Milton’s Paradise Lost

“Shalt thou give law to God?”: The Divine Decree of Obedience in Paradise Lost

The thematic construction of obedience and disobedience is central to John Milton’s epic poem Paradise Lost. Multiple characters of varying significance within the hierarchy contemplate this issue. However it is Abdiel, a lowly angel, who succinctly disseminates Milton’s rhetorical stance when he warns an obstinate Satan, “shalt thou give law to God?” (5.822). The Poet’s didactic purpose is to rationalize the seemingly paradoxical principal of obedience to God and the simultaneous rebellion against a presumably divinely enthroned monarchy. For the Twentieth century reader a skeptical approach to all forms of power is commonplace, but in the Seventeenth Century Milton’s contention bordered on blasphemy. How does Milton create an argument that supports his distinction between theological and political/religious obedience? Through the examination of reason in pre and post-lapsarian states Milton elucidates his agenda. With the assertion that pure reason descends from divinity, but that man is obstructed from this purity of logic because of the Adam and Eve’s original sin, the poet defends his claim that obedience to God is not only just but a requirement, and that obedience to any form of earthly governance is to be questioned. Through the careful contrast of logic as disparately manifested by God and Satan, Milton reveals that conformity to God is natural and any other form of obedience is fallible.
As a staunch supporter of the revolutionary objective to overthrow the monarchy of Charles I, Milton is cognizant of the precarious interpretation of the language of rebellion and disobedience. Milton is critical of the blind submission to an earthly political leader espoused in both religious and political propaganda. On the one hand the poet finds the unchecked hegemony of the monarchy problematic for the emerging Enlightenment discourse of reason and liberty. Simultaneously, though an advocate of Puritanism and the fractious religious climate in which a handful of sects claim their own interpretations of Protestant theology, Milton views Presbyterianism, a supposedly direct ordinance of God, as similarly constrictive to the ideal of liberty. Because of the disjointed voices present during the reigns of James I and Charles I, the Interregnum, and the Restoration, Milton creates a separation between a perfected and untouchable heavenly monarchy and the contrasting earthly, and thus imperfect, interpretations of religious and political matters.
Milton’s contemporary religious and political analogues indicate that obedience to God and monarchial authority are inextricable. In the sermon entitled “An Homily against Disobedience and Willful Rebellion” of 1570, the disobedience of God as original sin is correlated to insubordination to the state. Utilizing biblical precedent, specifically Romans Chapter Thirteen, obedience to state government is implicitly demanded, “[in] the Old and New Testament, kings and princes, as well the evil as the good, do reign by God’s ordinance and … subjects are bound to obey them” (276). Though written nearly a century before the publication of Paradise Lost, this homily is an example of the rhetoric that Milton combats in his discourse on obedience. Through his representation of Satan as the embodiment of fallen logic, Milton is leveling not only a specific critique against Charles, but a generalized critique of any political or religious faction that claims unmediated directive from God. Thus, Milton sets up a binary between Satan on the one hand and Adam/Eve on the other. By illustrating disparate reactions to the divine command of obedience, Milton defends his seemingly ambivalent endorsement of, on the one hand, an unquestioned obedience to deity and, on the other, his justifiable rebellion against a secular form of codification and control.
Milton seeks to establish the sanctity and indisputable authority of God through a chain of logical postulates. In defending God’s law to Satan Abdiel claims, “serve whom God ordains/ or Nature; God and Nature bid the same” (6.175-76). N.H. Keeble asserts that Abdiel is the character with whom Milton most closely identifies himself (130). Thus, through Abdiel’s oration Milton insists that God is the embodiment of natural law- the two are inextricable. Subsequently, in a similar circumstance, God is connected to the principle of reason. As a pre-lapsarian Eve questions the nature of freedom in a world that demands complicity to Godly ordinance, Adam warns his spouse that, “God left free the will, for what obeys/ Reason, is free, and reason he made right” (9.351-52). The validity of Adam’s statement need not be questioned because it is uttered before sin enters the garden. Milton illustrates that reason is an innate aspect of God. Therefore God’s reason is natural and irrefutable. Stanley Fish says, “in the ultimate philosophical sense (God’s) words are true” (65). The reader can deduce that God is speaking through Adam in this instance because, in the pre-lapsarian paradise, Adam is still capable of divine reason. In fact God states that Adam, or Man, in general is “a creature … endued/ with the sanctity of reason” (8.508). Before the disobedience of the divine decree, the rational faculties of humanity mirror God’s own immutable reason.
Satan’s disobedience is not only an attempted usurpation of power or a toppling of the heavenly hierarchy. More so, it is a rebellion against God’s reason. Interestingly, in a contemporary sense, Satan’s actions represent what the modern reader regards as a healthy skepticism of a universally accepted ontology. Satan refers to the laws of Heaven as fixed, implying an archaic formulation of the cosmic structure- a rebellion against God is a confirmation of an evolving scientific interpretation of the cosmos. Yet because Satan rebels, like Man, his reason is subsequently corrupted. Milton’s diction indicates that it is Satan who is fixed, or obstinate, and though God’s degrees are indisputable, the construction of a heavenly government is progressive. When the angels sing of God they describe him as “omnipotent/ Immutable, immortal, infinite/ Eternal King … Throned inaccessible” (3.372-75,77). The use of the prefix “in-” may denote negation, but according to the Oxford English Dictionary, this prefix in Old English “was freely used in collocation with verbs of motion or change of state.” The definition indicates that God is, paradoxically, progressively stable. Thus, God’s power and creativity is eternal but not stagnate. Concurrently, the tenet of obedience is fixed but manifestations thereof may fluctuate. “For [Milton] … the place where free will and obedience- the inward choice and the outward imperative- converge is in the faculty of conscience” (Low 355). Milton’s poem binds the contradictory delineations of freedom and obedience. In his discussion with the Son God iterates this connection. “Not free, what proof could the have giv’n sincere/ of true allegiance” (3.102-03). In contrast, referring to the impending temptation of human creation, God notes that Satan will initially attempt to use “force … [to] destroy” (3.90). The word choice indicates that obedience to Satan is contrived; only by “force” can Satan assure his supremacy. For Milton this is applicable to the contemporary state of English politics. A citizen who obeys a head of state based on decree rather than volition forfeits individual liberty and impedes the progress of human endeavors.
Contrasting the logic of Satan and God necessitates an examination of the language used by both characters. In Diane Kelsey McColley’s explication of the motifs of freedom and obedience in Paradise Lost she says that, “Man’s disobedience … was not the revelation of his nature but the violation of it” (107). However, though Man is created in the perfect image of God, like Plato’s cave, he is a reflection of this perfection and thus lacks some form of Godliness. This does not mean that Man is inherently sinful but rather, that he lacks divinity. God’s language elucidates this lack. Milton repeatedly utilizes a variation of words indicative of negation when God speaks of his earthly creation. “[They] were created [free], nor can justly accuse/ their maker or their making” (3.111) and “[I] will create … out of man a race/ of men innumerable, there to dwell/ Not here, till by degrees of merit raised” (7.154-57). Furthermore, God states that man to “me owe[s]/ All his deliverance, and none but to me” (9.181-82 emphasis mine).
As the consummate poetical craftsman, Milton guises Satan’s temptation of Eve in a rhetorical strategy similar to God’s language. Both Satan’s speech and use of logical deduction emulate God. However God’s language relies on the strength of eternal decree while Satan espouses doubt. If the reader accepts the authority of God within the configurations of the poem then His oration is centralized fact. Satan’s dialogue seeks to puncture God’s language but not to create a language of his own:
Knowledge of good and evil;
Of good how just? Of evil, if what is evil
Be real, why not known, since easier shunned?
God therefore cannot hurt ye and be just
Not just, not God, not feared then, nor obeyed. (9.697-701 emphasis mine)
Satan attempts to identify God with the same lack that is applied to Man. God would not intentionally hurt his creation, and if he would then he logically cannot be God. Satan’s theorizing through repetition is ostensibly rational but as Fish asserts, “rhetoric is the verbal equivalent of the fleshly lures that seek to enthrall us and divert our thoughts from heaven … while logic comes from God” (61). Milton implies that in the hands of a fallen entity reason is often utilized to entrap or oppress.
The monarchial rhetoric of Milton’s epoch further clarifies the disparity between notions of obedience in Heaven and on Earth. The character of Satan, through his rebellion against the monarchy, is often said to reflect Milton’s own endorsement of the burgeoning rebellion against the throne in the early Seventeenth Century (Carrey 161). However, the assertion of this essay is that Milton aligns Charles I with the character of Satan. In a letter to Hamilton regarding the insurrection of Scotland and the National Covenant of 1638, Charles I states, “I mean to stick to my grounds …I expect not anything can reduce that people to obedience, but only force” (106). As previously stated, God notes that Satan may employ force to engender Man’s disobedience. When the fallen angels bow to Satan, “they bend/ with awful reverence prone” (2.477-8). Milton’s pun on the word “awe” contrasts the reverence given to God and Satan. The heavenly angels are in awe of God because of his omnipotent divinity. On the other hand, the word “awful” connotes images of tyranny. Satan’s minions do not pay homage out of true reverence but because they fear the repercussion of his wrath. Though Satan’s justification for his rebellion is the perceived injustice of God’s demands, the obedience that Satan requires is itself un-reasonable. If reason begets liberty and a separation of church and state, Charles’ demand that Scotland abandon Presbyterianism for a unified Church of England is similarly un-reasonable. More to the point, the “forced” submission that Charles espouses is in direct contrast to the freely chosen obedience that is represented in the dictates of Milton’s God. As Michael Schoenfeldt states, “for Milton … obedience entails an actively willed response to the dictates of reason and proper authority” (375).
While it is evident that Milton employs the theme of disobedience partly to justify the English Civil War, how does he differentiate between compliance to one form of government, i.e. Parliamentary or Cromwellian, over acquiescence to the “divinely” ordained monarchy? This is problematic for Milton and perhaps the reason that Paradise Lost endorses obedience to a power removed from the human realm. Speaking from within a Lutheran tradition, for Milton the etymology of the word Protestant implies an individuation of interpretation. This is transferable to the political realm. As reason emerges as the primary form of human interaction with the external world, Milton implies that, as paradoxical as it may sound, political authority, whether monarchal or representative, is subjected to the will of the people and not the opposite. Thus Milton’s text helps to bridge the gap between medieval interpretations of governance and an egalitarian formation of the nation-state in which political and religious hierarchy is bound by the dictates of the populous. Consequently, true disobedience is exhibited in a political leader that ignores the dictates of his constituency and engages in a tyrannical control of the citizenry (Lewis 75). To the modern reader, God’s authoritative speech seems Puritanical, in the inherently negative connotation of the word, but as Fish claims, “Milton can rely on his readers to recognize the propriety of the language of God and therefore acquiesce in his authority” (74). When God states in a seemingly merciless manner that Adam and Eve by “not obeying,/ Incurred what could they less, the penalty/ And manifold in sin, deserved to fall,” Milton condemns the government of Charles I for suspending Parliament, thus disobeying the mandate of his citizenry (10.14-16).
If Paradise Lost had been written twenty years previously, Milton’s lambaste of earthly authority could have been construed as a direct condemnation of the monarchy. Yet by the time the poem is published in a ten book version in 1667 England has experienced the unsuccessful “Rump” Parliament and the “reign” of Oliver Cromwell, culminating in the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660. Thus, the critique of political and religious governance represents a generalized distrust of authority. Schoenfeldt says that true obedience is in opposition to blind submission to law or doctrine. “For Milton [obedience is] a principle of political resistance; it involves not just doing what you are told but using reason to figure out what authority you are supposed to follow” (379). This is precisely why Milton endorses a freedom of press and religion in Areopagitica. “There be who perpetually complain of schisms and sects, and make it such a calamity that any man dissents from the maxims” (550). In this instance the critique is leveled against the Presbyterians who seek to consolidate religious orthodoxy, precisely what Protestantism attempts to repel in its split from Catholicism. Milton continues, “’tis their own pride and ignorance which causes the disturbing … they are the troublers, they are the dividers of unity, who neglect and permit not others to unite those dissever’d peeces which are yet wanting to the body of Truth. To be still searching what we know not, by what we know, still closing up truth to truth as we find it … this is the golden rule in Theology” (ibid). Milton questions any sort of orthodoxy because, by definition, it requires a systematic form of obedience. The passage from Areopagitica reinforces the thematic concerns of Paradise Lost- that any obedience other than to God is at best unreliable and, more importantly, a form of disobedience. “A man may be a heretick in the truth; and if he believes things only because his Pastor sayes so, or the Assembly so determines … the very truth he holds becomes heresie” (Areopagitica 543). Because of the religious and political factions present during his time period, Milton’s masterpiece is self-reflective. He is continually misled and disappointed by earthly governance; therefore his harbor of hope is embodied in the divinity of God. It is for this reason that Paradise Lost outlines a distinction between pre and post-lapsarian reason. Man’s disobedience is the chasm between pure reason and the clouded judgment at play in the religious and political sphere of Milton’s England.
The discourse of disobedience versus obedience is disseminated in the comparison between Satan and Adam/Eve. Rafael warns Adam that Satan “is plotting how he may seduce/ thee also from obedience” (6.901-02). Through the utilization of enjambment, Milton illustrates that seduction is an intrinsic characteristic of Satan and, furthermore, that he will use it to specifically tempt the residents of Eden. Again, Milton purports that without obedience to God, reason is a form of seduction that results in the justification of sin or, even, tyranny. When Satan whispers into Eve’s ear he plants the seductive seed of doubt. It is suspicion of God’s decree that produces a perception of autonomy which in turn leads to Man’s disobedience. “Is knowledge so despised?” Eve asks (5.60). Her first steps toward disobedience are an echo of Satan’s own discourse on the nature of God’s rationale. “Can it be a sin to know?” says Satan as he contemplates the forbidden tree (4.516). Uttered from the serpent’s forked tongue, Satan’s rhetorical temptation of Eve sounds reasonable. Milton’s diction, however, reveals the dichotomy between God and Satan. “In [Eve’s] ears the sound/ Yet rung of his persuasive words, impregned/ with reason, to her seeming, and with truth” (9.737-38). God need not “persuade,” his word, whether accepted or not, is immutable. Satan, like Charles, James, and even Milton, must employ the technique of persuasion because their respective demonic and human logic, by definition, is fallen. Furthermore, Satan’s words are bloated with bravado compared to the austere, unadorned logic of the Heavenly King.
Satan uses a form of reason to induce Eve into disobedience, but once she tastes truth “understanding rule[s] not” and she is “in subjection now/ to sensual appetite, who from beneath/ usurping over sov’reign reason claimed/ Superior sway” (9.1127-31). The use of the word sovereign reiterates the association of God to pure reason. Now fallen Eve, and soon Adam, are held captive by obedience to the fleshly “appetite.” Thus, mankind is condemned to eternally hunger for redemption. Yet if Adam and Eve incur the blame for the subsequent woes of civilization, Milton also makes them the heroes of his text. In James E. Johnston’s essay on atonement in Paradise Lost he traces what he terms the “humiliation/exaltation” theme. “Those who seek exaltation without submission [such as Satan] are cast down” (45). On the other hand, those who submit to God’s will are eventually exalted. Not only does this permit Milton to contrast the characters of Adam and Eve with Satan, it has its roots in biblical doctrine, thus further promoting Milton’s political and religious agenda that God’s word, and not the official decrees and documentation of mortal authority, is the demarcation of truth.
Milton’s didactic treatise that justifies rebellion against a corrupted power is dialogically opposed to “An Homily Against Disobedience…” which states “a rebel is worse than the worst prince” (279). Milton’s critique of church orthodoxy resonates into modernity. In fact the modern reader may initially sympathize with the character of Satan in his rebellion against a higher power. The questioning of authority appears to be a positive endeavor. The obstinacy that Satan exhibits is certainly spiteful, but somehow heroic. “All is not lost … courage never to submit or yield … that glory never shall his wrath or might/ extort from me” (1.106, 108, and 110-11). Satan’s word choice recalls archetypical resistance against oppression. In a subsequent monologue Satan contemplates surrender and the reclaiming of his lost position:
I could repent and could obtain
By act of grace my former state, how soon
Would heighth recall high thoughts, how soon unsay
What feigned submission swore: ease would recant
Vows made in pain. (4.93-97)
Milton confronts the emerging Enlightenment ideals of individuality and freedom. In the centuries that follow Milton, subservience of any sort is the subjugation of “inalienable rights.” In this sense Satan’s denunciation of a forced conformity to the mandate of others has positive connotations. God does not seem to adequately explicate his demand for obedience. This is problematic for the Twenty-First century reader who demands justification before complicity. However, from the Miltonic perspective the laws of God are the laws of nature, the law of God is obedience, and thus obedience to God is natural. Says Wheeler, “to obey God’s command is not to know God better or to become in any way like God” rather, it is simply to please him (64). This form of requisition seems irrational, but as Milton outlines, man’s reason has been corrupted so our perspective, as well as Satan’s, is definitively limited by our own irrationality. God’s messenger of reason, Abdiel, lambastes Satan, “canst thou … condemn/ The just decree of God?” (5.812-13). That which perplexes the modern reader, for Milton, is actually quite simplistic. Raphael instructs Adam, “solicit not thy thoughts with matters hid” (8.167). Obedience to God is required because God requires obedience.
By juxtaposing Satan’s response to the demand for obedience with Adam and Eve’s eventual post-lapsarian acceptance of God’s decree, Milton outlines the path of Man’s redemption. Why does Adam allow Eve to separate from his side on the morning of her temptation? For the identical reason that God grants Man freedom to choose. “Only if [Adam] had … commanded absolute and unquestioned obedience could he have prevented Eve from sinning” (Revard 71). To endorse his political philosophy that a pure monarchy is a violation of human rights, Milton chooses the divine right of man over the divine right of the king. In other words, the success of government is contingent upon leadership of which the populous approves. As Rafael states “love, but first of all/ Him whom to love is to obey” (8.634-35). Rafael’s point is well taken, he appeals to Adam’s emotion. If Adam truly loves God he will obey him. However, reverse Rafael’s statement and the justification for obedience to God is readily apparent. To obey God is to love God- obedience to a divine entity is the essence of love. This is what unseats Satan, and for Milton validates rebellion against Charles.
Milton employs the image of movement to further contrast Satan’s disobedience and Adam and Eve’s eventual supplication. Abdiel says to Satan, “thyself not free, but to thyself enthralled” (6.172). Milton’s pun on the word enthralled indicates that Satan is enamored with his image, his desire for control is narcissistic. On the other hand, he is held captive, enslaved, by his own misperception. Satan is metaphorically bound to his fate because he refuses to relinquish his stubborn assessment of his role. Whether he chooses to admit it or not, as a creature of God’s conception he naturally resides in an inferior hierarchical position. On the other hand, in pre-lapsarian Eden, Man possesses the possibility of spiritual ascension. “Your bodies may at last turn to Spirit/ Improved by tract of time … if ye be found obedient,” says Rafael to Adam (5.497-8, 501). Contrary to Satan’s assertion, obedience to God is not stagnate. Man possesses the ability to transcend his corporeality in the constant evolution of duty. After the Fall, the motif of movement remains prevalent. Schoenfeldt contends that post-lapsarian obedience entails constant movement because the object of God’s decree of obedience has shifted from the singular symbol of the tree to an endless string of choices complicated by fallen reason. “After the Fall [Man] must exercise a relentless ethical casuistry, continually applying clouded reason to … confusing imperatives of … contradictory authorities” (378). The movement out of the garden, though easily construed as a displacement, further supports the ambulant discourse of obedience. At the end of the poem Adam says “I shall thence depart/ Greatly in peace of thought … henceforth I learn that to obey is best” (12.559-60, 62). God’s simplistic commandment, though not necessarily easy to obey, is embodied by Adam and Eve’s movement beyond the sphere of paradise.
Regarding the conclusion of the poem, Johnston states that “there are hints that Adam [and Eve] may be better off in [their] post-lapsarian state, having learned the value of obedience and the need for contrition” (50). The implication is that, no longer innocent, Adam and Eve have the ability to grasp the value of conformity. By committing the original sin of disobedience, and by gaining knowledge, obedience to God is a choice based on experience rather than simply a divine, unfathomable declaration. However there is a certain sense of resignation in Adam’s acceptance of the tenet of submission. “Prayer against his absolute decree/ No more avails than breath against the wind … therefore to his great bidding I submit” (11.311-12, 14). Adam expresses his limitation as a human and a certain remorse for his subservient role. However, in the next line he states, “this most afflicts me, that departing hence/ As from his face I shall be hid, deprived/ his blessed countenance” (11.315-317). After his ingestion of the forbidden fruit Adam could think of nothing but hiding from God. Now it is God who will be concealed from humanity, only to be glimpsed in the personage of The Son. The use of enjambment in the last two lines is also a pun. Henceforth man is deprived of the glory of God and, in addition, because of his disobedience, is depraved. Yet lest Milton’s theology be construed as strictly Calvinist, the poet makes clear that this depravity is tempered by deference to The Son, thus granting hope for the post-lapsarian configuration of all humanity.
Published nearly a decade after the accession of Charles II to the throne, in the end, Paradise Lost gazes toward a future that may redeem the bleak dissension and fractured political and religious climate that defined the Post-Elizabethan era. Though the monarchy is reestablished, the strength of Parliament seemingly guarantees the impossibility of return to an era that is encapsulated by the following quote by King James I. “As to dispute what God may do is blasphemy … [and] both against logic and divinity, so it is sedition in subjects to dispute what the king may do in the height of his power” (324). Being in the precarious position of dissident to a reestablished form of government, it is difficult to assess whether or not Milton believes his own ending to Paradise Lost is applicable to England’s social future. Rafael’s pre-lapsarian warning to Adam, “that thou art happy owe to God; / that thou continuest such, owe to thyself/ That is, to thy obedience” is also applicable to the post-lapsarian formation of man (5.520-22). Yet it is also the author’s address to himself and his anti-monarchial contingent to remain steadfast in their obedience to God, but not necessarily to the current formation of the government. As Schoenfeldt says, “obedience … demands … the active engagement of the inner life of reason” (364). Though fallen, with obedience to God, Milton asserts, humanity is ultimately able to distinguish the right from the wrong.
The ambivalence of Milton’s authorial agenda complicates the thematic purpose of Paradise Lost. The reader’s first instinct is to associate Milton, as a historical rebel, with the character of Satan. His personal political goals endorse a healthy disobedience of authority. Why then, does he make the redemption of mankind contingent upon a tenet in opposition to his own political beliefs? As a Puritan, his religious beliefs also seek to dismantle the hierarchy of the church. Yet his incongruity only surfaces in the lens of the modern perspective that questions the presence of divinity in addition to the legitimacy of church and state. For Milton, God’s law is a universal mandate and subsequently unquestionable. On the other hand, Paradise Lost is clearly skeptical of any political or religious faction that demands obedience. Is Milton’s poem his justification for his own rebellion? If so his logic is flawed. If human reason cannot be trusted because it is fallen, then how can he trust his own rationale for rebellion against the monarchy and church hierarchy? Paradise Lost represents a historical benchmark in which the contemporary climate impels the author to question the legitimacy of medieval formulations of church and state. Yet, Milton, in his treatise on obedience and disobedience, stops short of subsequent Enlightenment philosophers, such as Descartes, who propose that obedience to one’s own reason is all that is empirically reliable. Through Paradise Lost the reader glimpses a future of obedience, but unlike Milton’s didactic postulation of deference to God, the following centuries beget obedience to self.

Works Cited

“An Homilie Against disobedience and wilfull rebellion.” Certaines Sermons or Homilies 1547- 1571 (1623 Edition) A Facsimile Reproduction of the Edition of 1623 With An Introduction By Mary Ellen Rickey and Thomas B. Stroup. Ed. Harry R.Warfel. Gainesville: Scholars Facsimiles & Reprints, 1968. 275-322.
Carrey, John. “Milton’s Satan.” The Cambridge Companion to Milton. Ed. Dennis Danielson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. 160-74.
Fish, Stanley Eugene. Surprised By Sin: the Reader in Paradise Lost. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1967.
Johnston, James E. “Milton On The Doctrine Of The Atonement.” Renascence: Essays of Value in Literature. 38.1 (1985): 40-53.
Keeble, N.H. “Milton and Puritanism.” A Companion to Milton. Ed. Thomas N. Corns. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2001. 124-40.
Lewis, C.S. “Hierarchy.” A Preface to Paradise Lost. London: Oxford University Press, 1942. 72-80.
Low, Anthony. “‘Umpire Conscience’: Freedom, Obedience, and the Cartesian Flight from Calvin in Paradise Lost.” Studies in Philology. 96.3 (Summer 1999): 348-65.
McColley, Diane Kelsey. “Freewill and Obedience in the Separation Scene of Paradise Lost.” Studies in English Literature 1550-1900. 12.1 (Winter 1972): 103-20.
McDonald, Russ. “King James I: From A Speech to the Lords and Commons of the Parliament at Whitehall.” The Bedford Companion to Shakespeare. Boston: Bedford Books, 1996. 322- 25.
Milton, John. “Areopagitica.” 485-570.
- - -. “Paradise Lost” John Milton: The Complete Poems. Ed. John Leonard. London: Penguin, 1998. 120-406.
Revard, Stella P. “Eve and the Doctrine of Responsibility in Paradise Lost.” PMLA 88.1 (June 1973): 69-78.
Schoenfeldt, Michael. “Obedience and Autonomy in Paradise Lost.” Corns. 363-79.
“The Letters, Speeches, and Proclamations of King Charles I.” Ed. By Sir Charles Petrie. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1968.
Wheeler, Thomas. “Freedom.” Paradise Lost and the Modern Reader. Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 1974. 58-75.