Project Gutenberg Australia
a treasure-trove of literature
treasure found hidden with no evidence of ownership
DefectiveByDesign.org

Title: Milton: Man and Poet
Author: G K Chesterton
* A Project Gutenberg Australia eBook *
eBook No.: 0900721.txt
Language: English
Date first posted: September 2009
Date most recently updated: September 2009

Project Gutenberg Australia eBooks are created from printed editions
which are in the public domain in Australia, unless a copyright notice
is included. We do NOT keep any eBooks in compliance with a particular
paper edition.

Copyright laws are changing all over the world. Be sure to check the
copyright laws for your country before downloading or redistributing this
file.

This eBook is made available at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg Australia License which may be viewed online at
http://gutenberg.net.au/licence.html

To contact Project Gutenberg Australia go to http://gutenberg.net.au

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Milton: Man and Poet
Author: G K Chesterton




All the mass of acute and valuable matter written or compiled about
Milton leaves eternally an unanswered question; a difficulty felt by
all, if expressed by few, of his readers. That difficulty is a contrast
between the man and his poems. There exists in the world a group of
persons who perpetually try to prove that Shakespeare was a clown and
could not have written about princes, or that he was a drunkard and
could not have written about virtue. I think there is a slight fallacy
in the argument. But I wonder that they have not tried the much more
tempting sport of separating the author of _L' Allegro_ from the author of
the _Defensus Populi Anglicani_. For the contrast between the man Milton
and the poet Milton is very much greater than is commonly realized. I
fear that the shortest and clearest way of stating it is that when all
is said and done, he is a poet whom we cannot help liking, and a man
whom we cannot like. I find it far easier to believe that an intoxicated
Shakespeare wrote the marble parts of Shakespeare than that a marble
Milton wrote the intoxicated, or, rather, intoxicating, parts of Milton.
Milton's character was cold; he was one of those men who had every
virtue except the one virtue needful. While other poets may have been
polygamists from passion, he was polygamous on principle. While other
artists were merely selfish, he was egoistic.

The public has a quick eye for portraits, a very keen nose for
personality; and across two centuries the traditional picture of Milton
dictating to his daughters till they were nearly dead has kept the truth
about Milton; it has not taken the chill off. But though the mass of men
feel the fact Milton after two hundred years, they seldom read the
poetry of Milton at all. And so, because Milton the man was cold, they
have got over the difficulty by saying that the poet Milton is cold too;
cold, classical, marmoreal. But the poetry of Milton is not cold. He did
in his later years, and in a fit of bad temper, write a classical drama,
which is the only one of his works which is really difficult to read.
But taken as a whole he is a particularly poetical poet, as fond of
symbols and witchery as Coleridge, as fond of colored pleasures as
Keats. He is sometimes sufficiently amorous to be called tender; he is
frequently sufficiently amorous to be called sensual. Even his religion
is not always heathen in his poetry. If you heard for the first time the
line,

By the dear might of Him that walked the waves,

you would only fancy that some heart of true religious heat and humility,
like Crashaw or George Herbert, had for a moment achieved a technical
triumph and found a faultless line. If you read for the first time,

But come, thou Goddess fair and free,
In heaven yclept Euphrosyne,

you would think that the most irresponsible of the Elizabethans had
uttered it as he went dancing down the street, believing himself
in A ready. If you read,

Blossoms and fruits at once of golden hue
Appeared, with gay enamelled colors mixed,

or

Silence was pleased. Now glowed the firmament
With living sapphires,

you would think that all the rich dyes of the Orient and the Middle Ages
had met, as they do in some quite modern poet, such as Keats or even
Swinburne. If you read the account of the ale and the elf and the
Christmas sports in _L'Allegro_, you might think them written by the most
rollicking of rustic poets; if you read some lines about Eve in Paradise
Lost, you might think them written at once by the most passionate and
the most chivalrous of lovers. Paradise Lost is not dull; it is not even
frigid. Anyone who can remember reading the first few books as a boy
will know what I mean; it is a romance, and even a fantastic romance.
There is something in it of _Thalabe the Destroyer_; something wild and
magical about the image of the empire in the abyss scaling the turrets
of the magician who is king of the cosmos. There is something Oriental
in its design and its strange colors. One cannot imagine Flaxman
illustrating Milton as he illustrated Homer. Nor is it even true that
the rich glimpse of tropical terrors are conveyed in a clear outline of
language. No one took more liberties with English, with metre, and even
with common sense than Milton; an instance, of course, is the well-known
superlative about Adam and his children.

Milton was not a simple epic poet like Homer, nor was he even a specially
clear epic poet like Virgil. If these two gentlemen had studied his verse,
they would have certainly acknowledged its power; but they would have
shrunk from its inversions, its abrupt ellipses, its sentences that
sometimes come tail foremost. I might even say that Homer reading Milton
might have much the same feelings as Milton reading Browning. He would
have found

Or of the eternal coeternal beam

a trifle obscure, and

nor sometimes forget,
Those other two, equalled with me in fate, etc., etc.,

almost entirely unintelligible. In this sense it is absurd to set up Milton
as a superlatively clear and classic poet. In the art of turning his
sentences inside out he never had an equal; and the only answer is to say
that the result is perfect; though it is inside out, yet somehow it is
right side out.

Nevertheless, the tradition which puts Milton with Virgil and the large
and lucid poets, must possess and does possess some poetic significance.
It lies, I think, in this: the startling contrast between Milton and the
century in which he lived. He was not supremely classical; but he was
classical in a time when classicism was almost forgotten. He was not
specially lucid; but he was moderately intelligible in an age when
nearly all poets were proud of being unintelligible; an age of one
hundred Brownings gone mad. The seventeenth century was a most
extraordinary time, which still awaits its adequate explanation. It was
something coming after the Renaissance which developed and yet darkened
and confused it, just as a tree might be more tangled for growing. The
puns that had been in Shakespeare few and bad became numberless and
ingenious. The schisms of thought which under Wickliffe and Luther had
at least the virtue of heartiness, and were yet full of a human
hesitation, became harsh, incessant, exclusive; every morning one heard
that a new mad sect had excommunicated humanity. The grammars of Greek
and Latin, which the young princes of the Renaissance had read as if
they were romances, were now being complicated by bald-headed pedants
until no one on earth could read them. Theology, which could always in
light moments be given the zest of an amusement, became a disease with
the Puritans. War, which had been the sport of gentlemen, was now
rapidly becoming the ill-smelling science for engineers it still
remains. The air was full of anger; and not a young sort of anger;
exasperation on points of detail perpetually renewed. If the Renaissance
was like a splendid wine, the seventeenth century might be compared to
the second fermentation into vinegar. But whatever metaphor we use the
main fact is certain; the age was horribly complex; it was learned, it
was crabbed, and in nearly all its art and utterance, it was crooked.

Remember the wonderfully witty poets of Charles I.; those wonderfully
witty poets who were incomprehensible at the first reading and dull even
when one could comprehend them. Think of the scurrilous war of
pamphlets, in which Milton himself engaged; pages full of elaborate
logic which no one can follow, and elaborate scandals which everyone has
forgotten. Think of the tortured legalities of Crown and Parliament,
quoting against each other precedents of an utterly different age; think
of the thick darkness of diplomacy that covers the meaning (if it had
any) of the Thirty Years' War. The seventeenth century was a labyrinth;
it was full of corners and crotchets. And against this sort of
background Milton stands up as simple and splendid as Apollo. His style,
which must always have been splendid, appeared more pure and translucent
than it really was in contrast with all the mad mystification and
darkness.

A riddle itself, that time is full of minor riddles; and one of the most
inexplicable of them involves the whole position of Milton. How far was
there really a connection between Calvinism and the idea of liberty, or
the idea of popular government? There is much to be said on both sides;
indeed there is no more perplexing question than whereabouts at the
Reformation, or just after the Reformation, lay the real seed of modern
self-government and freedom, or, to speak more strictly, of the modern
belief in them; for we rather praise these things than possess them.

The first and fundamental fact is certainly against the liberalizing
character of Puritanism. It did not profess to be merely a moral
movement; its whole point was that it was strictly a theological
movement; its chief objection to its enemies was that they tried to
exalt (as the Scotch Puritans said) "the cauld banes of morality"
above the sustaining and comfortable doctrine of predestination. To a
Calvinist the most important thing was Calvinism; to a Puritan the most
important thing was the Puritan creed; and this in itself certainly did
not favor the vague sentiments either of emancipation or fraternity.
Calvinism took away a man's liberty in the universe; why, then, should
it favor his liberty in the State? Puritanism denied free will; why
should it be likely to affirm free speech? Why should the Calvinist
object to an aristocracy? The Calvinists were an aristocracy; they were
the most arrogant and awful of aristocracies by the nature of their own
belief: they were the elect. Why should the Puritans dislike a baby
being born a nobleman? It was the whole philosophy of the Puritans that
a baby is born a celestial nobleman; and he is at birth and before birth
a member of the cosmic upper classes. It should have been a small matter
to the Puritans to admit that one might be born a king, seeing that they
maintained the much more paradoxical position that one might be born a
saint. Nor is it easy to see upon their own ideal principles why the
Puritans should have disliked despotism or arbitrary power; though it is
certainly much more the fact that they did dislike despotism than that
they did dislike oligarchy. The first conception of Calvinism is a
fierce insistence on the utterly arbitrary nature of power. The King of
the Cavaliers was certainly not so purely willful, so sublimely
capricious a sultan, as the God of the Puritans.

But we can add something much more plain and practical. It is not merely
that despotism or oligarchy might well have pleased the Puritans in
theory: it is also true that they did please the Puritans in practice.
Of the democratic element that did honestly exist in Puritanism I will
speak in a moment; but the oligarchic and despotic elements were not
merely things that logically ought to have appeared, but things that
actually did appear. It is no longer denied, I think, by serious
historians that the whole business of the Puritan revolt or triumph was
anti-popular; that is to say, that at almost any given moment of the
struggle, universal suffrage would have been a clear victory for the
king. The really brilliant triumph of Cromwell was not his triumph over
the monarchy, but his triumph over the democracy; the fact that he
somehow kept the enormous crowd called England quiet. In short, his
great glory was not in heading the Great Rebellion, but in avoiding the
Great Rebellion. For the really Great Rebellion was the one that never
happened. But, indeed, it is unnecessary even to urge so generally
accepted a conjecture as this. Whatever may be true of the rebellion as
a whole, no one will deny that at certain moments Puritanism appeared in
politics as arrogant, fastidious and anti-popular; full of the pride of
predestination and the scorn of all flesh. Even the most enthusiastic
upholder of the Whig or Republican theory of Puritanism will hardly
pretend that when Colonel Pride drove out of Parliament at the point of
the pike all the members that ventured to disagree with him, his soul
was at that moment inflamed with an enthusiasm for free discussion or
representative government. It was by no means democratic; but it was
highly Calvinistic. It was a sort of public pantomime of the doctrine of
election; of election in the theological, but by no means the political
sense. It is still called "Pride's Purge;" and the phrase has quite a
fine allegorical flavor, as if it came out of _Pilgrim's Progress_. In
fact, one of the really happy coincidences of the historical epoch was
that one distinguished officer at any rate had somehow got hold of the
right surname. And upon larger grounds the alliance between oligarchy
and Protestantism has become only too plain. For all we know the
Reformation may have tried to make a democracy; all that we do know for
certain is that it did make an aristocracy, the most powerful
aristocracy of modern times. The great English landlords, who are the
peers, arose after the destruction of the small English landlords, who
were the abbots. The public schools, which were for the populace in the
Middle Ages, became aristocratic after the Reformation. The
universities, which were popular in the Middle Ages, became aristocratic
after the Reformation. The tramp who went to a monastic inn in the
Middle Ages, went to jail and the whipping-post after the Reformation.
All this is scarcely denied.

Yet against all this must be put in fairness certain important facts;
especially two facts illustrated in the figure and career of Milton.
When we have clearly seen that Calvinism always favors aristocracy in
theory and often favors it in practice, two great facts remain to be
explained or to be explained away. First, that the Puritans did favor a
deliberate or sy nodical method of church government, a government by
debate; and, second, that most of the abstract republicans of the
seventeenth century were either Puritans or upon the Puritan side. I am
not, of course, discussing the synod as a mode of church government, nor
a republic as a mode of national government. I only say that the clamor
for these things must have corresponded to some kind of enthusiasm for
liberty and equality alien to the more obvious lessons of Calvinism. But
the republicanism was of a peculiar and frigid kind; there was very
little human fraternity about it. Fletcher of Saltown was the author of
some epigrams about the public good that read like those of some great
pagan; but he was also the author of a proposal to reduce the poorer
inhabitants of Scotland to a condition of personal slavery. There was a
flavor of Fletcher of Saltown about Milton. Shakespeare puts into the
mouth of some character (generally a silly character) some contemptuous
talk about the greasy rabble, talk which is common to all literary work,
but especially common in work which like Shakespeare's was intended to
please the greasy rabble. Whenever this happens critics point to it and
say, "Look at the Tory prejudices of the Royalist Shakespeare! Observe
the Jacobite servility of the follower of James I.!" But as a matter
of fact Milton despised the populace much more than Shakespeare; and
Milton put his contempt for common men not into the mouth of silly or
stupid characters, but into that of the one wise character, the Chorus,
who is supposed to express the moral of a play:

Nor do I name of men the common rout...
But such as thou hast solemnly elected.

I cannot help thinking that Milton was successful with Satan, because he
was rather like Satan himself. I mean his own Satan: I will not be so
intemperate as to say that he resembled the genuine article. The kind of
strength which supported Milton in blindness and outlawry was very like
the kind of strength that supported Satan on the flaming marl; it is the
same quality, and for merely literary purposes we need not quarrel about
whether it should be called spiritual nobility or spiritual pride. It
was almost wholly intellectual; it was unsmiling and it was empty of
affection. And in justice to the genial, if somewhat vague, people who
made up the bulk of the Royalist party and probably the bulk of the
English people, we must remember that there was about the high
republican type, the type of Vane, or Sydney, or Milton, something of
this austerity which chilled and even alarmed. There was something in
these republicans which was not brotherly; there was something in these
republicans which was not democratic. The compound of the new Puritan
and the old pagan citizen produced none of those hearty or homely
drinkers, soldiers, or ruffians, men like Danton or Dumouriez, who lent
laughter to the terrors of the French Revolution. The deepest dislike
which the Cavaliers felt for the Puritans, and no unjust dislike either,
had reference to this nameless feeling.

It is possible, I fancy, to frame a fair statement that shall admit this
element of the pride of the elect while doing justice to the democratic
germ in Puritanism. It was the misfortune of that age that the synodic
or debating club idea was applied, not to the whole people as among the
pagans, but to small groups or sections among the people. Equality
appeared in the form of little separate chapels, not in the form of a
great national temple. Thus the Puritan movement encouraged the sense of
the equality of members without encouraging the sense of the equality of
men. Each little sect was a democracy internally considered, but an
oligarchy externally considered. For an aristocracy is none the less
aristocratic because its members are all on a level; indeed this is
rather a mark of aristocracy; in this sense most aristocracies have been
levelers. Even the House of Lords is called the House of Equals: the
House of Peers. Thus arose a spirit which had the plainness and much of
the harshness of democracy without any of its sympathy or abandon. Thus
arose the great race of the aristocratic republicans, half pagan and
half Puritan, the greatest of whom was Milton.

The effect of this great type has been immense; but it has been largely
a negative effect. If the English peoples have remained somewhat
inaccessible to the more ideal aspect of the republican idea, and they
certainly have; if, through failing to understand it, they have done
gross injustice to the heroisms and even the crimes of the French
Revolution, it is in no small degree due to this uncongenial element in
the only great school of English republicans. The ultimate victory of
Shakespeare over Milton has been very largely due to the primary victory
of _Il Penseroso_ over _L'Allegro_. The return of Charles II. was the
return of a certain snobbish compromise which has never been shaken off,
and which is certainly far less heroic than the dreadful patriotism of
the great regicides; but the balance and excuse of that snobbishness was
that it was the return of English humor and good nature. So we see it in
Milton, in the one great Elizabethan who became a Puritan. His earlier
poems are the dying cries of Merry England. England, like his own
Samson, lost its strength when it lost its long hair. Milton was one of
the slayers; but he was also of the slain. The mystery of his strange
mind confronts us forever; we do not know of what god or demon or
destiny he had really caught sight afar off; we do not know what he
really saw with his sightless eyes. We only know that it turned him to
stone.



THE END



This site is full of FREE ebooks - Project Gutenberg Australia