Exploring gender in Milton's quest to 'justify the ways of God to men'

Gender as a corrupting influence within Paradise Lost 

Can gender be a corrupting influence? Is all that is evil in Paradise Lost associated with the feminine? Or is Adam’s masculinity mirrored by Satan? This paper explores the extent to which Milton portrays each gender as corrupt and how he uses this to demonstrate God’s justice.

Although gender is normally attributed to a female or male form, if one can identify the feminine and masculine qualities that characterise each sex then one can identify gender in almost anything: a landscape, a facial expression, an angel, a devil and so on. In this essay, I will use traditional 17th-century concepts of the feminine and the masculine, based on Milton’s portrayal of Adam and Eve, to identify gender influence within the epic. Through this, I hope to demonstrate that whilst blame could be attributed to either sex, the true significance of gender within the poem is to show that all are created equal. Ultimately, in his quest to justify God to men, Milton is not concerned with the qualities the genders do not share but with the one they do: the potential to fall. Milton thus seeks to show the justice behind evil and suffering; God did not create “good” and “evil” beings, or make one gender predisposed to fall, for all beings were made ‘just and right/ Sufficient to have stood, but free to fall’. (3.99)            

In the following passage Milton proposes that God did not influence Adam or Eve. He did not ‘necessitate [man’s] fall’; it was their choices, ‘His free will’ and ‘her own inclining’, that led to the Fall. And yet even as it frees God from blame, it points towards a degenerate sex: 

no Decree of mine
Concurring to necessitate his Fall,
Or touch with lightest moment of impulse
His free Will, to her own inclining left
In eevn scale.
 (10.43-7)

To analyse gender within this passage there is only the gender-specific pronouns ‘his’ and ‘her’ to draw from. However, the syntax adds greater significance. First I draw attention to the capitalised ‘His’ in the fourth line; the emphasis that Milton gives the pronoun is suggestive of possession. It is ‘His’ free will, he, Adam, is the possessor of ‘free Will’, and with possession comes responsibility. In light of this, the lower case ‘his’ in ‘his Fall’ (second line) surely suggests that the ‘Fall’ does not belong to Adam, that he is not responsible for it. If the blame is to be placed with either Adam or Eve, this passage leans towards Eve. In addition is the difference in word choice to describe Adam’s versus Eve’s free will. Adam’s agency is described by Milton as ‘His free Will’. The capitalisation of ‘His’, as well as indicating the possessive, associates Adam with God - also normally referred to in capitals. This reiterates that Adam’s free will has been given to him by God, emphasising the divine connection between Adam and his creator. The word ‘Will’ itself, also capitalised, is synonymous with self-control and determination: positive attributes. Eve’s free will, however, is ‘her own inclining’; it is ‘her own’ and therefore not godly, it suggests rebelliousness and selfishness: she would follow her own inclination above others. This passage, then, serves to demonstrate the justness of God in giving both Adam and Eve free will, whilst pointing to Eve, the female, as the corrupting influence behind the Fall.  

Adam and Eve are not the only feminine and masculine presences within the poem. To fully understand the corrupting influence of gender, we must look at all characters. The attributes given to Adam and Eve in the following passage epitomises Milton’s model of man and woman.  

‘Not equal, as their sex not equal seem’d;  
For contemplation hee and valor form’d,  
For softness shee and sweet attractive Grace,  
Hee for God only, shee for God in him’. (4. 296-299) 

For Adam, Milton evokes imagery of a rational thinker prone to ‘contemplation’, with an athletic physique capable of great strength and ‘valor’. This places Adam firmly within 17th century ideals of the masculine. Milton’s description of Eve, likewise, conforms to the typical 17th century woman: she is ‘sweet attractive Grace’ formed ‘for softness’, the weak, delicate female. Yet, arguably, these lines also contain an alternative portrayal: the female sex as a corrupting influence. For example, Milton declares ‘Hee for God only, Shee for God in him’. As McChrystal concurs, the line creates an abstraction: ‘[it suggests] Eve’s mediated position through Adam, her separation from the word of the Father’ (495); there is an obvious separation between God, the epitome of good, and Eve, our female representative. If it follows the further one is removed from God the less holy they are, it stands that Milton is suggesting Eve and the feminine to be less holy, less virtuous, than Adam and the masculine. Richard Bradford agrees that ‘in Milton’s representation of Eve he dramatises and reinforces the ingrained perception of woman as … allied to the more dangerous and degenerate human tendencies’ (167). But how far can Milton present women as corrupt and ‘allied to the … degenerate’ (Bradford 167), when God has given them ‘sweet attractive Grace’?  This is reconciled if the distinctly female traits, i.e. ‘sweet attractive Grace’, come with a flip side: weakness and vanity. When compared to Adam’s gift for ‘contemplation’ and  strength, his ‘valour’, it becomes ever more apparent how ‘Eve’s weaker reason’ could fall ‘victim to a more powerful passion’ (Bowers 265). And, as Bowers observes, it is ‘under this influence she makes a decision that seals the fate of them both’ (265). Whilst Bowers suggests Eve’s defective reason is paramount to the fall, others argue it is her intrinsic feminine beauty. Eve pines ‘with vain desire’ (4.466) for her reflection and therefore we know that, in keeping with her ‘sweet attractive grace’, Eve is beautiful. But her associated vanity corrupts Paradise: ‘by means of her residual narcissism she is seduced by Satan’ (Earl 13).  Beauty is another distinctly feminine quality and therefore one could argue that The Fall itself, if caused by Eve’s narcissism, is feminine.                      

However, Eve is not the only female presence within the poem. Sin and Medusa are feminine figures, respectively guarding the gates of hell and the River Lethe. I find the character of Sin intriguing. First and foremost, Milton clearly labels Sin as feminine: ‘daughter’, ‘she’, ‘woman’, ‘womb’ (2.650-657). The name “Sin” lends to the idea of corruption because the word means a transgression of divine law. Suggesting that sin itself is female helps paint the female gender as a corrupting influence. Of further significance are the similarities between Sin and Eve. Eve’s qualities of ‘sweet attractive Grace’ (4.298) are the very same feminine characteristics held by Sin, who ‘with attractive graces’ (2. 762) won over Satan and the heavenly host. Medusa, on the other hand, is more complicated. Fleming states categorically that ‘Medusa is not good’ (1012) and this is supported by the ‘Gorgonian terror’ with which she guards ‘The Ford’ (2.611-612); surely one who is good would not reside in Hell and inflict terror?  However, if ‘Medusa is not good’ (Fleming 1012), why would she ‘oppose’ (2.610) the troop of fallen angels? Perhaps, her opposition is evidence of her more masculine side. Medusa’s ‘Gorgonian terror’ (2.611)  is certainly more akin to Milton’s masculine ideal than the fair  gentle qualities reserved for females; a face that men fear to look upon – described by Homer as ‘a thing of fright and terror’ (Hard 61) - is hardly one of feminine ‘softness’. So, Sin, the typically more feminine of the two guards, willingly lets Satan out of Hell and into Paradise, whilst Medusa, with her more masculine presence, ‘oppose[s] th’ attempt’ (2.610). The use of these two female figures highlights Milton’s propensity for depicting masculine traits as good and feminine as evil.  

So far, femininity has much to answer for, but can the masculine also be blamed? Adam’s attributes, ‘contemplation’ and ‘valor’, lack female compassion and softness (4.297). Although Eve’s defective reason has been criticised as the cause of the Fall, Adam, too, can be seen as a perpetrator. Revard argues that Adam, ‘by permitting Eve to go forth alone, creates the climate for the Fall’ (71). I suggest that it is Adam’s lack of compassion, of femininity, that engenders this situation. For in the line ‘thou know’st / what hath been warned us, what malicious foe’ (9.152-153) Adam’s heightened reason makes him aware of the danger and yet his lack of feminine compassion results in him simply warning Eve, not actively protecting her from the ‘malicious foe’ (9.153).

In addition to Adam, Satan and the fallen angels of Hell are undeniably masculine figures. As Broadbent reflects: ‘Bad angels are never female’ (64).  We can tell this not only by the pronoun ‘He’ used to reference Satan but through applying the very same gender outlines  Milton applied to Adam and Eve. Satan is described as ‘Leviathan’ (1.201) like and ‘stretched out huge in size’ (1.209) evoking a powerful masculine physique, not unlike Adam’s ‘shoulders broad’ (4.303). Satan further conforms to Milton’s picture of the male sex in light of his ‘valor’ (4.297). Satan is portrayed as heroic: rising from the burning lake of Hell to rally his followers and setting out alone through the gates of Hell. Satan, then, is equally the epitome of “the male”. This means evil and potential for corruption cannot reside purely in the female sex. What is more, Broadbent observes, of a contemporary depiction of Paradise Lost, that ‘Satan is in uniform…while the good angels are more gowned and floaty’ (64). If we associate the stereotypical masculine with warrior-like qualities, with ‘valor’ (4.297), action, a militant strong physique i.e. the uniformed Satan, and the feminine with beauty, innocence, ‘softness’ (4.298) i.e. the gowned angels, then this depiction of evil and good could be construed simultaneously as a depiction of masculine and feminine.

IIn addition to gender-specific characters is Milton’s use of imagery throughout the poem. Daemmrich writes  ‘the feminine is identified as the paradisal landscape itself…frequently [exhibiting] such traditional feminine attributes as beauty, grace, purity, peace, and love’. (214). Daemmrich highlights an interesting point: the Garden of Eden – if ascribed a gender – would be female. Paradise is undeniably the epitome of feminine qualities, and to link Paradise with the feminine is to link the feminine with God. Now, juxtapose this feminine and Edenic scene with one of the final images of hell presented: ‘for now were all transformed / Alike, to serpents all as accessories / To his bold riot’ (10. 519-21). A pit of serpents slithering and hissing; the image is grotesque and far from Daemmrich’s feminine landscape of ‘beauty’ and ‘peace’ (214). I would argue that the scene is a masculine one. The serpents present phallic imagery whilst a ‘bold riot’ must be reserved for masculine ‘valor’ (4.297) not feminine meek ‘grace’ (4.298). Thus, the feminine can be directly associated with Paradise, with God, and the masculine with the absence of God, Hell. This contrasts with the first passage, where the male, Adam, is closest to God, ‘for God only’, and the female, Eve, is distanced, only ‘for God in him’ (4.299).                MM                                                                     

Is Milton then suggesting both genders are corrupt? This is strange for one who aims ‘to justify the ways of God to men’ (1.26); if either or both genders are inherently corrupt, surely this criticises, rather than justifies, God? Perhaps, Milton is actually showing that both genders have the potential to become corrupt. In showing the extent of corruption that both genders can hold, Milton is directly demonstrating the extent of free will God has given us.  The significance of gender in Milton’s quest to show this is its ability to equalise, for although gender divides all of God’s creation, man, woman and spirits alike, the sexes have free will in common: 

Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall. 
Such I created all th' Ethereal Powers  
And Spirits, both them who stood and them who faild; 
Freely they stood who stood, and fell who fell. (3.99-102) 

Through the use of gender Milton was able to demonstrate the extent of God’s justice in allowing us to choose freely: ‘Not free, what proof could they have given sincere / Of true allegiance, constant Faith or Love’ (3.103-104). Milton offers the reader the picture of free will, death and suffering included, or a perfect world but one in which we are not free to choose.    

Overall, gender is a corrupting influence within Paradise Lost not in the form of femininity or masculinity but in itself. I argue that to focus on the differences of the two gender spheres or to view them as unequal is, perhaps, to read wrongly. In his quest to justify the ways of God to Man, it is not the inequalities of the feminine and the masculine that is important but that which marks them as equal: the potential to fall. Milton does not attribute the quality of corruption to either gender but the potential for corruption to both. The evidence as it stands - the masculine and phallic imagery associated with Satan and Hell, the feminine wiles associated with Sin and the entering of evil into the world - represents that, regardless of gender, all have the potential to fall. And this potential to fall is evidence of God’s justice because without it we would not be free. 

PLEASE NOTE:  The significance of gender in Milton's quest to 'justify the ways of God to men' by Annabelle May Hawkes is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0