,448. 49. Shoulson, Milton and the Rabbis, 247-8. INDEX

Achinstein, Sharon, 9,35,36, 189n41, Carey, John, 10-11, 177n5, 223n39, 204n17,221n22 223n43 Aers, David and Bob Hodge, 20, Carleton, Sir Dudley, 101 180n43 Caryl, Joseph, 112-13, 210n37 Agreement ofthe People (1647), 91 Case ofShipmoney (1637), 67, 68, 69, Allen, Don Cameron, 29-30, 222n23 70,91,102 Ancient Constitution, 63-6, 85-6 Chaney, Edward, 188n27 Anglia Rediviva, or England Revived Charles I, and absolutism, 62-3, 68, (1658), 39 91,101

Answer to ° ° ° The Doctrine and Charles II, as Turkish tyrant, 37 Discipline ofDivorce (1644), 130 Chutzpah, definition of, 182n65 Aristotle (philosopher), 26,100 Clark, Peter, 102 Armitage, David, 203n90 Coffey, John, 220nll, 221n19 Astell, Ann Wo, 212n51 Coiro, Arme Baynes, 220n4 Coke, Sir Edward, 63, 67, 71, 75, 77, Barker, Arthur Eo, 203n90, 219n2 96,100-1,102,104 Bate's Case (1606), 67,102 Coleridge, Samuel, 83 Baxter, Richard, 111 Conti, Natalis, 30-1, 50, 187n24, Bell, Millicent, 127, 213n69 187n26 Bennett, Joan So, 35, 38, 84, 107, Corns, Thomas No, 196n13, 202n88 180n43, 206n46, 217n56 Coward, Barry, 200n53 Bentley, Richard, 12-14,25,26,50,61, Cowell, James, 62 212n59 Cromwell, Oliver, 35, 36; as Turkish Blake, William, 10, 108 tyrant, 37-8 Blayney, Peter, 211n38 Crump, Galbraith, 108 Bloom, Harold, 8 Boesky, Amy, 208n9 Danielson, Dennis, 15, 108, 182n60, Bouchard, Donald, 194n26, 213n61 208nll,209n18 Boys, John, 39 Davies, Sir J ohn, 100 Bracton, Henry, 63,103 Davies, Stevie, 35, 37,92, 195n7 Brett, Arthur, Patientia Victrix (1661), Denham, Sir John, 39 113,211n39,211n47 Derrida, Jacques, 27, 58, 186n9 Brisman, Leslie, 194n27 Digges, Sir Dudley, 68, 90 Broadbent, John, 42, 189n44 DiPasquale, Theresa Mo, 216n44 Bryson, Michael, 19, 109-10, 162, DiSalvo, Jacqueline, 222n29 178n15, 193n25,203nl,205n21, Dobranski, Stephen Bo, 19, 220n3 206n63,209n23,213n68 Doddridge, Sir John, 101 Buhler, Stephen Mo, 193n25 Drummond, CoQo, 10, ll, 108, 1l0, Burden, Dennis, 15 209nll Burgess, Glenn, 65, 196n13, 197n25, Dzelzainis, Martin, 196n13, 198n38,207n74 203n91 226 INDEX

Earl, James Wo, 217n53 Galef, David, 213n67 Edward the second, 199n45 Gallagher, Catherine, and Stephen Edwards, Karen, 127, 214nl, 214n9 Greenblatt, 177n11 Eliot, Sir John, 102 Gardner, Helen, 215n26 Elizabeth 1., 196n18, 197n21 Gautruche, Pierre, 29, 187n21 Ellwood, Thomas, 219nl Gilbert, Alan, 2 Elton, Sir Geoffrey, 62 Gilbert, Sandra, 127, 214n2 Empson, William, 10,20,49, 104, Glanville, J ohn, 101 185n94,186n17,193n25,195nl0, Golding, Arthur, 210n35, 211n40 196n12, 206n63, 217n59; and the Gorecki, John, 185nl politics of Paradise Lost, 61-2; and Greenberg, Janelle, 65, 196n12, Milton)s God, 107, 208n3; reception 196n13,197n24 of Milton)s God, 107-8, 208n9; Greenblatt, Stephen, 177n11 revival ofreputation, 20-1, 184n86 Gregerson, Linda, 192n15, 215n25 Epic, politics of, 39-42 Greville, Fulke, 63, 197n26, 197n29 Eve, early modern traditions and Grose, Christopher, 185n2, 192n15 counter-traditions, 217-19n60 Grossman, Marshall, 193n23, 217n53 Grotius, Hugo, 149,217-18n60 Fallon, Robert T., 94, 96-7, 193n25, Guillory, John, 222n29 204n13,205n27,206n53,206n63 Gulden, Arm Torday, 217n55 Fallon, Stephen Mo, 114, 115-16, 209n21, 212n53, 215n18 Hakewill, William, 68, 109n49 Farwell, Marilyn R., 217n52 Halkett, John, 215n20 Fielding, John, 70 Hall, Edward, HaWs Chronicle, Filmer, Sir Robert, 103, 216n33 198-9n39 Fish, Stanley, 1-8, 11, 16-19,20,49, HaWs Chronicle, 198n39 58,83, 107, 108,161, 176, 178n13, Halpern, Richard, 20, 184n83 179n26, 182n72, 183n77, 194n29, Hamilton, Donna Bo, 67, 190n55, 204n6,209n14-15,216n29,220n8, 197n24 221n13,222n25 Hampden's Case (1638), 67, 102 Fisher, Payne, 40 Hampton, Bryan Adams, 192n15 Five Knight's Case (1627), 67 Harrington, James, 39 Flannagan, Roy, 45, 46, 47, 128, 138, Harris, Neil, 188n27 192n15 Hartrnan, Geoffrey, 31, 33, 185nl, Fleming, Baron, 62 188n37 Fleming, Sir Thomas, 69 Hawke, Michael, Tbe Right ofDominion Forsyth, Neil, 19, 113, 178n21, 185n93 (1655),39,189n42 Fortescue, Sir John: and the Ancient Hedley, Thomas, 90, 91 Constitution, 64-6, 71, 74, 96, 100; Helgerson, Richard, 203n95 popularity of De Laudibus, 197n32 Herman, Peter Co, 194n27, 197n26, Foucault, Michel, 7, 178n19 199nn39-40 Fowler, Alastair, 187n18, 193n25, Hesiod, Tbeogony, 30, 31,48, 50, 187 217n60 Hili, Christopher, 8, 9, 35, 83, 110, Fox, George, 172, 223n38 111, 179n32, 184n92, 189n45 Fraser, Antonia, 37, 190n53 Holinshed)s «Chronicles)), 66, 73, Fraunce, Abraham, 26, 28, 29, 186n5, 197n24, 199n40,201n65-6 186n14 Holoka, James Po, 185nl Froula, Christine, 127, 193n23, Homer, Iliad, 29, 30, 31,40,48, 50, 214n2 117,161 Fry, Paul, 195nl0 Hooker, Richard, 66 INDEX 227

Hughes, Merritt Y., 35,42, 187n18 Machiavelli, Niccolo, 100, 200n63, Hume, Patrick, 32 207n65 Hunter, William Bo, 194n30 Magna Carta, 79, 104 Huttar, Charles A., 31, 188n27 von M~tzahn, Nicholas, 180n46, 196n13,202n87 Iliad, 29, 192n12 de Man, Paul, 48,50, 191n66 Interdonato, Deborah A., 215n25 Marcus, Leah So, 2, 20, 177n2 Interpretive communities, 3-5 Marlowe, Christopher, Edward the Second, 199n45; The Jew ofMalta, James VI/I, and absolutism, 103, 210n34 197n21,202n81, 220nl0 Martin, Catherine Gimelli, 19, 213n67 Jennens, Charles, 181n52 Martz, Louis, 221n13 The Jew ofMalta, 210n34 Marvell, Andrew, 11, 12 Job, Book of, and the English Marx, Stephen, 220nll Revolution, 111-14 McBride, Kari Boyd, 219n60 Jordan, Constance, 62, 197n24, McColley, Diane, 2, 8,127,149, 199n44,202n75,205n28 177n2,215n13,215n26,217n56 McCoy, Richard, 204n20 Kahn, Victoria, 196n13 McCutcheon, Elizabeth, 81, 203n97 Keitzman, Mary Jo, 216n34, 217n53 Mendle, Michael, 201n68 Kendrick, Christopher, 2, 177n2 Milton, John, and theory ofmetaphor, Kerrigan, William, 8, 20,108, 213n61, 26-7; as epic hero, 41-2; reaction to 217n53 trauma of the Restoration, 35-6, 42, Knight, Go Wilson, 10, 11, 191n68 58-9,110-11, 211n49; and aporia, Knoppers, Laura Lunger, 203n90, 48-51; and poetics of incertitude, 221n22,223n43 57-9; antiprelatic~ tracts and the Kolbrener, William, 19, 20, 191n5 Ancient Constitution, 73-5, 85; and Kristoff, Nicholas, 223--4n43 Mary Powell, 128-9, 131, 132, 137; Kuhn, Thomas, 3, 5-6, 11, 19,20,95, Divorce tracts and the Ancient 108,110,177n6 Constitution, 75-6, 85; and the problem of mutu~ity, 129-33; Labriola, Albert Co, 8, 31,43,44, Politic~ tracts and the Ancient 193n25 Constitution, 76-81, 85; Lambarde, William, 72, 202n80 Animadiversions, 220n9; Leavis, F. Ro, 14-15 Areopagitica, 114, 116, 117, 118, Lejosne, Roger, 204n13, 205n21, 147,148, 219n62; Art ofLogic, 26; 208n91 BriefNotes upon a Late Sermon, 80; Levao,Ron~d,19,215n23,217n53 Commonplace Book, 89, 200n61; Lew~ski, Barbara, 2, 6, 7,19,127, and the Ancient Constitution, 216n32, 216-17n44, 219nl, 220n7, 71-73; Colasterion, 130; "Damon's 221n13, 222n25 , 223n43 Epitaph," 36; De Doctrina Lewis, CoSo, 2,3,7,19,108, 209n12 Christiana, 58-9, 85, 115, 116, Lieb, Michael, 8, 21,136, 178n25, 194n30, 194-5n33, 195n35;Defenu 181n58 ofthe People ofEngland, 89, 103, Liebert, Elisabeth, 127, 214n9, 202n88; Doctrine and Discipline of 216n35,216n39,216n40, 219n64 Divorce, 87, 114, 129, 131-2, 133, Loewenstein, David, 9, 84, 92,172, 148, 215n21, 215n28, 220n9; 193--4n25,206n49,213n61, Eikonoklastes, 34, 87, 88, 89, 102; 221-2n22, 222n25, 223n43, 224n47 History ofBritain, and doubts about Low, Anthony, 109 politics, 78, 80, 159; "In quintum 228 INDEX

Milton-continued Paradise Lost, incertitude of epic similes, Novembris," 36; VAliegro/II 27-34,48,92-3; politics of epic Penseroso, 57; A Letter to a Friend, 79; similes, 34--42; references to Turks, A Masque, 57-58; Mansus, 36; Of 37-8; and epic heroes, 38--42; Satan, Reformation, 87, 201n72, 204n18, as epic hero, 38--42; omnipresence of 215n16; Paradise Lost, (see separate "or," 43--4; and unresolved choices, entry); Paradise Regained, (see 44-8; similes leading to aporia, separate entry); Readie and Basie Way, 49-51,162; and competing 87,88,93,96,98,99,102-103, narratives of the Creation, 51-3; 159, 204n18, 205n24; and doubts of Adam and Eve's first meeting, about politics, 78-9, 80-1; The 53-4; ofthe Son's Elevation, Reason ofChurch Government, 87, 89, 54-7,95; politics and the poetics 201n72; Samson Agonistes, (see of incertitude, 86-105; Satan as separate entry); Second Defence ofthe Ancient Constitutionist, 86-97, 99; Bnglish People, 71; Tenure ofKings critique of God as absolute monarch, and Magistrates, 88; Tetrachordon, 97-104; and the Book oOob, 113; 129,130,131,154 and incertitude and predestination, Miltonists, interpretive community 114-17; and God as unreliable of, 6, 7; and certainty, 6-11,14-20; narrator, 117-25; and the Muse as and change, 19-21; and Milton's unreliable narrator, 117-19; and politics, 83-5; and Milton's God, critique ofmisogyny, 127-54; and 107-10 God as partly responsible for the Fall, Minshull, Elizabeth, 137 127; revision of earlier views on Mirror for Magistrates, 67, 199n43 gender, 137-54; and Eve, awareness Mitchell, J. Allan, 110, 125, 213n68 of intellectual insufficiency as Mollenkott, Virginia, 191n4, 214n9 partial cause for the Fall, 139-51; Montrose, Louis A, 200n59 and Adam as echo of the Doctrine, More, Sir Thomas, 81 132-3; and masculine assumption Morrissey, Lee, 127, 214n7, 214n9 of superiority as partial cause for Mueller, Janel, 196n13 the Fall, 138--48; and Adam's Muggleton, Lodowick, 111, 114, 115, preference for Raphael over Eve, 210n33 141-6; and Eve, quoting Mulder, John R., 36, 188n27 Areopagitica, 148-9 Mulryan, John, 221n13 Paradise Regained, and allusions to Musarum Oxoniensum Blaiophoria Paradise Lost, 155-7; and poetics of (1654),39--40 certitude, 155-7; and Book oOob, Mutabilitie Cantos, 28 156; and gender, 156-7; and renunciation ofpolitics, 157-60, Neale, J.E., 197n19 162; and renunciation of classical Newlyn, Lucy, 26, 38,42, 186n9 learning, 161; relationship to Samson Norbrook, David, 2,15,19,20,83,84, Agonistes, 175 85,104,116,191n5,193n25, Paraphrase Upon Job, A, 112, 211n39, 203n3,220nll,221nI9 211n41 Norris, Christopher, 195n7 Parisi, Hope, 222n29 North, Sir Roger, 90 Parker, Henry, 68, 75, 91-2, 96 Nyquist, Mary, 2, 8, 127, 130, 177n2, Parker, William Riley, 211n49, 219nl, 214nl,215nI3,217n53 222n23 "Parliament ofHell" satires, 36 Olson, Gary A, 182n77 Patientia Victrix (1661),113 Overton, Richard, 37 Patrides, C.A, 2, 180n43 INDEX 229

Patterson, Annabel, 75, 132, 197n24, 222n28; Dalila and alternative 199n40,201n66, 215n18 narratives ofhistory, 167-8; Samson Patterson, Lee, 19 and Dalila compared to Adam and Peacham, Henry, 26 Eve, 168-70; Samson and the Pearce, Zachary, 12-14, 15,25,26 problem ofmotivation, 172-4; and Peter, John, 15, 107, 108, 181n60, the problem of the catastrophe, 206n48 174-6; and terrorism, 223-4n43 Petition ofRight (1628),68 Sauer, Elizabeth, 19, 167, 181n59, Phelips, Sir Robert, 90 192n18,193n23,213n61,222n29, Phillips, Edward, 58, 128, 216n30, 222n30 216n32,219nl Schwartz, Regina, 8-9, 58-9 Pincus, Steve, 201n65 Scodel, Joshua, 181n52 Pocock, JoGoA., 65, 197n25, 198n38 Selden, John, 63,102 Polydorou, Desma, 214n6 Selimus, Emperor ofthe Turks, 210n34 Porter, William Mo, 93, 187n26 Senault, J.F., A Paraphrase Upon Job Prescott, Anne Lake, 186n12 (1648),112 Pruitt, KristinA., 214n9 September 11, 2001, 223n43 Putney Debates (1647), 78 Shakespeare, William, Richard II and Puttenham, George, 81 the Ancient Constitution, 67; Tbe Tempest, 174 Quint, David, 220n11, 221n22 Sharpe, Kevin, 207n76 Quintillian, 26 Shawcross, John, 179, 212n54, 222n23 Shelley, Percy Bysshe, 10, 107 Radzinowicz, Mary Ann, 9,35,84, Shoulson, Jeffrey, 19,97,109,123, 172,193n25,204n13,219nl, 175,184-5n92,204n14,209n16, 222n28,222n31 221n20 Rajan, Balachandra, 2, 179n29, 185nl, Silver, Victoria, 109, 209n23 219n2 Skinner, Quentin, 72, 200n62, 205n21 Rappaport, Herman, 8 Smith, David L., 200n54 Revard, Stella, 35 Smith, John, 48 Richard H, 79 Smith, Nigel, 190n57 Richardson, Jonathan, Sr., 211n49 Smith, Sir Thomas, 72 Ricks, Christopher, 14-15, 185nl, Sommerville, J. Po, 197n25 186n8,191n6,208n9 Spelman, Sir Henry, 100 Riebling, Barbara, 208n9 Spenser, Edmund, Mutabilitie The Right ofDominion, 39, 189n42 Cantos, 28 Rogers, John, 19, 195n7, 196n12 Sprigge, Joshua, Anglia Rediviva Ross, Alexander, 28 (1647), 189n42 Rumrich, John, 19,20,21, 108, 110, Steadman, John, 187n24 178n23, 191n8, 210n31 Sto German, Christopher, 103, 207n84 Ryken, Leland, 83 Stephanus, Charles, 29 Stevenson, Kay Go, 214n3 Salmasius, Claudius, 103 Stocker, Margaret, 109 Samson Agonistes, and relationship Strier, Richard, 19, 108, 184n86, Paradise Regained, 162-3, 175-6; 195n4,206n52,208n9,208-9nll, and recuperation of the classical 212n53,213n61,222n27 tradition, 163-4; and the return of Swanson, David, 221n13 the poetics ofincertitude, 164-76; and religious doubt, 165-6, 171-2; Tanner, John, 92, 195n37 and Book ofJob, 166, 212n51, Tanner, Marie, 190n55 230 INDEX

TayIer, Edward, 222n23 Whaler, James, 185nl Tempest The, 184 Whitelocke, James, 67 Theogony, 30, 187n23, 192n12, Wilding, Michael, 20, 215n26 Tillyard, EoMoWo, 7, 10, 11, 19, Willson, David Harris, 197n21 184n92,221n13 Wittreich, Joseph, 11, 15-16, 51, 135, Trevet, Diana Bo, 36 163-4, 173, 180n47, 180n49, Turner, James Go, 2, 9, 177n2, 177n4, 181nn58-9, 192n18, 192n19, 181-2n60,215n13,215n17 213n61-2,214nll,217n48-9, Twysden, Sir Roger, and the Ancient 222n24-5 Constitution, 68-70, 71, 72, 102 Wong, Samuel Gien, 220n4-5 Tyndale, William, 212n60 Wood, Derek NoCo, 223n41 Woodcock, Katherine, 137 Ulreich, John Co, 218-19n60 Woodford, Robert, and the Ancient Ulreich, Jr., John Co, 222n29 Constitution, 70-1, 72 Woolf, Virginia, 154, 219n68 Venuti, Lawrence, 39,190n56 Worden, Blair, 9, 84, 86, 87,97, 98,99, 100, 188n39, 193n25, Waldock, A.J.A., 15, 108, 120, 181n60, 196n13, 200n61, 210n33, 206n63 221n12,221n22 Walker, Julia Mo, 215n26 Worsham, Lynn, 182n77 Waller, Edmund, 40-1 Webber, Joan, 127 Zimmerman, Shari, 19, 183n79