In his argument in Book 5 of Paradise Lost, Satan focuses on the question of law as the main concern. The reason that angels follow him is his status: ―for great indeed / His name, and high was his degree in Heav'n‖ (706-07). God discerns the revolt of the angels and knows that they ―Were banded to oppose his high decree‖ (5.717) and that Satan intended ―to erect his throne / Equal to ours‖ (5.725-26). In other words, Satan and other rebellious angels move to change their situation by reconceptualising their relationship to God and his state. After Satan with his legions reaches ―The palace of
17 Tung Mason in "The Abdiel Episode" asserts that the aim of his study is to argue that "freely Satan and
his crew fell, freely Abdiel stood; freely Adam and Eve could have stood and remained happy in Paradise" (597).
68
great Lucifer‖ (5.760), he demonstrates his own regal show in imitation of Heaven. Addressing the innumerable angels, he contends that by anointing a new king, the Messiah, God has impaired them. He questions God‘s decree and, pretending to practice his republicanism, he invites the crowd to debate the way to receive the new king.18 His
claim to practice democratic consultation, voting, and deciding is not true. This is a good example of Derrida's idea that in the Apartheid regime the law is never properly established but is betrayed from the very outset. It also demonstrates that concepts like "democracy," "republican," "monarchy," "protestant," do not have a self-evident meaning for Milton. A republican polity like Satan's can be as undemocratic as a tyrannical kingdom. It is also possible that a monarchy could become the source of more justice and happiness for its people than a democratic state. Milton's critique of the perspectives that take such concepts and terms as self-evidently representing only positive or negative values is fundamental in all his works. Satan argues that they must cast off the Yoke of God:
But what if better counsels might erect Our minds and teach us to cast off this yoke? Will ye submit your necks, and choose to bend The supple knee? Ye will not, if I trust
To know ye right, or if ye know yourselves
18 In Paradise Regained, Satan tries to represent himself, the fallen angels, and his system as democratic.
The narrator tells us that Satan "To Counsel summons all his mighty Peers" (1.40). He pretends to seek advice and conduct his new society as a democratic republic in opposition to the "Monarchy of Heaven," but the narrator tells us it is a "gloomy consistory" (1.43).
69
Natives and sons of Heav'n possesed before By none, and if not equal all, yet free, Equally free; for orders and degrees
Jar not with liberty, but well consist. (5.785-93)
Satan‘s argument appears to leave them no choice and subsequently he questions God as the Creator by calling them ―sons of Heaven‖ rather than sons of God. He indicates that all angels are free but not equal and they have different ranks. Satan claims that ―reason‖ (5.794) does not allow monarchy and even though they are ―in power and splendor less‖ (5.796) they are equals in freedom. He argues:
Who can in reason then or right assume Monarchy over such as live by right His equals, if in power and splendor less, In freedom equal? or can introduce Law and edict on us, who without law Err not, much less for this to be our Lord, And look for adoration to th' abuse Of those imperial titles which assert
Our being ordained to govern, not to serve? (5.794-803)
Satan presents two more reasons here. He questions the imposition of laws by one over others when all have an equal right to freedom, and the requirement to serve when they
70
had been ordained to govern. The word ―ordain‖ asserts his claim to their original freedom and power that God as a tyrant has usurped. Abdiel calls Satan‘s argument ―blasphemous, false, and proud‖ (5.809)! He contends that it is ―by experience‖ that the angels know how good God and his Son are and instead of making the angels less, God‘s aim is to exalt ―Our happy state under one head more near / United‖ (5.830-31), renouncing Satan's argument that the Son is like the other angels and that equals cannot govern each other. He argues that to be under the head of the Son is not to obscure the other angels‘ existence and importance: ―But more illustrious made, since he the head / One of our number thus reduced becomes‖ (5.842-43). Accordingly, to serve in the Son‘s kingdom and to obey ―His Laws our laws‖ (844) is just. If we honour him, in fact, it ―[r]eturns our own‖ (845). By contrast, Satan presents his theory of ―self-begot, self-raised‖ creation to establish his own republican system. His own kingdom is founded on new rules and laws, demonstrating that laws and structures are indispensible though always incomplete.
Abdiel who is alone in the legions of evil replies fearlessly that they are empty and ―forsaken of all good‖ (5.878). He declares that from now on God‘s ―indulgent laws / Will not be vouchsafed‖ (5.883-84) and other decrees against Satan have ―gone forth without recall‖ (5.885). Abdiel announces his decision to fly away from Satan‘s ―wicked tents.‖ Like Mandela, Abdiel bears the ―universal reproach‖ – among the people of the white state and others - for the sake of ―the testimony of truth‖ (6.33), but what is important for Abdiel is to be approved by God and to remain ―in sight of God‖
71
even if the world "[j]udged thee perverse‖ (6.37). He believes in the superiority of true reason and conscience and fights for the true law, the law as such.
Abdiel‘s ultimate decision is to reject Satan‘s newly proclaimed laws and system. Satan‘s interpretation of the laws of Heaven corrupts their meaning in the same way that the white government of South Africa represented western democratic laws in their own way and corrupted them. Abdiel radically questions Satan‘s reasons and develops his response through an intense process of thinking and reasoning. He radically reviews the fundamental questions of the law, God's Law, conscience, self, and justice. In Abdiel‘s case, like that of Mandela, the law – equals cannot govern equals – is used by Satan against itself. Satan claims that their nature and existence clearly articulated in God-given titles - Thrones, Dominations, Princedoms, Virtues, Powers – have been devalued by God‘s new law that places an ―equal‖ head over them in the person of the Son of God.
The question of responding to right reason and conscience is contrasted with the question of obedience to the self. Self-obedience is self -slavery. Arguing the meaning of the terms ―servitude‖ and ―freedom,‖ Abdiel distinguishes obedience to conscience and right reason from obedience to one‘s self. Satan derides the divine angels as ―[m]inist'ring spirits‖ (6.167) and questions their freedom, calling it nothing more than mere ―[s]ervility‖ (6.169). Abdiel repels his argument claiming of their serving in Heaven that ―Unjustly thou deprav'st it with the name / Of servitude‖ (6.174-75) because to serve God is the same as attending to nature and both ―bid the same‖
72
(6.176). They serve God who is the ―worthiest‖ and ―excels / Them whom he governs‖ (6.177-78). To serve God or the Son is what nature dictates and if true reason or conscience is a natural inner power then what they persuade us to obey is the ―worthiest‖ (6.185). Abdiel argues that servitude is when you ―serve th' unwise‖ (6.179), as Satan‘s legions do. In other words, the element of right reason is always determining and decisive. This emphasis on reason and wisdom highlights the significance of the individual‘s free will and his responsibility. Abdiel states:
[…] This is servitude,
To serve th' unwise, or him who hath rebelled Against his worthier, as thine now serve thee, Thyself not free, but to thyself enthralled; Yet lewdly dar'st our minist'ring upbraid. Reign thou in Hell thy kingdom, let me serve In Heav'n God ever blest, and his divine Behests obey, worthiest to be obeyed,
Yet chains in Hell, not realms expect: […] (6.178-86)
Abdiel acknowledges that there can be different links of kingdom/state, but what they have in common is their foundation in law and the force to establish and maintain that law. He is not a slave to his self when his conscience affirms God‘s law and justice. He is free to question or accept Satan‘s arguments and show (dis)obedience to his superior. He moves in the direction of truth by freeing his reason from Satan's principles and
73
laws. His free conscience follows the principle law of searching for truth and justice that are irreducible to any laws.
"One just Man" and Singular Examples
Mandela radically reviews the history of his land and that of Europe in terms of the relations between individuals and the laws. He admires both freedom and equality in his ancestors‘ societies in South Africa and the tradition of freedom and democracy in the West. Mandela‘s memory and conscience recalls and promises a better law and state system for South Africa in the future. He does not claim to have complete access to that law or form of democracy. Demonstrating himself progressively as becoming a democratic intellect, he is hoping that they become possible due to his radical critique of the established laws. Abdiel‘s right reason and conscience are both memory and promise as well: memory because, after hearing Satan‘s critique of God‘s decree, he remembers all his knowledge in that relation and radically reviews it; and promise because he is not sure about the implications and future effects of his decision. His mind becomes clear that he must choose the voice of his conscience over Satan's claims for the future. In Milton‘s argument, God‘s law speaks directly to the heart of the individual, which demonstrates similar characteristics to Derrida‘s ―law of laws‖ or ―sentiment of justice.‖ Both Mandela and Abdiel respond to a superior and irreducible law that becomes a source of righteousness and true energy to empower the individual to make a free and just decision.
74
The examples in Milton's works that can be examined as singular examples of his fit reader or "just man" are many, including the Son of God in Paradise Lost or in Paradise Regained, Samson in Samson Agonistes, Abraham, Job, and Noah in Paradise Lost. Milton's fit reader demonstrates similar qualities to Derrida's singular examples like Mandela and his notion of democratic intellect. Milton‘s own life-long critical approach to institutions and systems of his time proves him to be a singular example as well. His The Tenure of King and Magistrates or Areopagitica provide clear evidence. To Milton, all singular examples are admirable; however, he fundamentally emphasises the importance of contextual factors in considering them. Specific contexts introduce elements of indeterminacy and undecidability into the process of decision-making. These admirable figures (fit readers) demonstrate their singularity in moments/spaces of undecidability by making radical decisions which challenge customs, conventional knowledge, and established rules and laws and then by enacting those decisions due to which possibilities of social change and development might be realised. The following paragraph by Derrida written about Mandela is true also of all Milton's singular examples of fit readers developed in his works, himself included:
He presents himself in his people, before the law. Before a law he rejects, beyond any doubt, but which he rejects in the name of a superior law, the very one he declares to admire and before which he agrees to appear. In such a presentation of the self, he justifies himself in resuming his history, which he reflects in a single centre, a single and double centre, his history and that of his people. […] The presentation of the self is not in the service
75
of the law, it is not a means. The unfolding of this history is a justification, it is possible and has meaning only before the law. He is only what he is, he, Nelson Mandela, he and his people, he has presence only in this movement of justice. (5, his emphasis)
Milton and Derrida demonstrate the admirable singularity of singular figures to prevent them being adopted as absolute models of decision-makings and actions for all times and places. Both writers consistently and emphatically highlight the necessity of the radically critical and free approach one must take in order to act truly and justly in different situations, cases, and contexts. Abdiel, like the Son of God in Paradise Regained and Samson in Samson Agonistes, is a fit reader alone among those who decide and act differently from him. He is in a different situation because his decision and act are confirmed and commended by the ultimate authority of God. These absolute confirmation and commendation do not exist in history after the Fall. Paradise Lost places its characters and their actions in an environment where direct or mediated access to the truth is possible whereas, in the two late poems, this situation does not exist.
77
Chapter Two