Graduate Student Prize: Fall 2008 Winner, Kara Manning!
This space is provided for Graduate Student Prize papers. It is updated after each conference, and features a new conference paper from a different participant every other month. Please see below for the fall 2008 Graduate Student Prize winner's submission by Kara Manning. Kara Manning was an Honorable Mention in the fall 2007 GSP competition. Congratulations to Kara!
Interested in submitting work for the Graduate Student Prize? The deadline for the fall 2009 conference at NCCC (Buffalo) is October 1st. Please email your completed paper of NO MORE than 8 double-spaced pages to Rebecca Housel: housereb@rochester.rr.com
And now, to our featured essay:
Milton's Satan: Degenerated, Degraded. . .or Defamed?
Satan is one hell of a popular guy. Critics, it seems, will never tire of discussing Milton's Satan, for there is an endless supply of scholarly work that treats the character with everything from respect to revulsion. A perpetual dialogue and debate exists amongst scholars over whether Satan is heroic or contemptible (or, indeed, both). Some critics take Milton's intentions or beliefs into account when formulating an argument or interpretation, thereby studying Milton's character according only to what they think Milton, himself, meant the poem and Satan to be, and not according to what they, themselves, receive from the poem as a whole and, specifically, from Satan. Similarly, other critics compare certain aspects of Milton's life with the character of Satan, which suggests that these critics are reading the poem with its author in mind, rather than their own reactions to the words. Many critics, whether they find Satan praiseworthy or detestable, do agree that there are problems or inconsistencies with his characterization, and they note that he is, most certainly, changed when Paradise Lost concludes. Of course, there are also those critics who seem to combine these different ways of discussing Satan, as Waldock, Gross, and Flesch do. While I find the works of these scholars to be imperative for thoroughly understanding the poem from alternate viewpoints, and valuable for informing my own interpretation of Satan's role, I tend to disagree with the final words given regarding this character because of the manner(s) utilized in studying Satan which, as mentioned above, consist(s) mostly of interpretation based upon authorial intent. Thus I will conduct a close reading, but shan’t be tempted to commit the Intentional Fallacy and close my reading off.
My reading of Satan is a recursive response to the works of Waldock, Gross, and Flesch whose works, among others, appear in excerpt in the 2005 Norton Critical Edition of Paradise Lost edited by Gordon Teskey. An edition like this creates a particular, packaged environment in which to engage in close reading and, while an examination of the ways in which different editions effect various readings is beyond the scope of this paper, I wish to point out that the reading I offer herein exemplifies that phenomenon. I will, therefore, preface my reading of Paradise Lost by looking – quickly but closely – at the works of those mentioned above.
A.J.A. Waldock's reading of Paradise Lost and Satan's role therein is one insisting that Milton strongly sympathized with Satan as he wrote the poem; yet, whenever it seemed the character was becoming too strong, too grand, or too deserving of respect and praise, the poet would interject with a comment contrived to debase Satan, to bring him back to the loathsome position in which we first discover him (413-15). This clearly suggests that Waldock crafts his argument from Milton's intentions as the poet of Paradise Lost. He uses Milton's method and technique to fertilize his interpretation of Satan. Additionally, Waldock points out that Milton's sympathy towards Satan results from his ability "to conceive Satan in terms of himself: in terms of the temptations to which he felt his own nature especially liable, and of the values, too, to which his own nature especially responded" (413). Accordingly, Waldock's article is not a piece concerning Satan alone, but is an examination of the relationship between Satan, as both a quasi-portrait and as a character, and Milton, as both a man and as a poet.
It is apparent that Kenneth Gross, too, bases portions of his argument upon the intentions of Milton-as-poet. For instance, Gross says, "the lure of Satan is the lure of the dramatized mind; he is the vessel for what Milton learned from reading Hamlet, King Lear, or Macbeth, ... Satan is Milton's picture of what thinking looks like" (422). Thus, Satan is viewed in terms of how he was created and written by the poet. Interestingly, Gross makes a point of skirting any sort of discussion of Satan which makes assumptions about Milton's faith-based beliefs, as he is "not perfectly sure of what it means for us to try and ground our reading of the poetry on a hypothetical commitment to the polarized terms of the poet's belief" (421). However, it is evident that, despite this assertion, Gross' argument rises from his faith-based belief in the truth of Milton-as-narrator, for he says, "Milton lets us know that, as opposed to Satan, the innocent and reasonable Adam gets things right", again revealing critical analysis based on authorial intent (422). Like Waldock, Gross also notes the reflection of Milton, himself, in Satan (420).
The criticism of William Flesch, too, follows such lines, focusing on the ways in which Satan is like Milton. According to Flesch, the errors Satan makes stem from the same sensibilities that Milton held regarding oppression and liberty: that a need for liberty permits and necessitates a rebellion against the oppressor (425-27). However, Flesch, in building the argument that Satan "never gets beyond [tyranny] himself" (427), brings forth the religious beliefs of Milton-as-poet and contrasts those beliefs with the created image of Satan. He says, for instance, that "unlike Satan, Milton can ground his iconoclasm [as libertarian] on the worship of the true God" (426). Again, there is clearly a trend in which critics formulate and/or support their arguments and interpretations from/with the intentions and beliefs of the poet. It seems that, often, the character of Satan cannot or will not be viewed as separate from his creator; he is rarely viewed apart from the notion of authorial intent and this, certainly, may be one of the reasons that so many critics, including those mentioned here, are quick to delve into the problems of Satan and his seemingly drastic metamorphosis.
Waldock examines the Satan so altered following Books I and II of Paradise Lost, insisting that this is an entirely new Satan, and that he has not been characterized sufficiently enough to indicate that any real change or degeneration has occurred, but argues that, because of Milton's "running fire of belittling commentary," Satan has been "degraded" by his creator...that is, Milton (417). Gross also discusses Satan's change, though in a manner that seems to be in dialogue with those critics who speak of that change as a degeneration. Gross says, for example, "solipsism becomes a deadening and divisive egotism, it flourishes and sickens in Satan's desire for revenge ... he cannot escape from the Hell which now is his self, nor from the deeper, even shadowier Hell of his speculative fears" (424). Finally, Flesch, comments upon Satan's change in terms of the "iconoclastic traits" he shares with Milton: both saw fit to fight oppression, but "Satan never sustains the iconoclasm that makes him admirable because it exists side by side with a desire to be the worshiped icon" (427). Evidently, though the idea of Satan's metamorphosis may not be the sole and absolute topic of discussion for each of these scholars, that idea (as well as the associations it has with Milton, himself, as examined above) does play an integral part in each of their works, for it is, in each case, a factor (or, as in Waldock, the factor) utilized to uphold and/or expand the argument at hand.
It is this unwavering agreement over the, evidently, obvious fact that Satan has changed which, ultimately, leads me to differ with such arguments. Paradise Lost has always left me with deepest sympathy and regard for Satan, feeling that he has been horribly wronged, yet maintains his strong, effervescent (the pun on his final appearance as a hissing snake intended), and intelligent nature throughout the poem. Upon noticing the relationship between the criticism of Waldock, Gross, and Flesch – that they continuously turn to Milton – I discovered that, perhaps, my interpretation—that Satan does not undergo a fundamental change—could be upheld by a reading of the poem which eliminates Milton as man, poet, and narrator.
By doing away with any concern over authorial intent, religious or otherwise, and by focusing on the written words only as imaginative literature, one may discover that, after invoking the "Heav'nly Muse" (1.6), the narrator is immediately biased against "Th' infernal Serpent" (1.34), whose "pride / had cast him out from Heav'n" (1.36-7). While the invocation, traditionally, lends the narrator credibility, here it is very clear that our narrator is receiving his information from a being who finds Satan to be loathsome. This may be seen as the first indication that whatever the narrator relates to us regarding Satan will be unreliable. Another possible example of this unreliability comes in Book II when Satan meets Death and Sin. Death asks Satan:
Art thou that traitor angel, art thou he
Who first broke peace in Heav'n and faith, till then
Unbroken, and in proud rebellious arms
Drew after him the third part of Heav'n's sons
Conjured against the High'st for both thou
And they outcast from God are here condemned
To waste eternal days in woe and pain? (2.689-95)
In Book IX, Satan claims to have "freed / from servitude inglorious well nigh half / Th' angelic name" (9.140-2). Many critics would cite this as an example of Satan's continuous habit of lying, particularly because Raphael also discounts him, saying he "Drew after him the third part of Heav'n's host" (5.710). However, my reading interprets this as the possibility of error, or outright lying, on the part narrator. First of all, we find out that Death was born to Sin after she was posted at Hell's gate and given the key by God (2.774-7,785-7,850-3). Death would not have known how many followed Satan unless Sin had spoken to him of the ordeal previously, and the narrator has told us that Sin was given orders by God, not Raphael, after the rebellious angels fell. That and the nearly identical phrasing of Death's question and Raphael's assertion seem rather suspicious to my mind.
Most critics seem to agree that the Satan of Books I and II becomes increasingly degenerated or (in Waldock's case) degraded throughout the rest of the poem. However, for a reader who has begun to question the credibility of the narrator, this notion, too, comes into question. While it may be true that Satan is demoted in station and/or location, and is, indeed, physically altered at times (as when he looks on Adam and Eve as a cormorant in Book IV or is changed to a serpent by God in Book X), I argue against any fundamental alteration in his intellect or spirit. In the "address to the Sun" (4.32-113), Satan shows a wide range of emotion, impressive because, even after his self-deprecation, he maintains the strength and adamance he portrays in the first books: "So farewell hope and with hope farewell fear! / Farewell remorse!" (4.108-9). A similar return to steadfastness occurs after Satan sees the blissful Adam and Eve: "Honor and empire with revenge enlarged / By conquering this new world compels me now" (4.390-1). It may also be of great significance that Satan is alone while uttering the things which, in Book IV, may make him appear weak or altered, for his solitary musings upon his actions and the state to which they have led him intensifies the respect he deserves as the leader of his followers. He does not show such uncertainty in their presence, but preserves that dignified, authoritative charisma which is evident even in Book X, when the rebel angels are all transformed into serpents. The narrator, in attempt to epitomize the degeneration of Satan, actually maintains the character's power:
But still greatest he the midst
Now dragon grown larger than whom the sun
Engendered in the Pythian vale on slime,
Huge Python, and his pow'r no less he seemed
Above the rest to retain. They all
Him followed issuing forth to th' open field
Where all yet left of that revolted rout,
Heav'n-fall'n, in station stood or just array
Sublime with expectation when to see
In triumph issuing forth their glorious chief. (10.528-37)
Despite the unfavorable follow-up Satan receives, the narrator has already given the reader a reason to feel that Satan remains the "glorious chief," and the possibility that such an aftermath could be unreliable simply adds to the potent imagery of powerful Satan-the-Kingsnake.
Additionally, because the narrator receives his information "from Heaven," anything said about Satan by God, Gabriel, Raphael, or other characters is subject to the narrator's unreliability and prejudice. Consequently, one may be easily led astray by their comments. For instance, in relating past events to Adam and Eve, Raphael insists that "with calumnious art / Of counterfeited truth [Satan] thus held their [his followers’] ears" (5.770-1). However, in the speech delivered to the rebel angels, Satan-according-to-Raphael is clearly the same Satan as in Books I and II: a charismatic and encouraging leader who does not lie, but utilizes rhetoric. Though, chronologically, the Satan of whom Raphael speaks has not yet failed and fallen, his appearance as a strong, respectable character in Book V serves to give a reader who questions the validity of the narrator's claims a continuous notion of his vigor and might, which is culminated by the image of Satan as an enormous dragon, as previously mentioned.
Waldock, Gross, Flesch, and many other scholars would certainly disagree with my interpretation, just as I have disagreed with theirs. It is likely that they would attack my argument with conceptions of good and evil, the omnipotence with which God is characterized in the poem, and, of course, with the intentions and beliefs of Milton as the poet and narrator. I concede that it is often intrinsic to a comprehensive understanding of a literary work to delve into authorial intent and historical context. However, I also perceive the value, particularly for modern readers, in focusing purely on the words we read. To this end, I found Waldock, Gross, and Flesch to aid me in understanding why I interpret Satan as I do. Thus a close reading of the primary text through the lens of a particular edition’s supplementary works offers the opportunity for a unique moment of engagement with that primary text. In my moment of engagement with Satan, I choose to give him the chance to be the winner, and I praise his fame just as any good Satanist should.
Works Cited
Flesch, William. From “The Majesty of Darkness: Idol and Image in Milton." Teskey 425-7.
Gross, Kenneth. From “Satan and the Romantic Satan: A Notebook." Teskey 420-4.
Milton, John. Paradise Lost. Teskey 3-303.
Teskey, Gordon.ed. Paradise Lost: A Norton Critical Edition. By John Milton. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2005.
Waldock, A.J.A. From “Satan and the Technique of Degradation." Teskey 413-7.