Ghent University
Faculty of Arts and Philosophy
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
An Analytic Study of the Relation Between Character and Rhetorical
Development in the Speeches of Milton’s Paradise Lost and Paradise
Regained in Comparison to Virgil’s Aeneid
Paper submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for
the degree of "Master in de Taal- en Letterkunde: Engels-Latijn"
Matthias Devreese
Academic year 2015-2016
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Wim Verbaal
Likewise Rhetoric captures the minds of men and so pleasantly
draws them after her in chains those who are enticed, that at one
time she is able to move to pity, at another to transport into hatred,
again to kindle to warlike ardor, and then to exalt to contempt of death.
- John Milton, transl. by Bromley Smith
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis in written in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of "Master in de
Taal- en Letterkunde: Engels-Latijn". However, before diving deeper into the research part of
it, I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to a number of people for their
support and motivation while writing this thesis.
Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Wim Verbaal, for providing background
knowledge and general guidance throughout this year. His supervision was most helpful in
adjusting the content of this paper where adjustment was needed. His feedback and overall
advice have given me the opportunity to enhance both my writing and research skills, and to
improve this thesis to its current state.
Secondly, I would like to express gratitude to my friends and fellow students, Joram Van Acker
and Steffie Van Neste, for rereading this paper and improving its comprehensibility. Their many
encouragements were most welcome at all times. Many thanks also go to Anouk Gorris and
Benjamin De Vos, who have tried their best to answer any questions I confronted them with,
and to Frederik De Loose for providing me with many a source that could improve the argument
at hand.
Finally, my sincerest thanks go to all my friends and family who, throughout the past year, have
shown unwavering patience in listening to my many lamentations and complaints. Their support
has encouraged me to keep writing, and, at the same time, provided the necessary distraction
when needed the most. A special thanks must go to my parents, who, throughout my university
years, have provided me with the necessary financial and emotional support, for which I am
eternally grateful.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
9
MODELS FOR COMPARISON: AN INVESTIGATION OF ST. PAUL’S SCHOOL, OF
EDUCATION AND THE PROLUSIONES
16
THE IMPORTANCE OR INSIGNIFICANCE OF CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT:
LOOKING FOR EVOLUTIONS IN A RHETORICAL FRAMEWORK
25
SATAN’S FALL AS A RHETORICAL THRESHOLD
25
SATAN’S SECOND THRESHOLD: REGAINING WHAT WAS LOST?
37
STAGNATING VOICES: THE RHETORIC OF THE FATHER AND THE SON
47
MILTON’S SPEECH MODELS: THE INFLUENCE OF CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT ON
RHETORICAL DEVELOPMENT IN CLASSICAL LATIN LITERATURE
58
THE STATUS OF CLASSICAL RHETORIC AND ITS ORATORS IN SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ENGLAND
58
RHETORICAL DEVELOPMENT IN MILTON’S SPEECH MODELS: A CASE STUDY OF VIRGIL’S AENEAS 67
MILTON’S SPEECH MODELS AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE GODS
81
CONCLUSION
96
BIBLIOGRAPHY
101
(34.972 words)
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 9
INTRODUCTION
As when of old some orator renowned
In Athens or free Rome, where eloquence
Flourished, since mute, to some great cause addressed,
Stood in himself collected, while each part,
Motion, each act won audience ere the tongue,
Sometimes in height began, as no delay
Of preface brooking through his zeal of right.
So standing, moving, or to height upgrown
The tempter all impassioned thus began.1
The above given excerpt is taken from the well-known scene of John Milton’s Paradise Lost
where Satan tempts Eve into eating the forbidden fruit. Commencing his final speech of
temptation, Satan is compared to “some orator renowned / In Athens or free Rome, where
eloquence / Flourished”, and, consequently, Eve is compared to the abiding crowd awaiting his
speech. It is no coincidence that such comparison takes place where Satan reaches his highest
potential as a rhetorical craftsman. The speech that follows is filled with repetitions, anaphora’s,
tricola, and rhetorical questions, more than any other speech he delivers. Very interestingly, it
is only here, when Satan reaches that full potential, that a reference to ancient Greece and Rome
can be found. Never before in his series of speeches meant to tempt Eve does a similar reference
to the eloquence of Greece and Rome occur. It should not come as a surprise, then, that many
before me have attempted to uncover the influence of classical rhetoric upon Milton’s own
rhetoric. It is, after all, no secret that classical rhetoric – and of more use for this thesis: Roman
rhetoric in particular – has withstood the test of time and left its mark on both present-day
rhetorical theories and present-day speeches, be it for political, literary or other objectives.
Apart from the well-studied importance of classical rhetoric, Milton’s attempt to situate
Paradise Lost, and by extension Paradise Regained, into an epic tradition including Homer’s
Iliad and Virgil’s Aeneid, has repeatedly been subjected to extensive research as well. Virgil
has, after all, never left the schoolbooks ever since the incorporation of his Bucolics and
1
Paradise Lost, IX.670-678.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 10
Georgics in the Roman educational system in 26 B.C.2 His Aeneid was added to the canon few
years later, and has since then inspired countless authors. That Milton is one of those many
authors seems undeniable. In more than one way, Paradise Lost takes up the role of being the
last part of a triptych consisting of both Homer’s and Virgil’s epics. It has, for example, often
been read next to the famous opening lines of the Aeneid, “tantaene animis caelestibus irae?”3
– “can there be such anger in the minds of the gods?”4 – to which Milton answers that his epic
is meant to “justify the ways of God to men”.5 Fowler points out that, in doing so, Milton
counterpoints Adam’s deeds with those of classical heroes, with that contrast that, in pagan
epic, it is the anger of the gods that needs explanation.6 A comparative study, then, between, on
the one hand, Milton’s epics, and, on the other, Virgil’s Aeneid, which was written roughly
seventeen centuries earlier, is validated by these and other attempts of Milton to inscribe his
own works in a much larger tradition.
Yet, although both the connection between Milton and classical rhetoric – and thus indirectly
between Milton, on the one hand, and Cicero and Quintilian on the other – as well as the
connection between Milton’s epics and Virgil’s Aeneid have been examined extensively during
the past decades, some parts of this field of research have remained under the radar. One of
those is the inquiry into how character development influences rhetorical development in
Milton’s Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained, and into how this differs from the influence of
character development upon rhetorical development in classical literature and, more
specifically, in Virgil’s Aeneid. Such inquiry builds on the premise that rhetoric – i.e. every
form of spoken language use – reflects or can reflect, in itself, the character of the speaker. This
premise is confirmed by Professor Koen De Temmerman, who lists “speech” as one of six
characterising attributes underlying a metonymical characterisation, i.e. a characterisation that
draws upon a relation of contiguity between the characterised person and the characterising
attribute.7 Hence, a change of character, for example caused by a certain life changing event, is
likely to result in a change of speech of that particular character. In this thesis, I shall therefore
examine the influence of character development on rhetorical development in Milton’s
Praet 2001, 107-108. Praet describes it as the introduction of Virgil’s works in the “school curriculum”, but
such curriculum was, most likely, not yet fully determined. Rather, the educational “systems” were private
operations, and the content of it was based on the choices and preferences of a private instructor.
3
Aeneid, I.11.
4
Kline 2002, 13.
5
Paradise Lost, I.26.
6
Milton and Fowler 2007, 60; note 27-49.
7
De Temmerman 2010, 29.
2
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 11
Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained, as well as in Virgil’s Aeneid. However, my intentions
for doing so are double: on the one hand, this investigation is meant to provide insight into the
relation between the characterisation and the rhetoric of a specific character in both Milton’s
and Virgil’s epics separately; on the other hand, it looks deeper into how this relation in
Milton’s epics differs from the one in Virgil’s Aeneid, in order to investigate in how far Milton’s
epics follow that of Virgil when it comes to rhetorical languages use. In doing so, I shall build
on an earlier study in which the inquiry into a comparative approach as a valuable tool to
provide insight in the rhetoric of both Milton’s and Virgil’s epics was focused on, and refer to
it when necessary.8
As I have mentioned before, this first intention of examining the relation between
characterisation and rhetoric has largely remained under the radar. While the study of Milton’s
rhetoric, especially in Paradise Lost, has flourished throughout the past century with studies
such as John Milton at St. Paul’s School: A Study of Ancient Rhetoric in English Renaissance
Education (1948) by Donald Lemen Clark, George William Smith Jr.’s “Iterative Rhetoric in
Paradise Lost” (1976), and, more recently, Daniel Shore’s Milton and the Art of Rhetoric
(2012), the influence of characterisation on rhetoric has only recently gained popularity. The
main work in this area of research, I believe, is William Pallister’s Between Worlds: The
Rhetorical Universe of Paradise Lost (2008), in which a development of the rhetoric of
individual characters is given, based on the setting in which they speak. In his work, Pallister
discerns three different settings – heaven, hell and the Garden of Eden – each with its specific
kind of rhetoric.9 Especially the rhetoric of Satan, the only character delivering speeches in all
three settings, allows the making of a theory of development of speech based on the rhetorical
changes co-occurring with the transition from one setting to another. “Setting”, after all, is
another attribute mentioned by De Temmerman as “at least a potentially significant indication
of character”.10 Although I do not at all times agree with Pallister’s arguments and observations,
his research, being so closely related to my own, has proven to be a most helpful source
throughout this thesis. The second intention – i.e. examining how the use and boundaries of
rhetoric have changed over time – has been discussed even more frequently, one of the most
recent works being Laurent Pernot’s New Chapters in the History of Rhetoric (2009), yet it
8
See Devreese 2015.
Pallister 2008, 5.
10
De Temmerman 2010, 42.
9
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 12
occurs less often as paying attention to the rhetoric in major literary works such as those of, for
example, Shakespeare and Milton.
With both intentions thus illuminating a less popular line of approach in their respective fields
of research, the combination of both intentions is even more rare. I will not go as far as to say
that the combination of these different fields of research remains unattempted, but it appears to
be a much less frequently studied topic. Yet, the overall aim of it is founded by the close
entanglement between Milton, rhetoric, and classical literature. Moreover, the first intention of
examining the relation between characterisation and rhetoric is validated by the wish to uncover
as many sides as possible of Milton’s epics, while my second intention is further founded by
Milton’s tractate Of Education, in which he lists Cicero and Virgil as authorities to be studied
in the ideal school programme. The question at hand, then, shall be whether Milton follows the
example of the authors he himself has labelled as authoritative. The first chapter of this thesis
shall deal with this tractate, Of Education, as well as with Milton’s Prolusiones, in which
Milton, during his time at Christ’s College in Cambridge, reflects about several matters of
rhetoric. This chapter shall serve the purpose of further justifying my research by again
addressing the connections between Milton, classical literature and rhetoric. Apart from that,
this introductory chapter is also used to briefly touch upon the choice for the three main Latin
authors that shall be used throughout this thesis: Cicero, Quintilian and Virgil, of which the first
two are merely meant to examine the status of classical rhetoric in the society and educational
programme of seventeenth century England. A validation and explanation of such choice must,
after all, occur in the very beginning of this research, in order to remove all doubts about the
fundaments of it before the actual analysis comes to our attention. Also, it limits the range of
this thesis by selecting only these three Latin authors to work with, i.e. out of the many authors
Milton lists as authoritative in his Of Education.
Afterwards, a detailed rhetorical analysis of Milton’s Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained
shall be conducted with the intention of determining how the rhetoric of specific characters
changes due to their character development throughout the story. To further limit the range of
this thesis, I have chosen to only discuss three of Milton’s characters, which can be divided into
two main categories: on the one hand, Satan’s rhetoric shall be examined, and, on the other,
that of the Father and the Son. The choice for these characters is based on several reasons, the
first being the wish to include Satan – whom I believe to be the most interesting character,
especially in terms of rhetorical development – and what has often been described as his
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 13
masterfully constructed speeches. Being the only character uttering speeches in the three
settings mentioned by Pallister, his rhetorical development provides us with insights into how
his character changes alongside the events taking place and alongside the change of setting that
is an immediate result of these events. Not only, then, will the analysis of characterisation be
used to contribute to the understanding of rhetorical structures and phenomena, but the analysis
of rhetorical structures and phenomena shall also help in determining Satan’s state of mind. In
order to sketch the entire rhetorical and psychological evolution Satan experiences, Paradise
Regained is included here as well. This sequel to Milton’s epic masterpiece allows to observe
Satan’s further development, taking place after what I shall later describe as his second
threshold: the fall of Adam and Eve resulting in a (temporary) boost of power for him and his
fellow rebel angels. Moreover, the inclusion of Paradise Regained has turned out useful in the
comparison of the rhetoric of Satan to that of the Son. The choice of juxtaposing the rhetoric of
the Son and, in Paradise Lost, that of the Father with that of Satan is based on the dualistic
nature underlying the entire epic. Displaying an analysis of these two kinds of rhetoric next to
each other must provide the possibility to examine whether that dualistic nature also occurs on
the level of rhetoric. Furthermore, it adds to a long discussion concerning the question of who
is the superior speaker in Milton’s Paradise Lost. As such, not only shall the analysis of
Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained form a breeding ground for a distinction to be made
between the rhetoric in Milton’s epics and that of classical literature, but it shall also, in itself,
harbour a distinction between the different rhetorics written by Milton. The development of
Adam and Eve has consciously been omitted from this paper. Their inclusion would demand a
treatise of the issues of gender, for which I – unfortunately – lack the necessary time and space.
Yet, a similar study could be conducted in search of their rhetorical development, in which case
the researcher should be perceptive of the possibly present markers of gender differences in
their speech, and – as an extension of this – of the possible existence of a third gender taking
the form of angels and fallen angels.
Only when these analyses of both Satan’s speeches and those of the Father and the Son have
been completed, the second aim – i.e. contrasting the made observations to classical literature
– can become the centre of attention. It is, after all, necessary to start this thesis by analysing
Milton’s epics to come to a study of “reception”, not one of literary “tradition”. According to
Freddy Decreus, the difference between the two notions lies in the degree of involvement of
the receiver. Whereas “tradition” relies on the driving force of an active sender, the concept of
reception focuses more on the active role of the receiver. Consequently, the study of “reception”
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 14
implies a receiver who can be open to suggestions, who can chose selectively what to ignore
and what not to ignore, and who, thus, maintains a certain self-esteem.11 Hence, by commencing
with the analysis of Milton’s epics, the study of this thesis, in its most abstract and basic form,
is one of reception. The analysis of how character development influences rhetorical
development in classical literature, is therefore postponed to the second half of this paper. The
transition to this classical half shall start by looking further into the importance of classical
rhetoric in Milton’s time and more specifically in Milton’s works. Unlike the first chapter which
already touches upon this subject by addressing Of Education and the Prolusiones, this
subchapter no longer has the primary purpose of founding the entire analysis. Rather, it is meant
to gain insight into what role rhetoric played in the education and upbringing of students in
seventeenth century England. In other words, it poses the question what value classical rhetoric
and its main classical authors held in the society of that time, but also dives deeper into how
Milton perceived that particular status of rhetoric and into how he was influenced by it.
Continuing the classical half of this thesis, the analysis of the rhetoric of Virgil’s Aeneid will
be focused on. A division shall, again, be made between two categories of speakers: Aeneas,
on the one hand, meant to allow a comparison between his rhetoric and that of Satan, and, on
the other hand, the rhetoric of Jupiter, meant to allow a comparison with the rhetoric of the
Father and the Son. The choice to incorporate Aeneas rests not only on the fact that he is the
main character and has utters the highest amount of speeches,12 but also takes into account the
psychological development Aeneas experiences throughout the story, making him an
appropriate counterpart for the comparison with Satan’s evolution. For the same reason, Jupiter
has been chosen, i.e. to serve as model of comparison for the rhetoric of the Father and the Son.
Remark that the analysis of the rhetoric of both Milton’s epics and that of Virgil – and thus the
very foundation of this comparative study – shall be conducted primarily by looking at markers
of rhetorical craftsmanship such as repetitions, anaphora’s, rhetorical questions, tricola, and the
rhetorical use of other linguistic features such as the special use of address forms and the
meaningful accumulation of key words reflecting the inner state of mind of the specific
character that utters them. In my earlier study, I concluded that the comparative method in
studying Virgil’s and Milton’s rhetoric has allowed to identify some of the differences
concerning the function of rhetoric, and is an appropriate method in examining the significance
11
Decreus 2010, 3-5.
Highet lists 69 speeches uttered by Aeneas, while the character with the second highest amount of speeches,
Turnus, only has 29 speeches ascribed to him; see Highet 1972, 327-339 (appendix 4).
12
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 15
or insignificance of classical rhetoric in Milton’s epics. That implies, I believe, that a
comparative study is a proper method for the inquiry into how the influence of character
development upon rhetorical development has manifested itself differently in one masterpiece
compared to another.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 16
MODELS FOR COMPARISON: AN INVESTIGATION OF ST. PAUL’S SCHOOL, OF
EDUCATION AND THE PROLUSIONES
Before getting into a detailed analysis of the rhetorical development in both classical literature
and Milton’s epics, I deem it wise to sketch Milton’s relation with rhetoric as well as with
classical, more specifically Latin, authors. Apart from further founding the subject of this study
– i.e. delivering proof that the topic of this paper is not chosen randomly, but is the result of
well-founded arguments displaying a close entanglement between Milton, rhetoric, and
classical literature – this chapter also allows to limit the range of this otherwise broad field of
research by naming the classical (Latin) authors appropriate for the comparison with Milton’s
epics. To do so, I shall examine Milton’s education at St. Paul’s School, as well as his
Prolusiones and Of Education. Firstly, Milton’s education at St. Paul’s School shall provide
information concerning one of Milton’s earlier encounters with the classical canon; secondly,
his Prolusiones, written during his years at Christ's College in Cambridge, display key insights
into Milton’s relation with rhetoric, and, more specifically, classical rhetoricians; thirdly, his
Of Education focusses on the ideal school system and offers valuable information about his
view upon the authoritative classical authors. Based on the investigation of these three cases of
entanglement between Milton and the classical world, I shall, by the end of this chapter, have
introduced the three authors occurring in this study as models for comparison: Cicero,
Quintilian, and Virgil.
I shall start by examining Milton’s time at St. Paul’s School concerning the influence of
classical literature upon Milton’s oeuvre. In doing so, I follow Donald Lemen Clark who,
according to his own saying, examined Milton’s education at St. Paul’s School as “the first step
towards understanding the influence which classical and post-classical rhetoric undoubtedly
had on Milton as a great writer of poetry and prose in Latin and in English”.13 Useful for this
study is Clark’s reconstructed curriculum of St. Paul’s School during the time Milton went to
school there. Based on that curriculum, authors like Ovid, Martial, Virgil, Horace, and Juvenal
can be sure to have been part of Milton’s expertise.14 However, the curriculum strikes, or should
strike, the observant reader as odd, because Cicero did not have a place reserved for him alone
in the school system as depicted by Clark, while his influence in Renaissance rhetoric was, as
13
14
Clark 1964, vii.
Clark 1964, 110-113.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 17
for example mentioned by Pallister, phenomenal.15 That Milton did not encounter a separate
study of Cicero during his time at St. Paul’s School is – to say the least – remarkable. Clark,
too, understood the rarity of the situation when he argued that “the curriculum of St. Paul’s
School […] makes it clear that the school Milton attended was not given over to a slavish
imitation of Cicero”.16 Still, however, Clark considered the absence of Cicero as too striking
and questionable, hence his conjectured curriculum in which Cicero does feature, probably in
class VI and VII of St. Paul’s School.17 Moreover, even if Cicero might not have occurred as
an author to be studied in a separate course, yet he featured, as mentioned by Clark, as a
frequently returning author and authority in many of the handbooks of that time. The
“exercises” as listed in Clark’s curriculum,18 after all, “were correlated with the authors and
guided by textbooks of grammar and rhetoric”.19 Furthermore, proof of Milton’s knowledge of
Ciceronian doctrine is, for example, to be found in Milton’s mentioning of it in the opening
lines of his third Prolusion:
Quaerebam nuper obnixe, Academici, nec in postremis hoc mihi curae erat quo
potissimum verborum apparatu vos Auditores meos exciperem, cum subito mihi in
mentem venit id quod Marcus Tullius (à quo, non sine fausto omine exorditur Oratio
mea) toties commisit Literis; in hoc scilicet partes Rhetoris sitas esse, ac positas, ut
doceat, delectet, & denique permoveat. Proinde istuc mihi tantummodo proposui
negotium, ut ab hoc triplici Oratoris munere quam minime discedam.20
[I was seeking lately with all my might, fellow collegians, very anxiously, how I might
entertain you, my auditors, with the best possible exhibition of language, when suddenly
there came into my mind an expression which Marcus Tullius, from whom by a fortunate
omen my oration begins, frequently set down in his books; namely, that the function of
the speaker has been established and determined as follows: that he instruct, please and
finally persuade. Accordingly, with that in view, I proposed to myself the task of
departing as little as possible from this threefold requirement of the orator.]21
15
Pallister 2008, 42-43.
Clark 1964, 156-157.
17
Clark 1964, 121. In his conjectured curriculum, Clark also points out the probable presence of, among others,
Caesar, Sallust, and “perhaps Justin for history”.
18
Clark 1964, 110-113.
19
Clark 1964, 121.
20
Milton and Patterson 1936, 158: Prolusion III, edited by Donald Lemen Clark.
21
Milton and Patterson 1936, 159: Prolusion III, translation by Bromley Smith.
16
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 18
The above given excerpt with its explicit reference to Cicero provides unarguable proof of
Milton’s knowledge of the Roman orator. The fundamental duties of the orator, as claimed by
Milton, are to instruct (docere), delight (delectare) and persuade (movere), a theory which, as
for example pointed out by Pallister, was Cicero’s “own highly influential innovation”.22
Although the trifold division concerning the different duties of the orator was, most likely, a
common theory among classical authors – such as Horace, who, as Fortenbaugh and Mirhady
explain, “not only considers movere the most effective way to win the reader […] but also sees
in the coupling of delectare and monere (= docere) the achievement of the poetical function”23
– and is not limited to Cicero only, the association of it with Cicero by Milton argues in favour
of Cicero’s popularity in Renaissance rhetorical education. In his work, Pallister, rightfully
pointing out the importance of Cicero for Milton’s writings, neglects that Milton’s reference to
Ciceronian theory is as much a matter of gaining authority by building on the probably most
popular classical rhetorician of that time as it is a tribute to the rhetorician that was Cicero.
Next, the address forms used in this extract help introducing what will be one of the frequently
discussed motifs in the analyses of both the classical literature and Milton’s Paradise Lost and
Paradise Regained. Milton here, as well as in the other Prolusiones, either uses “Academici”
or “Auditores” to address his audience. In doing so, he does not flatter them, but merely speaks
the truth, addressing them with the titles they hold. In what follows, I shall label such address
forms as neutral address forms, given their unflattering nor downgrading, but merely truthful
depiction of the addressee. Furthermore, the above given excerpt also proves Milton’s
intertwinement with rhetoric, and, more specifically, classical rhetoric. That same interest of
Milton in rhetoric is demonstrated further on in that same third Prolusion:
Rhetorica sic animos capit hominum, adeoque suaviter in vincula pellectos post se trahit,
ut nunc ad misericordiam permovere valeat, nunc in odium rapere, nunc ad virtutem
bellicam accendere, nunc ad contemptum mortis evehere.24
[Likewise Rhetoric captures the minds of men and so pleasantly draws them after her
in chains those who are enticed, that at one time she is able to move to pity, at another
22
Pallister 2008, 42.
Fortenbaugh and Mirhady 1994, 90; note 77.
24
Milton and Patterson 1936, 162-164: Prolusion III, edited by Donald Lemen Clark.
23
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 19
to transport into hatred, again to kindle to warlike ardor, and then to exalt to contempt
of death.]25
However, apart from displaying Milton’s view of and entanglement with rhetoric, this extract
possibly shows Milton’s plans for rhetoric to take up a major role in his epic masterpiece. When
looking back to the extract nowadays, hints towards Milton’s Paradise Lost can be found
remarkably fast, as if it was written with the composition of Paradise Lost already in mind.
Although being aware of the danger hiding behind such a claim – it is, after all, hard to
determine when ideas of Milton’s epic enterprise first came into existence, while it is
treacherously easy to accredit such ideas to Milton’s earlier writings several centuries later –
the above given extract names what I believe to be four of the main types of rhetorical
persuasion throughout Paradise Lost: a rhetoric that moves to pity, as seen for example when
Adam and Eve ask God for mercy or when the Son ask his Father to show mercy towards
mankind; a rhetoric that incites hatred, such as the one used by Satan when he wishes to set up
his fellow angels against God and the Son; thirdly a rhetoric that moves to warlike valour, as
produced, for example, during the war of heaven; and lastly, a rhetoric that exalts people beyond
the fear of death. It is especially this last kind of rhetoric, I believe, that pleads in favour of a
foreknowledge of writing Paradise Lost, even more when compared to the following excerpt
taken from Milton’s epic:
Or will God incense his ire
For such a petty trespass, and not praise
Rather your dauntless virtue, whom the pain
Of death denounced, whatever thing death be,
Deterred not from achieving what might lead
To happier life, 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:
Your fear itself of death removes the fear.26
25
26
Milton and Patterson 1936, 163-165: Prolusion III, translation by Bromley Smith.
Paradise Lost, IX.692-702; my italics.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 20
This extract, taken from Satan’s final speech of persuasion delivered to Eve, almost literally
reiterates the excerpt taken from his third Prolusion, and can be interpreted as an argument in
favour of Milton’s plans to write Paradise Lost. However, I would like to stress, once more,
the danger of such statements: for as far I know, utterances literally denoting the plan of writing
an epic along the lines of Paradise Lost have not occurred this early in Milton’s life. Instead,
Milton, at first, thought about using the subject matter concerning King Arthur for his epic
poem. What is more, one cannot simply forsake the possibility that Milton built upon another,
earlier text dealing with the same topic. Therefore, it remains unclear whether or not Milton
already had the intention of writing Paradise Lost at the time he wrote his Prolusion. The reason
for my mentioning the striking similarity between both Milton’s epic and the third Prolusion,
then, is merely to present the possibility of the fact, as well as to demonstrate the strong
intertwinement of, on the one hand, Paradise Lost, and, on the other, rhetoric.
Turning, thereafter, to Milton’s Of Education – the work in which he attempts to “set down in
writing […] that voluntary Idea, which hath long in silence presented it self [sic] to me [i.e. to
Milton], of a better Education”27 – another argument in favour of Milton’s future plans of
writing an epic masterpiece along the lines of Paradise Lost can be discerned: “[t]he end then
of Learning is to repair the ruines [sic] of our first Parents by regaining to know God aright,
and out of that knowledge to love him, to imitate him, to be like him”.28 Remark, however, that
– with Of Education being published in 1644 – the idea of writing Paradise Lost, is already
more likely to have established itself in Milton’s mind. Again, whether or not this idea had
already planted itself inside Milton’s mind must not be the question at hand here. Other papers,
I am sure, have dealt with that topic. What is important concerning Milton’s Of Education,
however, is how classical authors take up an important role in Milton’s ideal education system.
Divided into different categories, Milton sums up the authoritative authors whom he believes
should be part of this school programme. Concerning the category of rhetoric, which he places
– in accordance to the classical Trivium consisting consecutively of grammar, logic, and
rhetoric – rather late within his educational chronology,29 Milton writes the following:
27
The Milton Reading Room, Of Education.
The Milton Reading Room, Of Education.
29
Rhetoric should, according to Milton’s Of Education, only be studied after, among others, the study of
grammar, religion, agriculture, natural philosophy, mathematics, and logic.
28
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 21
Logic therefore so much as is useful, is to be referr’d to this due place […] untill it be
time to open her contracted palm into a gracefull and ornate Rhetorick taught out of the
rule of Plato, Aristotle, Phalereus, Cicero, Hermogenes, Longinus.30
The contributions of each of the above mentioned authors to the field of rhetoric are discussed
in William Pallister’s Between Worlds: The Rhetorical Universe of Paradise Lost,31 and are, I
believe, not required to be mentioned again in this study. More important is it that this excerpt
again argues in favour of Milton’s knowledge of Cicero’s rhetorical theories. Hence, the excerpt
helps justifying Cicero as a well-suited model for comparison. Not only are both the field of
classical literature and that of rhetoric combined in the figure of Cicero, but he was also of high
importance in Renaissance rhetoric, and, consequently, appears in both Milton’s Prolusiones
and Of Education. Moreover, “[m]uch of the classical Greek rhetorical tradition passed into
Roman currency through the works of Cicero”, and Cicero added thereto the three duties of the
orator: docere, delectare, and movere.32 As Pallister points out, Cicero “explicitly recognizes
[…] as essential to the character of his own ideal orator, the undertaking to live rightly and
speak copiously”.33 In claiming so, Cicero combines elements of different traditions: on the one
hand, that of the preoccupation with style, and, on the other, that which emphasises the morality
of the orator. The first one, as Pallister argues, is comprised of “Demetrius […], Hermogenes,
and Longinus [who] represent the abiding concern with style in both Greek and Latin
antiquity”;34 the second one includes the rhetorical traditions of Plato, Isocrates, and Aristotle
– “although less urgently” – which all share, if nothing else, the emphasis on the morality of
the speaker.35 Immediately, then, Milton’s Satan comes to mind. Based on the former tradition,
i.e. the one with an increased emphasis on style, Satan is often considered a highly skilled
orator. However, in Ciceronian terms, he can never rise up to the ideal orator due to his fallible
or morally perverted character. God and the Son, unlike Satan, are, in terms of morality,
flawless characters, yet their rhetoric does not always live up to the expected degree of
rhetorical craftsmanship. Consequently, a rhetorical tension is noticeable between Satan, on the
one hand, and, on the other, God and the Son, in terms of who takes up the role of ideal orator.
Important to remark, however, is that, within this debate concerning who is the ideal orator, the
30
The Milton Reading Room, Of Education.
See Pallister 2008, 33-50.
32
Pallister 2008, 42.
33
Pallister 2008, 44; my italics.
34
Pallister 2008, 34.
35
Pallister 2008, 34.
31
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 22
rhetoric of God and the Son is characterised by the concept of kairos, which Pallister defines
as follows:
The concept of kairos, essential to the art of oratory […] means ‘the right moment’ or
‘the opportune,’ and it dictates that the orator, to be persuasive, must consider the
various elements of a speech situation, especially timing and audience, and adapt his
words appropriately. […] In order to understand what rhetorical abilities the kairos
emphasizes, ‘speech’ should be thought of in terms of ‘speaking’, since engaging an
audience is an act, an event, one complicated on each occasion by a new set of demands
on a speaker’s ingenuity and responsiveness.36
As will be addressed later in this paper, the rhetoric of the Father and the Son is characterised
by their ability of understanding the situation and speaking accordingly. That includes being
able to speak plainly, i.e. with less rhetorical devices, if the situation requires so. Therefore, a
fulfilment of the concept of kairos can undermine the increased emphasis on style as it occurred
during the Renaissance period. Such discussion about who the ideal speaker of Paradise Lost
truly is, based on theories and terminologies of classical rhetoricians, dives deeper into the exact
boundaries of the entanglement between Milton, classical literature, and rhetoric. However,
concerning that rhetoric, it is remarkable how Milton refers in his Of Education to Plato,
Aristotle, Phalereus, Cicero, Hermogenes, and Longinus, but not to that other great Roman
rhetorician Quintilian. Yet, based on the following quote, it is safe to assume that Milton’s
knowledge of the classical canon also included knowledge of Quintilian’s writings:
Next to make them expert in the usefullest points of Grammar […] some easie and
delightful Book of Education would be read to them; whereof the Greeks have store, as
Cebes, Plutarch, and other Socratic discourses. But in Latin we have none of classic
authority extant, except the two or three first Books of Quintilian, and some select pieces
elsewhere.37
Having proof of Milton’s knowledge of Quintilian – i.e. not only the name, but the writings as
well – one should deem it striking that Quintilian remains absent in the rhetorical part of
Milton’s ideal school system. His absence becomes even more remarkable when his educational
36
37
Pallister 2008, 38.
The Milton Reading Room, Of Education.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 23
ideologies are compared to those of Milton. The same way Milton’s “model school is really
staggering in its inclusiveness”, Quintilian, too, “laid out a most inclusive curriculum” and
“insisted that it could be carried out, since the human mind by nature is busy and active and in
the young suffers little from fatigue”.38 Furthermore, Thompson argues that Quintilian exerted
a major influence on Milton’s work, i.e. Of Education, be it through the humanist Vives and his
treatise De Tradendis Disciplinis. Why then is Quintilian only mentioned for its grammarrelated importance, and not, for example, for rhetorical purposes? One reason, I believe, might
be that, as Clark points out, Quintilian himself names Cicero, and authors resembling Cicero,
as models for imitation, yet only for the younger students. “For older students he is firmly
against the imitation of one model, even of Cicero”.39 Moreover, Quintilian’s vir bonus dicendi
peritus stems from the idea that the orator should not only be naturally talented but also morally
good,40 which is, as already mentioned above, to be found in authors such as Plato, Isocrates,
and Cicero. However, due to Quintilian’s either direct or indirect input in, on the one hand,
Cicero’s canonical status, and, on the other, establishing the contours of Milton’s school system,
and due to his general importance – although unacknowledged in Milton’s Of Education –
within the field of rhetoric, he provides a suitable model for comparison. Concerning the more
theoretically rhetorical part of this study, I shall therefore use the models of both Cicero and
Quintilian.
Apart from selecting two classical Latin authors meant to provide the theoretically rhetorical
foundations of this study, another classical author is needed in order to provide the necessary
textual examples. In other words, a classical (Latin) work must be chosen to aid in the analysis
of rhetorical development of specific characters. Based on the type of story we are dealing with
– i.e. an epic following a limited amount of characters who might or might not undergo
character development – I believe the epic genre must provide the canonical classical author
we are looking for. In an earlier study, I have pointed out the presence of Milton’s plan of
writing an epic, if not throughout his entire life, at least more than twenty years before the actual
publication of Paradise Lost. After all, his intentions of writing an epic already appeared just
after his return to England from his journey to Italy, as can be noted in his Mansus (1638-1639)
and Epitaphium Damonis (1639-1640).41 In that sense, Milton’s epic enterprise closely
38
Thompson 1918, 164-165.
Clark 1964, 155-156.
40
Pallister 2008, 44.
41
See Devreese 2015, 8-9.
39
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 24
resembles that of Virgil. After all, “epic was his [Virgil’s] goal”, as Edward Kennard Rand
claims in his investigation of young Virgil’s poetry.42 However, the reasons for choosing Virgil
are various and go well beyond the mere similarity of the epic genre. First of all, Milton’s
knowledge of Virgil is guaranteed through, on the one hand, Clark’s reconstructed curriculum
of St. Paul’s School in which Virgil appeared as an author to be studied in the Quinta Class,43
and, on the other, Milton’s brief mentioning of Virgil in his Of Education. Remark, however,
that Milton’s mentioning of Virgil in Of Education is a reference to “the rural part of Virgil”.44
Still, Milton’s epic plans as well as his encounter with Virgil while at St. Paul’s School are, I
believe, sufficient to presuppose his knowledge of the Aeneid.
Secondly, and more importantly, the limited amount of characters in the Virgil’s Aeneid allows
a psychological elaboration of the characters to take place, and hence allows the characters to
be subjected to the study of character development. What is meant with the elaboration of
characters becomes especially clear when compared to that other famous epic, the
Metamorphoses of Ovid. Ovid, too, is, after all, mentioned in Clark’s reconstructed curriculum.
Yet, the fact that Ovid employs various characters throughout his entire epic instead of a more
limited amount of protagonists, disallows him to elaborate upon the very nature of the
characters and their psychological character development to the same degree as is possible in
Virgil’s Aeneid. As such, we are left with Cicero and Quintilian for the more theoretical part of
the comparative study, while the Aeneid will provide the necessary examples to analyse the
influence of character development on rhetorical development in detail.
42
Rand 1919, 103.
Clark 1964, 110-113.
44
The Milton Reading Room, Of Education.
43
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 25
THE IMPORTANCE OR INSIGNIFICANCE OF CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT:
LOOKING FOR EVOLUTIONS IN A RHETORICAL FRAMEWORK
In this first chapter devoted to the analysis of speeches, the inquiry into character development
in Milton’s epics will be the centre of attention. The aim is to uncover how the narrative implies
a change or stagnation of the characters within the story, and, thereafter, to uncover how this
changing or stagnating behaviour influences the language of that specific character. Since this
study, or at least that part in which I analyse the rhetoric in Paradise Lost, closely resembles
the study of William Pallister, I see it only befitting that I start the first analytical chapter of this
paper by relating to what he claimed in his recently published work, Between Worlds: The
Rhetorical Universe of Paradise Lost. As Pallister explains in the introduction of his book, he
interprets “Milton’s epic as comprising three discrete rhetorics, one for each of heaven, hell,
and the Garden of Eden”.45 Unlike Pallister – but nevertheless in a similar manner – my aim is
to examine rhetorical development, not to distinguish different rhetorics based on setting.
Remark, however, that, as De Temmerman argues, (spatial) setting is one of the “various
techniques of characterization […] addressed by ancient rhetorical theory”.46 Hence change in
setting is a co-determining factor in character development, and might as such exert an
influence upon rhetorical development. In what follows, the development of Satan, as well as
of speakers from heaven, shall be looked at more closely in order to obtain some general insights
in the influence of character development on that character’s rhetorical ability.
Satan’s Fall As a Rhetorical Threshold
Already having introduced William Pallister and his recently published work, Between Worlds,
I shall commence this exploration into the importance or insignificance of character
development by looking at Satan’s rhetorical evolution. Satan, previously being an archangel,
thereafter being condemned to hell, and tempter of Eve in Eden, is the only character that will
be discussed in this study who has delivered speeches in each of the spatial settings as
mentioned by Pallister. That these three different settings go hand in hand with three different
roles of Satan is rightfully pointed out by Frank S. Kastor. In his study Milton and the Literary
Satan, Kastor distinguishes the role of Satan as an archangel from that of Satan as the prince of
45
46
Pallister 2008, 5.
De Temmerman 2010, 42.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 26
hell and that of Satan as the tempter. The separation of these roles is, according to Kastor, “in
accordance with the demands made by three different places or settings”. 47 However, I shall
argue, based on a close reading of Satan’s speeches, that the roles taken up by Satan are more
complex than the mere trifold division determined by setting.
Before looking at such speeches, an important remark has to be made: all of the speeches we –
i.e. the reader of Paradise Lost – have at our disposal of Satan as an archangel are told through
the words of Raphael. As such, the words ascribed to Satan in book V and VI are not absolutely
sure to be Satan’s exact words. However, I shall postpone a digression upon the possible
influence of Raphael’s language on that of Satan to a following chapter.48 I believe it suffices
in this chapter to work with Satan’s words as they appear in Raphael’s account, and to – at least
for the moment – assume them to be Satan’s exact words. Only later, when both Satan’s use of
language and that of God and the Son (and in addition that of the angels) have been explored,
these speeches can be characterised as more closely related to either one or the other.
Assuming, thus, that book V and VI truthfully depict Satan’s speeches, a new problem
immediately arises, being the limited amount of speeches. Only five speeches in which Satan
directly addresses all of his companions are to be found in the course of Raphael’s account.49
Observations made can therefore turn out to be mere coincidences. That having said, I believe
that, despite having only five speeches available for exploration, an evolution of language use
occurs within the course of these five speeches. Looking at the first speech delivered to his
companions, Satan opens with the words “Thrones, dominations, princedoms, virtues, powers,
/ If these magnific titles yet remain / Not merely titular […].”50 Satan, in his chronologically
first speech to his peers, starts out by releasing upon them a series of five address forms, which,
at first, might appear to be highly flattering. John M. Steadman digresses upon the use of such
flattering address forms, claiming them to be a “standard way of beginning a formal speech”
courting the “good will of his hearers by overt flattery”. 51 However, Satan’s peers, at that
moment, deserve such honour being bestowed upon them, for they have not yet been convinced
by Satan, hence they are still uncorrupted. Steadman’s commentary, arguing that the address
47
Kastor 1974, 48.
The possible influence of Raphael’s language, cf. infra: “Stagnating Voices: The Rhetoric of the Father and
the Son”.
49
In chronological order: V.772-802, VI.418-445, VI.470-495, VI.558-567, and VI. 609-619.
50
Paradise Lost, V.772-774.
51
Steadman 1966, 561.
48
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 27
forms display “overt flattery”, is indeed correct in that sense that Satan’s address forms are
positively nuanced. Yet, despite the flattering, Satan speaks the truth. His peers deserve the
honour he gives them, and he merely calls them by what they are, thus turning his address forms
into neutral ones. The yet uncorrupted state of his companions is enough to assume that the
address forms as used by Satan are nothing they have not heard before, and should not,
therefore, shock them in any way. Instead, the shock appears in the situation of loss, presented
immediately after the (usual) presentation of their honour: “If these magnific titles yet remain /
not merely titular”.52 In doing so, Satan moves away from the use of neutral address forms and
brings into question the true identity of what the angels have so far assumed to be the case: do
they deserve the honour of those “magnific titles”, or do the titles indeed have no real meaning
apart from serving as a mere curtesy? As such, Satan’s opening has attracted his audience’s
attention and immediately introduced a feeling of doubt that will be echoed throughout the
entire speech. After having thus gained the attention of his audience, Satan proceeds by
introducing the first half of what I shall label his prelapsarian opposition:53
Thrones, dominations, princedoms, virtues, powers,
If these magnific titles yet remain
Not merely titular, since by decree
Another now hath to himself engrossed
All power, and us eclipsed under the name
Of king anointed […].54
Satan starts here by introducing the key concepts of power, reign, and monarchy. The effect of
introducing such power-related concepts is similar to the expressed doubt concerning the royal
titles. Satan confronts his listeners with ideas of doubt, uncertainty, and perhaps even fear of
losing what they thought they always had. The created feeling of doubt it is meant to unsettle
the trust in God’s good intention, and to – although briefly – demolish the hope of his
companions. Briefly, for near the end of that same speech, he revisits this concept of power
while opposing it with the second half of his prelapsarian opposition:
52
Paradise Lost, V.773-774.
The meaning of prelapsarian being derived from Latin: pre-lapsus (before the fall); here referring to the fall of
Satan, not that of Adam and Eve.
54
Paradise Lost, V.772-777; my italics.
53
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 28
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
Natives and sons of heaven possessed before
By none, and if not equal all, yet free,
Equally free; for orders and degrees
Jar not with liberty, but well consist.
Who can in reason then or right assume
Monarchy over such as live by right
His equals, if in power and splendour less,
In freedom equal? Or can introduce
Law and edíct on us, who without law
Err not […]?55
Among the words denoting the earlier introduced concepts of power and monarchy – words
like “orders”, “degrees”, “monarchy”, and “laws” – Satan intermixes a series of repetitions
denoting concepts of equality and liberty. The earlier created state of uncertainty makes a good
starting point for Satan’s repetitions of equality and liberty, in that they allow Satan to take up
the role of saviour, the one who banishes all feelings of doubt and allows his peers to recognise
and re-belief what they have always believed before Satan’s speech. Not only, however, do
these repetitions install in the audience a feeling of recognition of the concepts at hand, they
also create a train of thoughts, impossible to intervene. Each sentence shares a connection with
the next one: “if not equal all, yet free, / Equally free” is followed by its opposite, “orders and
degrees”, only to be followed once more with the concept of “liberty”. The attention thereafter
shifts back to “Monarchy”, then back to “equality”, once more back to “power”, then returns to
“freedom equal” and back to “law and edict”. Satan’s audience goes along in what is being said,
as if being hypnotized by moving back and forth between two concepts, like a pendulum. When
Kastor, then, argues that the separation of the three roles of Satan is “in accordance with the
demands made by the three different places or settings”,56 and that “[t]he journeys from Hell to
Paradise and back […] serve as transitions from the role of Prince to that of Tempter and back
to Prince”,57 he fails to acknowledge Satan’s role as tempter in heaven. For here as well, Satan
55
Paradise Lost, V.787-799; my italics.
Kastor 1974, 48.
57
Kastor 1974, 48.
56
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 29
tempts his peers, who are at that moment yet uncorrupted, into doing evil. Pallister, on the other
hand, offers a more complete presentation of Satan’s rhetoric in heaven when arguing that “[t]he
Miltonic Satan exhibits oratorical skills as a seductive speaker in heaven” as well.58
However, where Kastor misjudges Satan’s role by underestimating his seductive intentions,
Pallister misjudges that same role by overestimating Satan’s seductive intentions. Pallister
claims that, “[a]s Satan moves from one setting to another in Paradise Lost, there is little
variation in the basic character of his speech, which remains consistently and consciously
rhetorical, driven by a need to persuade”.59 Neither, however, is his speech consistently and,
especially, consciously rhetorical, nor is it always driven by the need to persuade. An example
I would like to call upon here, also occurs during Satan’s time in heaven and is delivered shortly
after the speech discussed above. It is, more specifically, the speech in which Satan introduces
“the devilish invention of artillery”.60 Since this speech, too, is directed at all Satan’s
companions, and if, as Pallister argues, every speech bears within it the need to persuade, one
would expect a similar use of address form. However, such address form is absent. Indeed,
Satan adds a specification by referring to his mates as those who behold “the bright surfáce /
Of this ethereous mould whereon we stand, / This continent of spacious heav’n, adorned /With
plant, fruit, flower ambrosial, gems and gold”,61 but such sideway reference hardly serves an
equally persuading function as did the created feeling of uncertainty later allowing Satan to take
up the role of saviour.
On top of not persuading through address forms,62 Satan’s created concepts of equality and
freedom have disappeared from his rhetoric as well. Not once do terms like “equal”, “equality”,
“freedom” and “liberty” occur. What is more, his plea for equality and liberty has been replaced
by what appears to be an obsession with power. In the following excerpt, Satan casts himself
in the role of God by twice referring to the element of thunder:
These in their dark nativity the deep
Shall yield us, pregnant with infernal flame,
Which into hollow engines long and round
58
Pallister 2008, 192.
Pallister 2008, 178.
60
Milton and Fowler 2007, 361; note 470.
61
Paradise Lost, VI.472-475.
62
Persuasion through address forms will be stressed later on in this chapter as well.
59
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 30
Thick-rammed, at the other bore with touch of fire
Dilated and infuriate shall send forth
From far with thundering noise among our foes
Such implements of mischief as shall dash
To pieces, and o’erwhelm whatever stands
Adverse, that they shall fear we have disarmed
The thunderer of his only dreaded bolt.63
Satan claims that he shall disarm the thunderer and that the “thundering noise” of which he
speaks shall come forth from his side – i.e. against God and his angels. By doing so, Satan
sketches a world that is the complete opposite of the world they have lived in so far, and situates
the power associated with the thunder at his own side. Later, when Satan speaks in hell, he
admits to have opposed God’s “utmost power with adverse power”.64 Unlike that first speech,
then, where “craft enabled Satan to deceive people and lead them away from the truth”,65 no
repetitions, apart from this repeated element of thunder, are present here. His speech has now
undergone a transition from a rhetoric of persuasion to what I will call a speech of power. As
such the many rhetorical markers of persuasion as applied in his first speech no longer have a
place within his rhetoric.
Also resulting from that transition to a rhetoric of power is the change in Satan’s peroration. In
his first speech, Satan ended with a rhetorical question: “Or can introduce / Law and edíct on
us […] much less for this to be our lord, / And look for adoration to the abuse / Of those imperial
titles which assert / Our being ordained to govern, not to serve?”66 In Satan’s speech of power,
on the other hand, the rhetorical question has been replaced by a series of commands:
“Meanwhile revive; / Abandon fear; to strength and counsel joined / Think nothing hard, much
less to be despaired.”67 Satan, instead of advocating the need for debate and counsel,68 takes up
the role of commander of his troops. Similarly, Satan’s two following speeches – i.e. the two
last speeches he utters to his peers before his fall – also end with a command. Closely related
to this shift from question to command and Satan’s uptake of the role of commander, is the
63
Paradise Lost, VI.480-491; my italics.
Paradise Lost, I.103.
65
Pallister 2008, 151. Pallister, here, talks about the literary Satan in general, not exclusively the Satan as seen in
Paradise Lost.
66
Paradise Lost, V.797-802.
67
Paradise Lost, VI. 493-495.
68
Paradise Lost, V.779-786.
64
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 31
subtle change in Satan’s expression of possession: when he first addresses his companion
Beelzebub, Satan utters the words: “[…] homeward with flying march where we possess / The
quarters of the north”.69 Strikingly, he later exclaims – again with Beelzebub present –
“Farewell happy fields / Where joy for ever dwells: hail horrors, hail / Infernal world, and thou
profoundest hell / Receive thy new possessor”.70 Both utterances are part of speeches addressed
to Beelzebub, but a shift is established from applying a feeling of unity to the use of a singular
denotation of the possessor. This transition, as well as the transition from rhetorical questions
to the use of commands confirm that the rebel angels, as Henry Peter Coleman claims, are
“merely pawns, used and expended by Satan in the pursuit of his tremendous will”.71 Next,
before continuing the inquiry into Satan’s development throughout Paradise Lost, I would like
to highlight Pallister’s account of rhetorical questions in Satan’s rhetoric and that of his peers:
The rhetorical question is a reliable and frequently employed resource of satanic
eloquence. It is, in fact, the favourite rhetorical device of all the demons, a tendency that
reflects on their rhetoric in general and on the way they think. […] The persistence of
the rhetorical question in demonic speech marks it as a deliberative signature, indicative
of a predisposition to the activities and states of mind that are inherent in the form of the
question itself: doubt, uncertainty, speculation, forecasting.72
Although Pallister is more specifically referring to the speech of the fallen angels – i.e. already
after their fall – the above stated doubt and uncertainty are also applicable to the state of the
angels before their fall. I would argue that they are even more applicable, for the rebel angels –
i.e. before their fall – have no knowledge of God’s almightiness. Satan addresses this
unknowingness when he utters “he who reigns / Monarch in heaven […] still his strength
concealed, / Which tempted our attempt, and wrought our fall”.73 After the fall of the rebel
angels, on the other hand, they should know of God’s almightiness, but they fail to recognise
or acknowledge it. Therefore, the uncertainty Pallister mentions is even more conforming to the
state of the rebel angels before their fall. This opinion is strengthened by the fact that at least
five rhetorical questions are to be found in Satan’s first speech, while several of Satan’s
speeches after his fall contain less such questions. In his rhetoric of power, as well, the use of
69
Paradise Lost, V.688-689; my italics.
Paradise Lost, I.249-252; my italics.
71
Coleman 1998, 53-54.
72
Pallister 2008, 180-181.
73
Paradise Lost, I.637-642.
70
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 32
rhetorical questions diminishes drastically: in Satan’s introduction of the devilish artillery, for
example, not one rhetorical question is to be found; all of them have been replaced by
commands.
After his fall, Satan’s rhetoric again undergoes some important changes, but the change of his
rhetoric of persuasion to that of power is still noticeable, especially in his peroration, in which
he, once again, concludes with a command, not with a rhetorical question: “Awake, arise, or be
for ever fall’n”.74 Pallister describes this conclusion as an “antithetically turned final line”
punctuating Satan’s “usual objective of the military commander”. 75 Indeed, Satan still acts as
the commander of his troops, not as an equal, and, consequently, the concept of equality remains
absent. However, the rhetoric we see here no longer is, and can no longer be, a rhetoric of
power. The rhetoric of power as seen in his speech in heaven is the rhetoric of a commander
coming close to power, losing his calm when near power and in the heat of battle. The hope of
winning remains present in such rhetoric, and, if Satan does not hope for it himself, at least he
feigns to do so in the sight of his fellow rebels. In the speech preceding his introduction of the
devilish invention of artillery, for example, Satan utters the following words: “Who have
sustained one day in doubtful fight / (And if one day, why not eternal days)”.76 These words are
spoken immediately after the first day of the war in heaven, and display the feeling of hope
Satan wants to transfer to his companions. However, once Satan and the other fallen angels are
cast out of heaven and experience a feeling of loss, such hope, characterising a rhetoric of
power, no longer has a place in Satan’s rhetoric. The experience itself of loss makes a rhetoric
of power impossible. Instead, the concepts of loss and defeat enter his speech. The narrator of
Paradise Lost informs us at the outset of the epic that “his doom / Reserved him to more wrath;
for now the thought / Both of lost happiness and lasting pain / Torments him”.77 Consequently,
sentences like “And if one day, why not eternal days” are replaced by utterances like “so much
the stronger proved / He with his thunder: and till then who knew / the force of those dire
arms?”78 Remember that when he shifted from a rhetoric of persuasion to the less persuasive
rhetoric of power, Satan lost his calm, as if too excited to control his well-balanced speech: the
flattering address forms disappeared, and so did the train of thoughts created through frequent
repetitions of key words denoting key concepts of Satan’s speech. When shifting, then, from
74
Paradise Lost, I.330.
Pallister 2008, 180.
76
Paradise Lost, VI.423-424.
77
Paradise Lost, I.53-56; my italics.
78
Paradise Lost, I.92-94.
75
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 33
the less persuasive rhetoric of power to a rhetoric of loss, his use of address forms returns, and
so does the emphasis of key concepts. When addressing his peers for the first time after their
fall, Satan does so using the following words:
Princes, potentates,
Warriors, the flower of heaven, once yours, now lost,
If such astonishment as this can seize
Eternal spirits […].79
Like his rhetoric of persuasion, Satan’s rhetoric of loss is marked by a critical evaluation of the
used address forms: “once yours, now lost”, and thus moves away from the neutral address
form. Satan’s evaluation functions similarly to his evaluation in his speech of persuasion: “If
these magnific titles yet remain / Not merely titular”.80 The difference, however, is that, here,
the feeling of loss is added to create a feeling of anger and rage which finds its way into the
minds of Satan’s peers, and not merely to create a feeling of doubt. The same thing happens in
his next speech: “O myriads of immortal spirits, O powers / Matchless, but with the almighty”.81
Hereafter, Satan repeatedly hints towards their fall, thus introducing the concept of loss, yet not
applying the same amount of repetitions and rhetorical questions as he did in his rhetoric of
persuasion. What is more, repetitions are basically absent, and the few rhetorical questions
serve, as Pallister mentions, to reflect “on their rhetoric in general and on the way they [all
demons] think”,82 rather than being used as means of persuasion. Hence my decision to label
this kind of rhetoric differently than the rhetoric of persuasion delivered by Satan in heaven.
The problem emerges, then, when Satan’s speeches to Beelzebub, delivered after his fall, come
into play. Here, Satan seems to have recovered part of his craftsmanship, yet not to the same
extent as it once was in heaven. At the same time, the rhetoric of loss leaves it’s influences here
as well, which is especially perceptible in the used salutations. The two speeches83 directly
addressed to Beelzebub are not at all flattering in their use of address forms. In the first one,
79
Paradise Lost, I.315-318.
Paradise Lost, V.773-774.
81
Paradise Lost, I.622-623.
82
Pallister 2008, 180.
83
In book I, three speeches are to be found where Beelzebub is, next to Satan, the only fallen angel present. Only
two of those are uttered directly to Beelzebub. The third one (I.242-270) is rather a monologue delivered by
Satan in the presence of Beelzebub.
80
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 34
Satan addresses his friend with the words “If thou beest he; but oh how fallen!”;84 in the second
one with “Fall’n cherub, to be weak is miserable / Doing or suffering”.85 Satan’s perception of
the loss he just suffered works in the same way as the few rhetorical questions in the speeches
to his peers: they reflect on the way Satan thinks. The address forms are not used to offend his
companion, but rather to reflect upon his own condition. The repetitions – now occurring more
frequently than in his speeches from after the fall delivered to his peers – are part of that same
development as the address forms, in that sense that they result from Satan’s need to persuade
himself of what to do next. Satan has become the “new possessor” of hell, and in doing so
changed the idea of power – as felt in heaven – into the manifestation of it – as occurring in
hell. How to display the manifestation of that power, then, is the question Satan is confronted
with. The following extract shows a critical scene in his persuasion process:
Fall’n cherub, to be weak is miserable
Doing or suffering: but of this be sure,
To do aught good never will be our task,
But ever to do ill our sole delight,
As being the contrary to his high will
Whom we resist. If then his providence
Out of our evil seek to bring forth good,
Our labour must be to pervert that end,
And out of good still to find means of evil;86
The same way Satan’s rhetoric of persuasion was marked by a prelapsarian opposition, the
repetitions in the above cited excerpt introduce one of his postlapsarian oppositions:87 the
contradiction between good and evil. As was the case in Satan’s first speech to his peers, the
repetitions create a train of thoughts, playing a crucial role in the persuasion process. The
peroration, too, fits the proposed return to a rhetoric of persuasion:
84
Paradise Lost, I.84.
Paradise Lost, I.157-158.
86
Paradise Lost, I.157-165; my italics.
87
The meaning of postlapsarian being derived from Latin: post-lapsus (after the fall); here referring to the fall of
Satan, not that of Adam and Eve. Apart from the opposition good-evil, the opposition man-god and the
opposition life-death are also used by Satan.
85
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 35
Tither let us tend […]
And reassembling our afflicted powers,
Consult how we may henceforth most offend
Our enemy, our own loss how repair,
How overcome this dire calamity
What reinforcement we may gain from hope
If not what resolution from despair.88
Instead of relying on commands, Satan, similar to his first speech of persuasion, ends his speech
with a statement of uncertainty, this time not through the use of a rhetorical question, but
through his reference to a future debate of what to do next. That debate serves not only as a
debate proposed to his companion Beelzebub and the other fallen angels, but also as a debate
for Satan himself. Having experienced loss after his fall and having obtained power in hell –
Satan believed it, after all, “Better to reign in hell, than serve in heaven”89 – Satan is confronted
with the dilemma of what to do next, i.e. what to do with the power he obtained. In other words,
the question rises in Satan’s mind how to exert his newfound power and how to make it known
to his companions. Consequently, the mentioned consultation not only serves the purpose of an
evocation of values of liberty – as seen in his speech in heaven – but also the purpose of
pinpointing, for himself, what is the required course of action. Satan, in other words, needs to
persuade himself, and it is a persuasion that is necessary in order to address his companions
afterwards, because the underlying question is how to make his newfound power known to
them, i.e. his peers. As such, Satan’s rhetoric shifts back to a rhetoric of persuasion like the one
he started his rebellion with, the difference being the addressee of his persuasion. Unlike Satan’s
own need to be convinced of how to proceed, however, his fellow rebel angels do not need such
persuasion, for Satan has already won their support when he persuaded them in heaven. Hence,
his rhetoric used when addressing his peers in hell harbours less rhetorical devices than the
rhetoric used in addressing his peers in heaven or that of persuading himself in hell. This
scarcity of rhetorical craftsmanship is, according to Pallister, also the result of the lack of free
will in hell:
Given that persuasion depends on an audience’s being able to exercise free will, rhetoric
in hell itself – unlike the crooked eloquence that Satan will use in Eden – appears to be
88
89
Paradise Lost, I.183-191.
Paradise Lost, I.263.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 36
virtually nullified. Decisions have no substance without free will and a choice between
alternatives; the process of argument, without legitimate decisions to influence,
becomes alienated from its purpose and emptied of its content.90
However, a critical analysis of Pallister’s claim is needed here. Satan, after all, proposes to
“consult how we may henceforth most offend / Our enemy”, 91 which argues in favour of the
presence of free will. What I propose, is that the free will Pallister hints at, is free will as offered
by God. Having, however, opposed God’s “utmost power with adverse power”,92 Satan has lost
the benevolence of God, yet found a new realm of his own, and, with it, new power and new
free will. Satan, as already mentioned before, has to determine what to do next, thus also arguing
in favour of free will, at least to some extent, in hell. The need for debate in itself underlines
the presence of free will. Not is Satan’s speech, therefore, doomed to be poor, but merely results
from the situation it is uttered in: Satan does not need to persuade his companions once more,
but has to be precise and stern, showing which way to go and what to do next. It is herein, I
believe, that the difference with the rhetoric delivered by Satan in Eden has to be situated.
Indeed, there is free will in Eden – that is, the free will as offered by God – but there is also the
fact that Adam and Eve, unlike the fallen angels, still have to be persuaded for the first time.
Consequently, Satan’s rhetoric in the Garden again takes up the use of rhetorical devices and
his craftsmanship reaches a climax when addressing Eve for the final time. In an earlier study,
I have pointed towards the rhetorical craftsmanship to be found in Satan’s final speech of
temptation. It is, I believe, useful to recall the excerpt discussed there to see Satan’s climatic
return to a rhetoric of persuasion:
Shall that be shut to man, which to the beast
Is open? Or will God incense his ire
For such a petty trespass, and not praise
Rather your dauntless virtue, whom the pain
Of death denounced, whatever thing death be,
Deterred not from achieving what might lead
To happier life, knowledge of good and evil;
Of good, how just? Of evil, if what is evil
90
Pallister 2008, 188.
Paradise Lost, I.187-188.
92
Paradise Lost, I.103.
91
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 37
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:
Your fear itself of death removes the fear.
Why then was this forbid? Why but to awe,
Why but to keep ye low and ignorant,
His worshippers [...].93
The above given extract shows Satan’s use of repetitions, creating a train of thought, which
results in each sentence appearing as the logical continuation of the next one. Satan’s craft is so
applied that he “distracts from the equivocation by concluding the argument with a dazzling
sorites [i.e. a series of propositions, in which the predicate of each is the subject of the next, the
conclusion being formed of the first subject and the last predicate],94 which employs anadiplosis
for the strongest link ("just; / Not just")".95 Apart from Smith, Pitt Harding, too, has discussed
Satan’s craftsmanship, claiming that “[h]is words inspire Eve to foresee her own apotheosis
before tasting the fruit – "nor was God-head from her thought" – and she tells Adam afterward
that she cannot "renounce / Deity" for his sake (9.790, 884-5)”.96 The use of such craft,
established through – among others – frequent repetitions, rhetorical questions, and address
forms,97 shows Satan’s climatic return to a rhetoric of persuasion, once again the persuasion of
someone else, and once again successful.
Satan’s Second Threshold: Regaining What Was Lost?
After having made the evolution from a rhetoric of persuasion to a rhetoric of power, then to a
rhetoric of persuasion – when having to convince himself – and to a rhetoric loss – when talking
to his peers – Satan, by successfully tempting Eve, has returned to a rhetoric of persuasion98
near the end of the ninth book of Paradise Lost. After delivering his final speech of temptation
to Eve, Satan returns to hell, and only delivers two more speeches within the storyline of
Paradise Lost, both occurring in book X. The first one is directed to Sin and Death, whom he
93
Paradise Lost, IX.691-705; my italics.
Oxford English Dictionary Online, “sorites, n.”.
95
Smith 1976, 12.
96
Harding 2007, 172.
97
For Satan’s climatic use of address forms in his persuasion of Eve, see Devreese 2015, 24-28.
98
I.e. again the persuasion of others.
94
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 38
meets on his way back to hell.99 The second speech, however, is of more importance here, since
it provides a well-fitted illustration of Satan’s character development after his fall. This second
speech is directed to his peers, and opens with the following lines:
Thrones, dominations, princedoms, virtues, powers,
For in possession such, not only of right,
I call ye and declare ye now, returned
Successful beyond hope, to lead ye forth
Triumphant out of this infernal pit
Abominable, accursed, the house of woe,
And dungeon of our tyrant: now possess,
As Lords, a spacious world, to our native heaven
Little inferior, by my adventure hard
With peril great achieved.100
In the above given excerpt, Satan addresses his peers in exactly the same way he did in his first
speech delivered to them: “Thrones, dominations, princedoms, virtues, powers”.101 What is
more, Satan goes one step further in flattering his companions, for the doubt in his salutation
has disappeared. As such, Satan has completely returned to the use of neutral address forms,
the way they were probably used before the chronological outset of the epic. In his first speech,
Satan consciously introduced a feeling of doubt to his companions immediately after this
address form by adding “if these magnific titles yet remain / Not merely titular”,102 and has
never since returned to the use of neutral address forms. The created feeling of doubt later
allowed him to take up the role as saviour or confirmer of values, thus helping in winning over
his peers and persuading them. Fowler claims, however, that now “the ranks need no longer be
‘merely titular’, as Satan called them” in his first speech.103 Satan believes he has regained the
same – or at least: a similar – status as the one he possessed in heaven and, consequently, his
speech returns to an earlier used address form. Although thus in words returning to the use of a
neutral address form, the implication accompanying it is not at all neutral. Instead, the address
form is meant to oppose the suffering withstood in hell and is felt as flattering in view of the
99
Paradise Lost, X.384-409.
Paradise Lost, X.460-469.
101
Paradise Lost, V.772; X.460.
102
Paradise Lost. V.773-774.
103
Milton and Fowler 2007, 565; note 466.
100
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 39
dramatic situation they have come forth from. However, in his return to this address form, Satan
overestimates himself, turning, as it were, arrogant in the process. Remark that this arrogance
– Bloom defines it as “self-obsessiveness”104 – continues beyond the boundary of the above
given extract when he starts providing his peers with a long narration of his own adventures.
Like his first transition to a rhetoric of power, Satan returns to his role as commander, banishing
rhetorical questions out of his speech – except for one105 – and replacing them with commands.
As in his earlier discussed speech displaying a rhetoric of power,106 we find a command at the
end of his speech: “Ye have the account / Of my performance: what remains, ye gods, / But up
and enter now into full bliss”.107 What is remarkable as well, is the command given by Satan in
the above given excerpt: “now possess, / As lords, a spacious world”.108 Remember how Satan
has already made the transition form “we possess” to “receive thy new possessor”. 109 Now,
Satan converts this verb, which he has used both in persuading his peers and in addressing
himself, into an imperative. It is remarkable how the use of “to possess” in these three speeches
of Satan is in accordance with Satan’s kind of rhetoric at that moment. In the previous chapter,
I have already pointed out that this transition from rhetorical questions to commands can be
seen as one of the markers of the transition from a rhetoric of persuasion to one of power. Here,
too, a similar development is at work: persuasion brings Satan closer to power, while getting
closer to power sets his transition to a rhetoric of power into motion, resulting in a diminished
frequency of stylistic devices and Satan’s uptake of his role as commander.
Consequently to the rise of a commanding role, the concept of equality – as seen in his first
speech, as well as in his final speech to Eve110 – has disappeared from Satan’s speech once
more. Not only has Satan expelled the equality between himself and his companions by acting
as the commander of his troops, his vocabulary also suggests a clear denial of equality in
general. Instead, a warlike vocabulary has taken over: Satan and his angels are “triumphant”,111
they are able to leave the “dungeon” of their “tyrant”,112 a broad way has been made by Sin and
104
Bloom 1989, 107.
Paradise Lost, X.500-501: “A world who would not purchase with a bruise, / Or much more grievous pain?”
106
See Paradise Lost, VI. 493-495: “Meanwhile revive; / Abandon fear; to strength and counsel joined / Think
nothing hard, much less to be despaired.”
107
Paradise Lost, X.501-503; my italics.
108
Paradise Lost, X.466-467; my italics.
109
Respectively Paradise Lost, V.688 and I.252.
110
See, for example, Paradise Lost, IX.708-716: “and ye shall be as gods, […] And what are gods that man may
not become”.
111
Paradise Lost, X.464.
112
Paradise Lost, X.466.
105
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 40
Death to “expedite your [the rebel angels’] glorious march”,113 Chaos and Night “fiercely
opposed” Satan’s journey,114 and they are now “to rule” over man.115 In other words, Satan’s
evolution is similar to his earlier development: coming close to power and success, as in heaven
and in Eden, Satan’s rhetoric changes, resulting in the forsaking of concepts of equality and
replacing them by warlike concepts of monarchy and inferiority, as well as in the forsaking of
rhetorical questions and the occurrence of repetitions – three elements that had been markers of
his rhetoric of persuasion.
The question at hand, then, is whether or not this rhetoric of power continues within Paradise
Regained, or whether a new development in Satan’s speech comes into play. I wish, therefore,
to examine more closely the first speech in Paradise Regained, which is – as in Paradise Lost
– delivered by Satan. Although generations have passed between Satan’s last speech in
Paradise Lost, and his first one in Paradise Regained, the reader of Milton’s epic diptych has
no in-between speeches at his disposal. Looking, hence, at this first speech of Paradise
Regained, one notices Satan’s address form to his peers to be similar to the address forms used
in his rhetoric of persuasion. As such, no sense of loss is perceptible in his rhetoric, the way it
was in his rhetoric of loss. Whereas Satan called his companions “Princes, potentates, /
Warriors, the flower of heaven, once yours, now lost”, he now shifts towards “O ancient powers
of air and this wide world”.116 One could argue that Satan is too arrogant or self-absorbed to
notice the difference between the seat he once had, and the diminished – and temporary – state
he is in now. However, at the same time, Satan’s words reflect reality: due to the successful
temptation of Eve, Satan and his rebel angels have indeed become rulers over Earth. Very
similar, thus, to his first address form in heaven, where Satan addressed his peers in their yet
uncorrupted state, Satan starts his speech by addressing them truthfully. Nevertheless, the
experience of loss as suffered after their fall from heaven, is nowhere to be found. Although
Satan does not lie in addressing them, he cleverly hides the entire truth. A befitting addition to
his address form could have been, for example, “O ancient powers of air and this wide world,
though not yet as powerful as when in heaven”.117 Again, Satan’s persuasion starts in the very
beginning of his speech, i.e. with his address form. After the opening of his speech, a narration
of Satan’s own adventures follows, in this case a long account of what he saw happened when
113
Paradise Lost, X.474.
Paradise Lost, X.478.
115
Paradise Lost, X.493.
116
Respectively Paradise Lost, I.315-318 and Paradise Regained, I.44.
117
Own addition to the address form of Paradise Regained, I.44.
114
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 41
Jesus was baptised. Similar to the long narration of his own adventures in Eden, Satan pays too
little attention to his addressees for his rhetoric to be one of persuasion. Instead, the purpose is
once again to self-obsessively exert his power and make it known to his troops, thus taking up,
once more, the role of leader of the rebel angels.
In accordance with this self-obsessiveness, and therefore with a rhetoric of power, is Satan’s
underestimating the problem at hand. It is striking to see how Satan believes “no long debate”
is necessary to come up with a solution,118 while he had uttered the need to “consult” and the
need “to debate / what doubtful may ensue” when still in heaven.119 In hell, too, Satan expressed
the need for debate when saying that “these thoughts / Full counsel must mature: peace is
despaired, / For who can think submission? War then, war / Open or understood must be
resolved”.120 Satan’s words “no long debate” are therefore not as innocent as they might seem.
In fact, his words later appear to be euphemising what actually happens, for he needs no debate
whatsoever. In the lines following his rejection of a long debate, it becomes clear that Satan
already knows what must happen: “Not force, but well-couched fraud”,121 as opposed to the
open-ended word sequence “war / Open or understood”, which allows both force and fraud. On
top of that, the dismissal of a long debate is not the only trace of Satan’s tendency to
underestimate the task at hand. The following extract, too, is taken from Satan’s first speech in
Paradise Regained, and – once again – confirms Satan’s underestimating behaviour:
I, when no other durst, sole undertook
The dismal expedition to find out
And ruin Adam, and the exploit performed
Successfully; a calmer voyage now
Will waft me; and the way found prosperous once
Induces best to hope of like success.122
Satan, although he should know better after his own fall out of heaven, believes the persuasion
of the Son to be a task easy to perform. Moreover, “[h]e does not know about the kenosis, that
118
Paradise Regained, I.95.
Respectively Paradise Lost, V.779 and V.681.
120
Paradise Lost, I.659-662; my italics. Satan similarly expresses the need to consult in his discussion with
Beelzebub, see Paradise Lost, I.186-191.
121
Paradise Regained, I.97.
122
Paradise Regained, I.100-105; my italics.
119
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 42
the Son of God who drove him out of heaven has been incarnated in the man whom Satan saw
John baptize in the Jordan”.123 It is, as Pallister claims, in this ignorance that Satan
underestimates Jesus. Hence, these words – as shown in Pallister’s work124 – at the beginning
of book IV:
So oft, and the persuasive rhetoric
That sleeked his tongue, and won so much on Eve,
So little her, nay lost; but Eve was Eve,
This far his over-match, who self-deceived
And rash, beforehand had no better weighed
The strength he was to cope with, or his own:125
This excerpt shows us the workings of Satan’s mind, and, consequently, provides a well-fitted
explanation of Satan’s rhetorical development. However, Pallister’s explanation of the above
given excerpt is not representative of the complexity of that development. Pallister argues that
“[i]n weighing the character of Jesus, he [Satan] does not reset the balance he had used for Eve
and so mistakenly deploys the same kind of rhetoric”.126 Based on what has been explained in
this paper so far, I argue that Satan attempts to deploy the same kind of rhetoric, but fails in
doing so. Pallister has come to the conclusion that “Satan is gradually reduced from the
oratorical force majeure of Paradise Lost to little more than a cheap trickster”.127 Although a
gradual development of Satan’s rhetoric in Paradise Regained is noticeable, I believe the
starting point of that development to be significantly different from his rhetoric of persuasion
in Paradise Lost. Firstly, the situation in which he speaks has changed tremendously: Satan and
his peers have ruled Earth for centuries now, and being in control for that long has, inarguably,
left its mark. Satan has become used to his once again newfound power, and has, in the process
grown arrogant. Moreover – and resulting from this arrogance – the rhetoric Satan relies on
from the beginning of Paradise Regained cannot be the same as the one deployed during the
temptation of Eve, for Satan has completely misjudged the situation, and, as Pallister pointed
out, “[c]raft and cleverness are the executive powers that direct Satan’s eloquence […]. Before
Satan speaks to those he would tempt, for example, he determines what features of their
123
Pallister 2008, 170.
Pallister 2008, 170.
125
Paradise Regained, IV.4-9.
126
Pallister 2008, 170.
127
Pallister 2008, 170.
124
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 43
character may be targeted and speaks accordingly”.128 Satan’s rhetoric, in other words, depends
on the kairos, the assessment of the situation he speaks in. Having misjudged that situation, his
rhetoric – although trying to rely upon the techniques used in his rhetoric of persuasion – is
doomed to have less persuasive power, and shall, eventually, fail. That Satan tries to use the
same rhetoric as deployed in his temptation of Eve, but fails in doing so, is, for example, shown
in the illustrative extract below:
What can be then less in me than desire
To see thee and approach thee, whom I know
Declared the Son of God, to hear attent
Thy wisdom, and behold thy godlike deeds?
Men generally think me much a foe
To all mankind: why should I? they to me
Never did wrong or violence, by them,
I lost not what I lost, rather by them,
I gained what I have gained, and with them dwell
Copartner in these regions of the world,
If not disposer.129
The first part of this extract shows, in italics, the same key concepts as used in the persuasion
of Eve. In my previous study, I have pointed towards the three main oppositions occurring in
Satan’s final speech of temptation, arguing that all three of them – i.e. the opposition between
life and death, between man and God, and between (knowledge of) good and evil – help in
hiding Satan’s lies behind a created familiarity perceived by the reader when hearing these
words.130 The words in italics in the excerpt above show that the same oppositions return in
Satan’s speech to Jesus. Especially the opposition between man and God is noticeably present;
a reference to the opposition between knowledge of good and knowledge of evil can be read in
the mentioning of “thy wisdom”, while the repeated words “lost” and “gained” are closely
related to the opposition between life and death. The same oppositions are thus hinted at by
Satan, but the frequency of their appearance is rather poor compared to the speech delivered to
Eve. Satan, although trying to apply the same techniques, does not succeed in applying them
128
Pallister 2008, 154.
Paradise Regained, I.383-393; my italics.
130
See Devreese 2015, 22.
129
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 44
with the same success. Also remarkable in the above given extract is Satan’s use of the word
“Copartner”, which strikingly differs from the underdog-argument as used in the speech to Eve.
Satan, in other words, no longer takes up the role of the inferior species, the way he did when
tempting Eve to eat the fruit: “That ye should be as gods, since I as man, / Internal man, is but
proportion meet, / I of brute human, ye of human gods”.131 That Satan equates himself to man,
and thus indirectly to the Son who, at that moment, is also part of mankind,132 instead of taken
up an inferior role is, I believe, another result of his underestimating behaviour, or, in other
words, of Satan overestimating himself. After centuries of maintaining power on Earth, Satan
overestimates his own status, thinking that he has rightfully maintained such power. Hence, he
views the confrontation with Jesus as an unfounded attempt to take his power away. That Satan,
then, tries to reiterate the rhetoric that made him successful in his quest of tempting mankind,
results from his underestimating behaviour of his opponent, mistakenly deeming him at the
same level of Eve, and thus as a mere human. Due to his misjudgement of the situation, Satan’s
rhetoric loses part of its persuasive power, and, despite his attempt of reiterating the same
rhetoric as the one used in Eden, he ends up producing a rhetoric with far weaker persuasive
power. Another similar example of Satan’s tendency to try deploying the same kind of rhetoric
as used in his temptation of Eve, is to be found in book III:
Think not so slight of glory; therein least
Resembling thy great Father: he seeks glory,
[…] Glory from men, from all men good or bad,
Wise or unwise, no difference, no exemption;133
This excerpt shows how Satan, once more, repeats the same concepts in a rapid succession.
However, like in the previously discussed speech, he does not reach the same level of skill as
he did in Paradise Lost. The repetitions are less frequently deployed, and Satan has misjudged
the ability and true nature of his opponent. On top of that, his tactics of persuasion have changed
concerning their cohesive structure. Satan’s arguments in the temptation of Jesus have, unlike
the climatic build-up to Eve’s apotheosis, nothing in common, except for their purpose of
persuading Jesus. The excerpt above shows “glory” as one of Satan’s arguments within an entire
dialogue of persuasion. Apart from glory, other arguments have been proposed, but have always
131
Paradise Lost, IX.710-712.
See, for example, the opening lines of Paradise Lost: “till one greater man / Restore us” (I.4-5).
133
Paradise Regained, III. 109-115; my italics.
132
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 45
been rejected by the Son. Compare this to the dialogue of persuasion with Eve, where all Satan’s
turns are cohesive, among others due to their use of address forms ranked in climatic order to
gradually guide Eve towards the thought of becoming godlike. 134 This multitude of different
arguments deployed by Satan is especially clear in the following excerpt:
Since neither wealth, nor honour, arms nor arts,
Kingdom nor empire pleases thee, nor aught
By me proposed in life contemplative,
Or active, tended on by glory, or fame,
What dost thou in this world?135
Being the opening lines of one of Satan’s last speeches in Paradise Regained, this extract shows
the arguments Satan has relied upon so far; yet, without success. Remark that the rhetorical
question, too, comes into play once more, and again expresses doubt. The high amount of
arguments reflects Satan’s incapability of seeing what it is that will convince the Son, thus
confirming, again, Satan’s underestimation of the Son. Apart from that, the enumeration of all
the arguments Satan has used so far can, and should, also be read as a marker of Satan’s growing
arrogance and loss of control. The typically classical tricolon, as for example seen in the
previously mentioned ending words “Awake, arise, or be for ever fall’n”,136 has here been
replaced by an abundance of enumerated parts. Not does Satan list three arguments – and not
even four or five for that matter – but nine. In the same speech, another example of this
abundance can be found: “Sorrows, and labours, opposition, hate, / Attends thee, scorns,
reproaches, injuries, / Violence and stripes, and lastly cruel death”,137 and William Pallister has
pointed out that Satan’s speech about glory was a “virtuoso exercise in copia”.138 This repeated
occurrence of abundance is, I believe, a marker of Satan’s loss of calm and control. My claim
herein is confirmed by looking at Satan’s penultimate speech,139 in which Satan’s loss of control
should be even more present and in which several of these abundant enumerations can be
perceived.140 Lastly, remark that Satan’ speech of power in Paradise Lost – I am referring to
134
See Devreese 2015, 24-26.
Paradise Regained, IV.368-372.
136
Paradise Lost, I.330. Other examples of tricola can be found, for example, in Satan’s final speech to Eve. See
Paradise Lost, IX.703-704: “Why then was this forbid? Why but to awe, / Why but to keep ye low and
ignorant”, and IX.732: “Goddess humane, reach then, and freely taste.”
137
Paradise Regained, IV.386-388
138
Pallister 2008, 171.
139
Satan’s last speech (IV.551-559) is too short to harbour such signs of abundance.
140
See, for example, Paradise Regained, IV.507-509; IV.529-530; and IV.536-537.
135
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 46
the speech concerning the devilish invention of artillery – also provides a good example of this
arrogance: “This continent of spacious heav’n, adorned / With plant, fruit, flower ambrosial,
gems and gold”.141 As such, arrogance through abundance features as a marker of the loss of
control and balanced speech, and, consequently, occurs in Satan’s rhetoric of power and in what
I shall call his rhetoric of frustration as seen in his unsuccessful persuasion of the Son. Satan’s
use of constructions featuring abundance becomes especially interesting when compared to the
rhetoric of the Son in Paradise Regained, who, as we will see in the next chapter, excels in his
use of tricola.
Next, before addressing the rhetoric of the Father and the Son, I wish to, briefly, recapitulate
Satan’s rhetorical development throughout both of Milton’s epics. Starting out as an archangel,
Satan tries to convince his companions of his rebellious ideas. Having to persuade his peers,
Satan needs to rely on a rhetoric of persuasion, marked by frequent repetitions introducing key
concepts of Satan’s campaign, rhetorical questions, and neutral address forms stained by
feelings of doubt. However, when his peers are convinced and Satan is closer to reaching the
power he so desperately desires, i.e. a power that opposes God’s power, he loses control, and,
with it, his balanced speech. The address forms have disappeared, as well as the earlier used
key concepts of equality and liberty. Instead, claims of powers have taken their place. The
rhetorical questions, too, have disappeared, and have been replaced by commands, showing
Satan’s uptake of the role of commander. After having lost the war, the experience of loss forces
the key concepts to change, this time into concepts of loss and defeat. However, when talking
to himself, the rhetorical arsenal of repetitions and rhetorical questions returns, and is needed
to persuade himself of the new quest still to come, i.e. the practical manifestation of his power.
When addressing his peers, on the other hand, no such rhetorical devices are needed, for he has
already convinced them, and that persuasion still stands. Consequently, rhetorical questions and
repetitions are, once again, absent, and the address forms are accompanied by the unflattering
reminders of loss. When making the journey to Eden, Satan finds himself among new victims
to convince. He returns to a rhetoric of persuasion of which he knows it has been successful in
the past. The rhetoric, including address forms, rhetorical questions, repetitions and tricola, are
brought to a climax in Satan’s final speech of temptation delivered to Eve. Back in hell, Satan
starts addressing his peers in the same manner he addressed them in heaven, but soon shifts
back from a rhetoric of persuasion to a rhetoric of power. Commands take the place of rhetorical
141
Paradise Lost, VI.474-475.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 47
questions, concepts of equality disappear once more, and repetitions are basically absent. The
chronologically next time Satan’s rhetoric comes to the fore, is in Paradise Regained, after
generations of exerting power on earth. Such power, however, has introduced into Satan’s
character a certain arrogance, especially coming into play when Satan repeatedly
underestimates his opponent. Because of this underestimating tendency, the concept of kairos
is not fulfilled, and, consequently, his rhetoric can never become the same rhetoric of persuasion
as it once was. A failed rhetoric of persuasion then gradually turns into a rhetoric of frustration,
closely resembling his rhetoric of power in the display of arrogance, and in the absence of
rhetorical questions, repetitions and address forms. I therefore believe that a division of Satan’s
rhetoric based on the three settings as mentioned by both Pallister and Kastor, neglects the
immense complexity of Satan’s rhetorical development, since subdivisions must be made
within those settings and similarities between some speeches of a different setting can occur.
Stagnating Voices: The Rhetoric of the Father and the Son
In the previous chapters, the character and rhetorical development of Satan has been the centre
of attention. Now I would like to shift that attention towards two other speakers occurring in
both Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained: the Father and the Son. As was the case with
Satan’s rhetoric, much has also been written about the rhetoric of these two divine speakers,
but what is interesting, is that their rhetoric has often been contrasted to that of the archenemy.
Such contrast usually presents Satan’s speeches as successful and highly rhetorical, while God’s
rhetoric is mostly labelled non-decorative or “plain”. One only needs to look at, for example,
Peter Berek’s “‘Plain’ and ‘Ornate’ Styles and the Structure of Paradise Lost”, in which he
claims the following:
Milton’s choice of the contrast between “plain” and “ornate” styles as a way of making
perceptible the difference between perfection and imperfection, innocence and
sinfulness, can be explained and, in a sense, “justified” by the sensitivity to rhetorical
distinctions the poet could expect from a mid-seventeenth-century audience. If we
cannot always find the Father a more attractive speaker than Satan, we can at least
understand why Milton might have expected his ideal reader to do so.142
142
Berek 1970, 237.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 48
However, the previous chapters have shown that the “ornate” style of which Berek speaks is
not entirely characterising for Satan’s rhetoric. Less decorative styles, or – in Berek’s own
words – “plain” styles, also mark Satan’s speeches at certain intervals. His rhetoric of power,
for example, provided us with an example of that. What I will argue in this chapter, is that
God’s rhetoric, as well, consists not of either plain or ornate styles, but is, in fact, a continuum,
stretching from one extreme – an ornate or decorative style – to the other – a plain or nondecorative style. Berek himself provides the first confirmation of my claim when he
acknowledges the stylistic devices in God’s rhetoric and labels them as “plain” because, unlike
Satan’s rhetoric, “the effect of the repetition is never to explore the wide range of possible
meanings for ambiguous human language, but instead to insist on the sole relevance of a single,
doctrinally correct meaning for each word”.143 I will later show that, although the repetitions
are not meant to create ambiguous language as Berek argued, they do serve the purpose of
persuasion, and, in doing so, hide a significant part of the truth. First, however, I would like to
highlight that Smith, too, mentioned the presence of repetitions in God’s rhetoric, as can be
seen in the following table:144
143
144
Berek 1970, 240.
Smith 1976, 6.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 49
This table provides us with a second confirmation of God’s use of an ornate style; it shows that
the Father, both in his dialogue in heaven and in other dialogues, reaches a higher average of
the frequency of repetitions than, for example, Satan does.145 A third confirmation, then, is
offered by Pallister who presents the excerpt which he calls “the most stylistically intricate
passage in Paradise Lost”:146
So man, as is most just,
Shall satisfy for man, be judged and die,
And dying rise, and rising with him raise
His brethren, ransomed with his own dear life.
So heavenly love shall outdo hellish hate,
Giving to death, and dying to redeem,
So dearly to redeem what hellish hate
So easily destroyed, and still destroys
In those, who, when they may, accept not grace.147
Whether or not this excerpt truly is the most stylistically intricate passage in Paradise Lost
might be questionable, but no doubt can be expressed about it being a highly rhetorical excerpt.
Purely based on its style, this extract shows the reader a similar rhetoric as the one that is to be
found in Satan’s rhetoric of persuasion. This includes the presence of frequently repeated key
words, which are, more or less, the same concepts we found in Satan’s rhetoric of persuasion:
man versus god, and death versus life. Also remark the repeated alliteration of “hellish hate”,
being in opposition to the “heavenly love” that precedes it.
The question the reader of Milton’s epic is confronted with, then, is whether or not this rhetoric
of the Father is meant to persuade, and, if it is, who it is meant to persuade. It is, once again,
Pallister who offers an explanation which I believe to be a suitable explanation for God’s use
of an ornate, persuasive style. According to Pallister, “we need to distinguish between two kinds
of rhetoric in poetry: that of the characters within a dramatic or narrative poem […] and, in any
145
Remark that this table does not comment on the density or concentration of the repetitions in certain passages,
but gives an overall view of the repetitions present per 100 lines. As such, certain smaller passages in speeches
of, for example, Satan can turn out to have more repetitions than certain passages in speeches of the Father.
146
Pallister 2008, 135.
147
Paradise Lost, III.294-302; my italics. For another example of God’s ornate style, see, for example, III.80134 and XI.46-71.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 50
sort of poetry, that of the poet who seeks to influence the attitude of the reader”.148 As such, the
Father has two audiences to persuade. The first one, I believe, is the obvious one: a character
persuading other characters within one and the same narrative. I will come back to this one later
on in this chapter, i.e. when I address the rhetoric of the Son. The second one – persuading the
reader of the narrative – on the other hand, might need more explanation. It offers Milton a way
of transferring his ideas and beliefs through the words of the Father to the reader of Paradise
Lost. To see what Milton wants his reader to learn, we must look at the opening lines of his
epic: to “justify the ways of God to men”.149 When combining these thoughts with Smith’s
study, we find a satisfactory explanation of the repetitions in the rhetoric of the Father: “Of the
fourteen most highly iterative speeches, no fewer than twelve are devoted entirely or in large
part to the justification of God’s ways”.150 One must conclude, then, that the frequency of
repetitions increases at these place within Milton’s epic where he needs to persuade his readers
of God’s ways.
Having established a reason for the increases of repetitions, I must turn to God’s use of “plain”
rhetoric. As I mentioned earlier, God’s rhetoric is a variation of decorative and non-decorative
styles, but the question must be posed why his rhetoric does not always apply a more decorative
style. One possible answer that immediately comes to mind is that Milton opts for a plain style,
to emphasise those places where an ornate rhetoric is needed to persuade his audience. I,
however, would like to present a second possible explanation which does not involve Milton’s
intention, but is completely founded upon God’s quality of adapting his rhetoric to what the
situation requires. This means that God possesses, at the same time, a decorative and nondecorative style of rhetoric, or, in other words, that the kind of rhetoric God uses does not
depend upon a character development. God is, after all, the ideal character, and, consequently,
the ideal speaker. As such – based on logical reasoning – the Father should not and cannot
undergo a character, nor rhetorical development. As the ideal speaker, however, he does have
an entire rhetorical arsenal at His disposal, making Him able to adopt the kind of rhetorical style
needed in a certain situation. In other words, unlike the Satan in Paradise Regained, God has
the ability to adopt his speech to the kairos, the right moment. The above given speech, for
example, is part of the larger dialogue between the Father and the Son, and they need to
convince the other angels surrounding them at that moment. To completely understand this
148
Pallister 2008, 125.
Paradise Lost, I.26.
150
Smith 1976, 8.
149
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 51
persuasion process, we need to turn, once again, to William Pallister’s Between Worlds, and
understand the relation between that of the Father and the Son. Pallister claims – and I share his
point of view – that “[t]he two are distinguished as separate beings only during dramatic scenes
in which they speak to one another”.151 Although being separate beings throughout their
dialogue, both speakers do possess a divine foreknowledge, allowing them to know beforehand
the utterances of their speaking partner. The angelic choir surrounding them, however, does not
possess a similar foreknowledge. “The Father and the Son accordingly take full advantage of
the opportunity to craft a forceful political message. […] The Father and the Son are absolute
rulers who employ spectacle, a brilliant public display of imperial power, as a rhetorical tactic
to confirm their subjects’ hierarchical station and to overwhelm them with awe for their
king(s)”.152 The rhetorical questions, too, as for example seen in “Which of ye will be mortal
to redeem / Man’s mortal crime, and just the unjust to save, / Dwells in all heaven charity so
dear?”,153 serve a persuasive function, because both the Son and the Father already know the
answer to the Father’s question due to their foreknowledge. Continuing this theory of the
dialogue between the Father and the Son, the Father’s ornate style as seen, for example, in the
excerpt above, is explained through the need – or intention – of persuading the angelic choir.
As already mentioned, this ornate style meant for persuasion – either of the reader of Paradise
Lost, or of the angelic choir – is only one style belonging for the Father’s rhetorical arsenal.
The other one is the “plain” style as mentioned by Berek. Which of these two styles God
deploys, depends on the situation he speaks in. When there is, for what reason whatsoever, a
need to convince, an ornate style appears to be the logical and most occurring choice. When
such need is, however, absent, a plain style is more frequently employed. Examples are, among
others, to be found in those speeches where the Father speaks through the Son – i.e. in the
creation- and the punishment-scene.154 In these contexts, the need for persuasion remains
absent, and God, proving himself to be the perfect interpreter of the situation, deploys a nondecorative style. Remark that the same alternation between ornate and plain styles is present in
the Son’s rhetoric as well as a logical result of the shared unity with his Father and the presence
of divine foreknowledge. Foreknowledge, logically, banishes all possibilities for character and
rhetorical development. The Son is, like his Father, the sum of all the events that have past and
151
Pallister 2008, 126.
Pallister 2008, 128.
153
Paradise Lost, III.214-216.
154
Respectively Paradise Lost, VII.243-534 and X.103-208.
152
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 52
those that are yet to come, and therefore speaks at the same level he will speak when the future
has become the past. Hence, to explain the occurrence of both plain and ornate styles, the
conclusion must be that, like his Father, the Son possessed both kinds of rhetoric – and
everything in between these two extremes – from the very beginning. As such, his rhetoric does
not change uncontrollably – as opposed to the change in Satan’s rhetoric, which is out of Satan’s
control – when confronted with power. The following excerpt is taken from the war-in-heavenepisode, the same episode where Satan lost control of his rhetoric, and shows the Son addressing
the angels surrounding him and telling them to “stand still” and “this day from battle rest”:155
and behold
God’s indignation on these godless poured
By me; not you but me they have despised,
Yet envied; against me is all their rage,
Because the Father, t’ whom in heav’n supreme
Kingdom and power and glory appertains,
Hath honoured me according to his will.
Therefore to me their doom he hath assigned;
That they may have their wish, to try with me
In battle which the stronger proves […].156
Unlike Satan’s loss of control in the heat of battle, the Son maintains his calm and stays in
control of his speech. Apart from the tricolon “Kingdom and power and glory”, which will later
in this chapter turn out to be a remarkable feature of the rhetoric of the Son, the repetitions must
be highlighted. The frequent repetition of “me” in the above excerpt strengthens the Son’s
unwavering control, because that same repetition occurs earlier in the Son’s rhetoric, more
precisely in the dialogue between the Father and the Son in heaven:
Behold me then, me for him, life for life
I offer, on me let thine anger fall;
Account me man; I for his sake will leave
Thy bosom, and this glory next to thee
Freely put off, and for him lastly die
155
156
Paradise Lost, VI.801-802.
Paradise Lost, VI.810-819; my italics.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 53
Well pleased, on me let Death wreak all his rage;
Under his gloomy power I shall not long
Lie vanquished; thou hast given me to possess
Life in myself for ever, by thee I live
Though now to Death I yield, and am his due
All that of me can die, […].157
Firstly, this extract presents the same repetition of “me”, and, in doing so, pleads for the Son
maintaining control when near power or in war. This should not at all be surprising, since the
Father and the Son are traditionally and permanently in control of power. Unlike Satan, they do
not come near it, but already possess it and shall always possess it. It is intrinsically part of who
they are. Apart from the repeated “me”, I would also like to underline the repeated concepts of
life and death. Remark that this speech of the Son is part of the dialogue with the Father in
which – as Pallister claimed – the angelic choir has to be persuaded. It has been shown now
that both the Father and the Son make use of the same concepts later used by Satan in his
rhetoric of persuasion. As such the repeated concepts of life and death qualify themselves as
markers of persuasive rhetoric.
The question that remains at this point is what happens to the rhetoric of the Son in Paradise
Regained. There, after all, Jesus loses the foreknowledge he had as the Son in heaven, and
should therefore be more liable to undergo character and rhetorical development. Langford, too,
has pointed towards the rise of this question, saying that “[t]he real question evident […] is not
the identity of the son of God, but […] whether the human Christ will act with the same
authoritative finality as the victorious warrior in heaven”.158 To answer this question I would
like to take at hand one speech delivered by the son in Paradise Regained. The choice for only
one speech is based upon Steven Goldsmith’s claim that, “[h]owever distinct the form it takes,
there is essentially one temptation in Paradise Regained, that of narrowing one’s spiritual and
psychological range to accord with an already structured and external pattern”. 159 All the
speeches in Paradise Regained are, in the end, the same: temptation followed by the denial of
the proposed argument. Although I am well aware of the fact that some speeches are more
decoratively composed then others, I believe that – as the following excerpt will confirm – Jesus
157
Paradise Lost, III.236-246; my italics.
Langford 1967, 39-40.
159
Goldsmith 1987, 133.
158
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 54
is able to maintain his calm to the very end. Not losing control, then, the presence of less
decorative, but at the same time well-balanced speeches, must be resulting from the same cause
as the alteration of styles in heaven: which style to choose depends upon what the situation
requires. After all, being able to construct highly decorative speeches until the end of Paradise
Regained, proves the maintenance of skill throughout the entire epic. The at some moments
seemingly absent decoration cannot be explained, then, but through the conscious – thus
remaining in control – choice of altering between different degrees of ornamentation. The
following excerpt shows one of the situations in which a decorative style is deployed and proves
the control within the rhetoric of the Son:
of whom what could he less expect
Than glory and benediction, that is, thanks,
The slightest, easies, readiest recompense
From them who could return him nothing else,
And not returning that would likeliest render
Contempt instead, dishonour, obloquy?
Hard recompense, unsuitable return
For so much good, so much beneficence.
But why should man seek glory? who of his own
Hath nothing, and to whom nothing belongs
But condemnation, ignominy and shame?160
The above given extract shows a part of Jesus answer to Satan’s speech concerning glory.
Opposite to that speech of Satan, a lot of previously mentioned markers can be found here to
label this a decorative style. First of all, there is the use of parallelism, to be seen in the use of
superlatives and in the sequence “so much good, so much beneficence”. Added to that are the
repetitions of “nothing” and “return”, and the use of rhetorical questions. What is more
interesting, however, is the frequent use of tricola. As seen in the previous chapter, Satan loses
his calm more and more, resulting in what I have described as “arrogance through abundance”.
Here, in one of the Son’s answers to Satan’s uncontrolled speeches, Jesus excels in his use of
such tricola, clearly distinguishing himself from his opponent. I argue that Jesus, although
having lost divine foreknowledge remains capable of interpreting the context, recognising what
160
Paradise Regained, III.126-136; my italics.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 55
the situation requires, and psychologically understanding his opponent. Whereas Satan loses
his quality of interpreter and ends up underestimating his opponent, Jesus maintains control,
perfectly interprets the situation and, as such, is able to speak accordingly.
Similar to the rhetoric of Jesus in Paradise Regained, the rhetoric of the angels in Paradise Lost
is characterised not by the presence of foreknowledge, but by the ability to correctly judge the
situation and adapt their rhetoric accordingly. However, here, the absence of foreknowledge
introduces a problem that might endanger the rhetorical development of Satan as seen in the
previous chapters. I started addressing Satan’s development by – temporarily – presupposing
that Raphael’s narration to Adam displayed Satan’s exact words. Due to the absence of
foreknowledge, however, such presumption is problematized because it makes Raphael less
likely to truthfully depict Satan’s entire speech. I believe there to be two possible solutions for
this problem: the first one presumes that God – or the Son – has notified Raphael of Satan’s
exact words and has sent him off to do the same with Adam. However, no such thing is
mentioned within Paradise Lost, so that, if this were indeed the case, the reader of Milton’s
epic has no knowledge of something like that ever occurring, thus turning this first possible
solution into nothing more than a presumption of the reader. Another explanation, should there
be one, must therefore be preferred. What I propose, based on Joad Raymond’s observations,
is that Raphael – like Michael in book XI and XII – tells Adam’s what he needs to hear.
Raymond has pointed out that “you can lie to someone with a clean conscience if it is in his or
her interest […]. Hence, deceitfulness, even to a neighbour, can be a necessary course of action
for the truly faithful”.161 Such, I propose, must also be the case concerning Raphael’s narration.
Raphael’s own words deliver the proof needed to strengthen this claim: “how shall I relate / To
human sense the invisible exploits / Of warring spirits […] how last unfold / The secrets of
another world, perhaps / Not lawful to reveal? Yet for thy good / This is dispensed, and what
surmounts the reach / Of human sense, I shall delineate so”.162 Raphael, in these words,
explicitly admits not to represent the events in an entirely truthful way, but to narrate only what
Adam needs to hear.
“But what exactly is it that Adam needs to hear?” is the question that immediately comes to
mind then. On the one hand, Satan’s trickery must not be completely absent from Raphael’s
narrative, for it serves the purpose of warning Adam of what is yet to come. The Father’s
161
162
Raymond 2010, 226-227.
Paradise Lost, V.564-572.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 56
message is very clear about this: “whence warn him to beware / He swerve not too secure: tell
him withal / His danger, and from whom, what enemy / Late fallen himself from heaven, is
plotting now / The fall of others from like state of bliss”.163 The presence of Satan’s rhetorical
craftsmanship within Raphael’s narration therefore counts as an attempt to guard Adam by
already presenting him what it is he has to beware of. On the other hand, however, the reader
of Paradise Lost has reason to believe that Satan’s trickery as told through the words of Raphael
is of diminished rhetorical value in comparison to Satan’s exact words. Fowler, too, believes
that Raphael’s descriptions are “not meant to carry the whole burden of persuasion”. Instead,
Fowler argues that, “not wishing to expose fallible humanity to Satan’s sophistries
unnecessarily, Raphael only sketches the deliberate confusions of a dishonest orator”. 164 What
Fowler wants to explain is that mankind is vulnerable to Satan’s trickery and that the
diminishing of Satan’s craftsmanship serves, in that sense, as a way of protecting Adam and
Eve. Combining the needed presence of rhetorical craftsmanship due to the warning nature of
Raphael’s narrative with the needed diminishing of that same craftsmanship due to the
protection of mankind results in a more or less balanced rhetoric, though probably not Satan’s
exact words.
That Raphael’s account is indeed influenced by his ability to correctly judge the situation it is
told in, is confirmed by Adam’s reaction at the end of Raphael’s narration: “Gentle to me and
affable hath been / Thy condescension, and shall be honoured ever / With grateful memory”.165
Remark that Michael, too, possesses that same quality of correctly judging the situation, and
Adam’s reaction is even more confirming of this quality than it was with Raphael: “gently hast
thou told / Thy message, which might else in telling wound, / And in performing end us”.166
Having established that the angels narrate not the exact words, but the appropriate ones, the
question towards the nature of their narration must become the centre of attention. In other
words: does Satan’s rhetorical change as seen in the previous chapter really take place?
Although a definite answer might be impossible here, I will briefly propose a theory, built on
logic, that confirms the presence of that rhetorical development. My proposal starts by
establishing that, although Raphael might have a reason to diminish Satan’s rhetorical
craftsmanship, he has no reason to shift towards a less decorative style of speech. Having
163
Paradise Lost, V.237-241.
Milton and Fowler 2007, 331-332; note 772-802.
165
Paradise Lost, VIII.648-650.
166
Paradise Lost, XI.298-300.
164
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 57
presented Adam with the ornate style as used by Satan, he has served his purpose of warning
mankind. At the same time, however, it serves no purpose to protect Adam and Eve from
Satan’s rhetoric by presenting them a less decorative style, for his ornate one has already
reached their ears. There is no reason, then, why Raphael needs to lie about the rhetorical
development of Satan, making it more likely that, although not presenting Satan’s exact words,
he presents the exact rhetorical development.
The previous chapters have presented us Satan’s rhetorical evolution throughout Milton’s
Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained, and have shown that such evolution was out of Satan’s
control. He literally loses his calm and with it the control over his previously well-balanced
speech. This chapter, on the other hand, has presented us with two kinds of speakers who remain
in control at all times. The first kind consists of the Father and the Son, and is characterised by
the presence of a divine foreknowledge, making both character and rhetorical development
impossible to occur. Whether an ornate or plain style of speech is used, depends upon their
ability to judge the situation correctly. The second kind of speaker, however, consists of Jesus
and of the angels in Paradise Lost. This kind of speaker lacks the divine foreknowledge of the
Father and the Son, but possesses the ability to see the kairos and to speak accordingly. Hence,
they speak with the rhetoric that is best suited at that moment in time. Remark that although
both kinds of speakers addressed in this chapter shift – or are able to shift – between different
styles of rhetoric, they do not undergo a rhetorical development relating to their character
development, which – at all times – remains the same.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 58
MILTON’S SPEECH MODELS: THE INFLUENCE OF CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT
ON RHETORICAL DEVELOPMENT IN CLASSICAL LATIN LITERATURE
With the analysis of both the character and rhetorical development in Milton’s epics completed,
it rests to examine whether a similar influence of character development upon rhetorical
development also occurs in classical literature. Yet, before getting to a detailed analysis of
Virgil’s Aeneid which will serve as a model for comparison in this thesis, the status of classical
rhetoric in Milton’s time must come to our attention. Such investigation is necessary in that it
will help in explaining the differences between classical rhetoric in Virgil’s time and the
classical rhetoric deployed by Milton and his contemporaries. In my earlier study, I have
pointed out that, when it comes to the use of address forms in Paradise Lost for example, “it
becomes possible to see in it the influence of the baroque with its abundance of fancy
decorations and eye-catching stylistic markers and compositions, while the rhetorical figures of
speech and figures of thought are often more subtle in Vergil’s epic”. 167 Such difference is the
result of, among others, a difference in the status of rhetoric within society, but has nothing to
do with the influence of character development. If the already less ornamented address forms
were, for example, to change – or not to change at all – throughout Virgil’s Aeneid due to a
certain character development, then a comparison with Milton’s epics could be conducted
concerning the influence of character development upon rhetorical development. Therefore, in
order to first gain insight in the differences between classical rhetoric and classical rhetoric
applied roughly seventeen centuries later, as well as to gain insight into how Milton was
influenced by classical rhetoric, a short investigation of the status and value of rhetoric in
seventeenth century England shall precede the actual analysis of speeches in Virgil’s Aeneid.
The Status of Classical Rhetoric and its Orators in Seventeenth Century England
While the previous chapters have examined a distinction between – on the one hand – Satan,
and – on the other – the Father, the Son and the angels, they have not touched upon the status
of classical rhetoric. Yet, the entire debate concerning plain and ornate styles is a debate taking
place not only in Milton’s epics, but in everyday life as well. To get there, however, I must start
by addressing the popularity of classical rhetoric in Milton’s time. A first indication of such
popularity can be found in the earlier discussed Of Education. That Milton lists more, and
167
Devreese 2015, 28.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 59
almost exclusively,168 classical authors among the authorities to be studied in his ideal school
programme – thus largely neglecting most authoritative authors of any other period in time,
including his own – already proves their popularity, if not for the entire society, then at least
from Milton’s point of view. However, apart from the categories Milton divides them in,169 we
know nothing of the exact influence these authors have had on society. It makes one question
the role of these authors in Milton’s own upbringing, but Of Education is not meant to answer
such question. Milton explicitly states that, “[t]o tell you therefore what I [i.e. Milton] have
benefited herein among old renowned Authors, I shall spare”.170 Nonetheless, this quote is of
great importance in that it expresses inarguably that Milton benefited from these classical
authors; it is merely the “how” that remains unidentified. Moreover, a very similar quote can
be read in Paradise Lost:171
As when of old some orator renowned
In Athens or free Rome, where eloquence
Flourished, since mute, to some great cause addressed,
Stood in himself collected, while each part,
Motion, each act won audience ere the tongue,
Sometimes in height began, as no delay
Of preface brooking through his zeal of right.
So standing, moving, or to height upgrown
The tempter all impassioned thus began.172
Our best chance of discovering which orators Milton had in mind when making such references
to “some orator renowned / In Athens or free Rome” is to, again, return to Of Education, where
he lists Plato, Aristotle, Phalereus, Cicero, Hermogenes and Longinus as the rhetorical
authorities to be included in the ideal school programme. In fact, it is useful to show the entire
account of rhetoric in Milton’s Of Education:
168
Apart from the many classical authors, Milton also names, for example, the Italian commentaries of
Castelvetro, Tasso, and Mazzoni.
169
Rhetoric, law, religion, agriculture, etc.
170
The Milton Reading Room, Of Education; my italics.
171
For the risk in accrediting to his earlier works such ideas of writing his epic masterpiece, cf. supra: “Models
for Comparison: An Investigation of St. Paul’s School, Of Education and the Prolusiones,” p. 14-15.
172
Paradise Lost, IX.670-678; my italics.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 60
Logic therefore so much as is useful, is to be referr’d to this due place […] untill it be
time to open her contracted palm into a gracefull and ornate Rhetorick taught out of the
rule of Plato, Aristotle, Phalereus, Cicero, Hermogenes, Longinus. To which Poetry
shall be made subsequent, or indeed rather precedent, as being less suttle and fine, but
more simple, sensuous and passionate.173
The above given excerpt confirms John M. Major’s remark that rhetoric and poetry were closely
related to each other during the renaissance, “since both arts were concerned preeminently [sic]
– one might say, exclusively – with style, the adornment of one’s composition”.174 Donald
Lemen Clark similarly argues that the “renaissance theory of poetry was rhetorical in its
obsession with style, especially the figures of speech, in its abiding faith in the efficacy of rules;
and in its belief that the poet, no less than the orator, is occupied with persuasion”.175 According
to William Pallister, this obsession with style during the renaissance was a direct consequence
of Cicero’s popularity at the time: “Cicero’s emphasis on style in his definition of eloquence
[explains in part] why a general shift towards a stylistic concept of rhetoric occurred during the
renaissance”.176 Yet, a reverse reasoning, I believe, must also be taken into account, i.e. that
Cicero’s popularity has increased due to the renaissance tendency to advocate a “mastery of
speech as an ornament in letters and in life”.177 Given this popularity of Cicero – whether it is
a result or a cause or, which is most likely, both cause and result of the renaissance emphasis
on style – it is not surprising that he featured in most of the curricula of seventeenth century
England, including the (conjectured) curriculum of St. Paul’s School that was reconstructed by
Clark.178 When later attending Christ’s College in Cambridge and there addressing his pears as
can be read in his Prolusiones, Milton could assume Cicero to be known by most, if not all, of
his fellow students. Hence the opening lines of his third Prolusion:
Quaerebam nuper obnixe, Academici, nec in postremis hoc mihi curae erat quo
potissimum verborum apparatu vos Auditores meos exciperem, cum subito mihi in
mentem venit id quod Marcus Tullius (à quo, non sine fausto omine exorditur Oratia
173
The Milton Reading Room, Of Education.
Major 1967, 685.
175
Clark 1922, 100.
176
Pallister 2008, 43.
177
Pallister 2008, 51.
178
Clark 1964, 121.
174
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 61
mea) toties commisit Literis; in hoc scilicet partes Rhetoris sitas esse, ac positas, ut
doceat, delectet, & denique permoveat. 179
[I was seeking lately with all my might, fellow collegians, very anxiously, how I might
entertain you, my auditors, with the best possible exhibition of language, when suddenly
there came into my mind an expression which Marcus Tullius, from whom by a fortunate
omen my oration begins, frequently set down in his books; namely, that the function of
the speaker has been established and determined as follows: that he instruct, please and
finally persuade.]180
This tripartite format of the functions of the orator, however, although stressed by Cicero as
Milton himself claims in the above given excerpt, was often less stressed in renaissance
rhetorical theory due to the increased importance of style. Due to this increased emphasis on
style, content was often believed to have become less important. Major explains that, “with its
‘thought content’ removed, rhetoric had become little more than a mechanical means for
embellishing an oration or a poem”.181 Clark claims the same thing, arguing that “rhetoric in
Milton’s school days meant the rhetorical figures – the schemes and tropes. The inventio and
dispositio of classical rhetoric were considered to belong to logic”.182 Clark continues by
claiming that, although there was “no conclusive evidence at all to tell us which particular
textbook of rhetoric Milton memorized at St. Paul’s School”, the probably “most popular
textbook of rhetoric in Milton’s school days was the Rhetorica of Talaeus, which Milton may
well have used, or he may have used an abridgment of Talaeus by Charles Butler”. 183 Very
much in accordance with the increased emphasis on style hinted at by authors like Pallister and
Major, Talaeus – as Clark points out – says: “Partes Rhetoricae duae sunt: Elocutio &
Pronunciatio. Elocutio est exornatio orationis […] Elocutio est tropus aut figura”,184 thus again
confirming that inventio and dispositio rather belonged to logic than to the field of rhetoric.
Around the same period in which Milton went to school, Thomas Vicars, in his school rhetoric
Manductio ad Artem Rhetoricam (1621), “cites Quintilian, Cicero, Keckermann, Dresser,
179
Milton and Patterson 1936, 158: Prolusion III, edited by Donald Lemen Clark.
Milton and Patterson 1936, 159: Prolusion III, translation by Bromley Smith.
181
Major 1967, 688.
182
Clark 1964, 147.
183
Clark 1964, 147.
184
Clark 1964, 148. My translation: “Rhetoric consists of two parts: Elocutio and Pronunciatio. Elocutio stands
for the adornment of the oration […] Elocutio implies the use of tropes and schemes”.
180
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 62
Alstedius, Sturm, Vives, Soarez” in further praise of imitation.185 This account of Vicars shows
us that, apart from the contemporary authors – all of them living in the sixteenth or beginning
of the seventeenth century – only two Latin authors, Quintilian and Cicero, are listed as
rhetorical authorities, and, what is even more striking, no Greek authors. Clark explains that
“[t]he men of the Renaissance were more likely to follow Roman rather than Greek leadership
in educational theory and nomenclature”.186 Yet, Clark’s comment might be misleading, since
the value of Greek rhetoricians does not at all go unnoticed. That Milton sums up more Greek
rhetoricians than Roman ones in Of Education confirms this, and so does his reference in
Paradise Lost – “some orator renowned / In Athens or free Rome, where eloquence /
Flourished”.187 The best proof, however, is offered by another of Milton’s own tractates, An
Apology against a Pamphlet call’d A modest Confutation of the Animadversions upon the
Remonstrant against Smectymnus, published two years before his Of Education:
And I must tell ye Readers, that by this sort of men I have bin already bitten at; yet shall
they not for me know how slightly they are esteem'd, unlesse they have so much learning
as to reade what in Greek is, […]. I had my time Readers, as others have, who have good
learning bestow'd upon them, to be sent to those places, where the opinion was it might
be soonest attain'd: and as the manner is, was not unstudied in those authors which are
most commended; whereof some were grave Orators & Historians, whose matter me
thought I lov'd indeed, but as my age then was, so I understood them.188
While explicitly admitting his encounter with Greek orators and expressing a feeling of love
and interest toward them, Milton, in the above given extract, also mentions two other things
that must receive our attention. First of all, he shows signs of feeling superior to those who have
not received the proper education that allowed them to read Greek. While probably being meant
as a sneer, it also points out the great importance of a proper education and, indirectly, the
significance of Greek authors and the benefit Milton believes to have gained from reading them.
Remark that Milton’s own knowledge of the Greek language is further confirmed through his
correspondence with Charles Diodati, who wrote in Greek while Milton himself usually
185
Clark 1964, 152.
Clark 1964, 126.
187
Paradise Lost, IX.670-672.
188
Early English Books Online, An Apology against a Pamphlet call’d A modest Confutation of the
Animadversions upon the Remonstrant against Smectymnus.
186
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 63
answered in Latin.189 Secondly, and more importantly, the above quote provides insight into
Milton’s view on the educational system. The excerpt quoted earlier in this chapter concerning
the account of rhetoric in Of Education has already shown that, according to Milton, poetry is
to be studied before rhetoric since poetry is “less suttle [sic] and fine, but more simple, sensuous
and passionate”.190 This extract, taken from Milton’s An Apology against a Pamphlet, is in
accordance with the opinion expressed in Of Education in that it criticises the student’s too
early encounter with the art of rhetoric: “whose matter me thought I lov’d indeed, but as my
age then was, so I understood them”. In other words, the study of rhetoric is too difficult to be
grasped completely so early in the educational system. Both quotes help explaining Milton’s
plea to study logic “untill it be time to open her contracted palm into a gracefull and ornate
Rhetorick”.191 That this was not the case in the existing school programme at the time, can be
deduced from Milton’s critique shown in the following excerpt, again taken from Of Education:
Hence appear the many mistakes which have made Learning generally so unpleasing
and so unsuccessful; first, we do amiss to spend seven or eight years meerly in scraping
together so much miserable Latine and Greek, as might be learnt otherwise easily and
delightfully in one year. And that which casts our proficiency therein so much behind,
is our time lost partly in too oft idle vacancies given both to Schools and Universities,
partly in a preposterous exaction, forcing the empty wits of Children to compose
Theams, Verses and Orations, which are the acts of ripest judgment and the final work
of a head fill'd by long reading and observing, with elegant maxims, and copious
invention.192
Once again, the above quote proves Milton’s high esteem of orations and the art of rhetoric.
Yet it is this high esteem that makes him doubt whether the early appearance of rhetoric in the
first years of the educational programme is the right way to teach rhetoric to students. Milton,
therefore, criticises the educational programme of his time. Not, as Major claims,193 does he
ridicule the emphasis on style itself, but rather its place in the school programme. Moreover,
while the style itself is not the problem, the employment of style for the wrong objectives is.
189
That Milton wrote in Latin and not in Greek might provide insight into which of the two languages was
preferred by Milton, yet that half of the correspondence happened in Greek, must prove Milton’s sufficient
knowledge of the language.
190
The Milton Reading Room, Of Education.
191
The Milton Reading Room, Of Education.
192
The Milton Reading Room, Of Education; my italics.
193
Major 1967, 689.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 64
Consequently, Milton’s position concerning the use of a copious style is ambiguous: on the one
hand, Milton viewed the rhetorical practice as “[s]o formalized and so obviously false […] that
Milton later sneered at it. In deriding the unfortunate Salmasius, 194 for example, he speaks
caustically of the man's "rhetoric-paint" or "rhetorical cosmetic" (pigmentum), of his "Little
Flowers of Rhetoric" (Floculos), and of his "baby-rhetoric" (infantissimè rhetoricantem)".195
On the other hand, he described orations as “the final work of a head fill’d by long reading and
observing, with elegant maxims, and copious invention”, and repeatedly expressed the benefit
of his education and, more in particular, the study of the great (classical) orators. One cannot,
therefore, argue that Milton stands entirely opposed to the increased emphasis on style. The
figures of speech are not the problem, but rather the deployment of them when used without
being accompanied by the necessary – i.e. according to, among others, Cicero, Quintilian and
Milton – content of the oration. It must not come as a surprise, then, that Milton – as Major
rightfully points out – honours that rhetoric as defined by Cicero and Quintilian, i.e. a rhetoric
that requires “a vast knowledge of human arts and affairs, and integrity of character”.196 Coming
back to the opening lines of Milton’s third Prolusion, the explicit integration of the need to
instruct – “that the function of the speaker has been established and determined as follows: that
he instruct, please and finally persuade”197 – confirms the necessity of the presence of content.
Still, Milton makes it very clear that the functions of the orator must be equally present, i.e.
neither focus on style without content, nor content without focus on style. It is in this light that
the second paragraph of his third Prolusion must be understood:
At quoniam docere vos consummatos undique homines non est quod ego mihi sumam,
nec quod vos sustineatis, liceat saltem (quod proximum est) monere aliquid fortasse non
omnino abs re futurum; delectare interim, quod sane perquam vereor, ut sit exilitatis
meae, erit tamen desiderii summa, quam si attigero, certe parum erit, quin &
permoveam.198
[But since to teach you, men accomplished in every way, is not what I should undertake,
nor is it what you would endure, I may be permitted at least (what is nearest to it) to
194
Claudius Salmasius was a French classical scholar with whom Milton entered a discussion concerning the
execution of King Charles I. Milton's Defensio pro Populo Anglicano was written as a response to Salmasius'
Defensio Regia pro Carolo.
195
Major 1967, 688.
196
Major 1967, 689.
197
Milton and Patterson 1936, 159: Prolusion III, translation by Bromley Smith.
198
Milton and Patterson 1936, 158: Prolusion III, edited by Donald Lemen Clark.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 65
suggest something perchance not altogether foreign to the occasion. Meanwhile, to
please, which I really fear very much is my weak point, will be nevertheless the height
of my desire, which, if I shall attain it, certainly shall not be enough if I cannot succeed
in persuading as well.]199
The duty to please cannot be seen separately from the last duty, to persuade, nor, for that matter,
must it occur without the duty to instruct. All three duties, in order to approach the most ideal
rhetoric, need to occur next to each other. The same opinion is, more explicitly, to be found in
Milton’s seventh Prolusion:
Mihi si fuisset integrum, vel huic vespertino labori haud illibenter equidem parsissem:
nam quoniam ex libris et sententiis doctissimorum hominum sic accepi, nihil vulgare,
aut mediocre in oratore, ut nec in poeta posse concede, eumque oportere, qui orator esse
meritò et haberi velit, omnium atrium, omnesque scientiae circulari quodam subsidio
instructum et consummatum esse.200
[If it had been in my power, I would gladly indeed have avoided the exertion of this
evening especially, because I have learned from books and from the opinions of the most
learned men this, that in the orator as in the poet nothing commonplace or mediocre
can be allowed, and that he who wishes deservedly to be and to be considered an orator
ought to be equipped and perfected with a certain encompassing support of all the arts
and of all science.] 201
Similarly, Pallister argues that, in Ciceronian rhetoric, “[t]he proficient orator should be not
only naturally talented but also good, a trait that would benefit the whole community and that
Quintilian would later expand into the definition of the orator as a good man skilled at speaking
(vir bonus dicendi peritus)”.202 As such, the rhetoric Milton deems so highly provides an
alternative for the morally corrupt interpretation of the increased emphasis on style: on the one
hand, there is the emphasis on style meant to lie, hide the truth or pull – through persuasion –
one that is good towards morally evil. On the other hand, there is Milton’s alternative, and thus
199
Milton and Patterson 1936, 159: Prolusion III, translation by Bromley Smith, but slightly variated upon at the
end based on my own translations.
200
Milton and Patterson 1936, 246;248: Prolusion VII, edited by Donald Lemen Clark.
201
Milton and Patterson 1936, 247;249: Prolusion VII, translation by Bromley Smith.
202
Pallister 2008, 44.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 66
that of Cicero and Quintilian, i.e. the emphasis on style meant to accompany the intrinsically
good and elevated content of the speech. Remark, however, that the latter, too, includes or can
include the need for persuasion: the persuasion meant to draw the listener towards that which
is good, not to draw him or her away from it. Hence the outset of his third Prolusion:
“Meanwhile, to please, […] will be nevertheless the height of my desire, which, if I shall attain
it, certainly shall not be enough if I cannot succeed in persuading as well”.203
The same distinction not only occurs in the society of seventeenth century England, but also,
as mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, finds its way into Milton’s epics. The distinction
Peter Berek points out, i.e. between “plain” and “ornate” styles – and thereby between God and
Satan – is therefore also a distinction between two alternative interpretations of the increased
emphasis on style. That the rhetoric of the Father, then, is at times equally stylised as is Satan’s
rhetoric, is justifiable through the content that accompanies it, while that is absolutely not the
case for Satan’s speeches. The concept of kairos plays an important role here in that sense that
it manages the level of style based on the level of content. When needed, the Father, the Son
and the Angels will resort to a more elevated style. Moreover, it is especially in Paradise
Regained that the depiction of these two kinds of interpreting the status of rhetoric takes an
interesting turn. Whereas Satan’s once highly rhetorical speeches, filled with markers such as
rhetorical questions and repetitions, fail as a result of Satan losing his calm and becoming more
and more agitated, the rhetoric of the Son maintains its balance. In the previous chapter I have
pointed out the presence of less decorative, but at the same time well-balanced speeches. The
importance of these speeches lies not in the balance itself, but in the balanced style as an
appropriate style for accompanying the message. Not having lost the ability to correctly
interpret the situation, content and form are adapted to each other. The rhetorical universe of
Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained is, therefore, not merely a literary universe that stands on
its own. Instead, it is a universe that shares connections with Milton’s reflections, about rhetoric
in general as well as classical rhetoric in particular, as they can be found in Of Education, the
Prolusiones, and An Apology against a Pamphlet, thus introducing not only classical rhetoric,
its rules and principles into his epics, but also a critical reflection concerning the use and status
of classical rhetoric in his own society.
203
Milton and Patterson 1936, 159: Prolusion III, translation by Bromley Smith, but slightly variated upon at the
end based on my own translations.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 67
Rhetorical Development in Milton’s Speech Models: A Case study of Virgil’s
Aeneas
The previous chapters have shown how Milton – if nothing else, at least in Paradise Lost and
Paradise Regained – cleverly opposes the rhetoric of his characters, adapts their rhetoric based
on the character development they experience, and, in doing so, reflects on the status of rhetoric,
more specifically classical rhetoric, in his own society. The question remains, then, to what
extent Milton has followed that classical rhetoric in investing in a rhetorical development of his
characters, perhaps most notably that of Satan, the Father and the Son. Choosing Virgil’s Aeneid
as a model for comparison,204 this question manifests itself as the question whether Milton,
undoubtedly drawing on Virgil’s epic, applied the same tactics as did Virgil in adapting the
speech of his characters to the character development they undergo throughout the story. Meant
as a counterpart to the chapters investigating Satan’s rhetoric, this chapter shall focus on
Aeneas’ rhetoric, which, conveniently, also lends itself to a division into three different settings:
Troy (and by extension the journey that follows after the destruction of it), Carthage, and
Latium. In what follows, I shall examine the rhetoric of Aeneas by looking at different speeches
taken from these different settings.
However, a problem immediately occurs, for – as was the case in Paradise Lost – the only
speeches delivered in the first setting, i.e. in Troy and during the journey immediately after the
destruction of Troy, are shown to the reader as part of an embedded narrative told by Aeneas in
the second setting, i.e. in Carthage. Consequently, one can only guess to what degree Aeneas’
speeches from before his arrival in Carthage represent the explicit words as spoken in Troy. In
other words, we are confronted with the following dilemma: if one examines a speech delivered
by Aeneas preceding the events in Carthage, but retold to Dido during his stay at the
Carthaginian court, must he, then, consider it to be delivered by the Aeneas of the first or by
the Aeneas of the second setting? After all, a comparison of both kinds of speeches reveals
crucial differences in Aeneas’ rhetoric towards his fellow Trojans. Taking at hand, for example,
a speech from the embedded narrative, we read:
Cf. supra: “Models for Comparison: An Investigation of St. Paul’s School, Of Education and the
Prolusiones,” p. 19.
204
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 68
iuuenes, fortissima frustra
pectora, si uobis audentem extrema cupido
certa sequi, quae sit rebus fortuna uidetis:
excessere omnes adytis arisque relictis
di quibus imperium hoc steterat; succurritis urbi
incensae. moriamur et in media arma ruamus.
una salus uictis nullam sperare salutem.205
[Young ones, bravest
of frustrated spirits, if your ardent desire is fixed
on following me to the end, you can see our cause’s fate.
All the gods by whom this empire was supported
have departed, leaving behind their temples and their altars:
you aid a burning city: let us die and rush into battle.
The beaten have one refuge, to have no hope of refuge.]206
The excerpt given above shows the chronologically first speech delivered by Aeneas to his
fellow Trojans. Taking place during the destruction of Troy, Aeneas starts by addressing his
companions with “iuuenes” (“young men”) and remarkably continues to refer to them by using
verb forms in the first person plural: “moriamur” and “ruamus” (“let us die” and “let us [take
up arms]”). Of the eight speeches listed by Gilbert Highet as delivered by Aeneas to the Trojans
or (Trojan) officers,207 only this one takes places within the embedded narrative. Strikingly, it
is also the only speech delivered by Aeneas to the Trojans in which not a single imperative
features. In book IV of the Aeneid, for example, when Aeneas has just left Carthage, he opens
his speech with the words “uigilate, uiri, et considite transtris; / soluite uela citi” (“Quick, men,
awake, and man the rowing-benches: run / and loosen the sails”).208 First of all, remark the
tricolon with which he opens his speech: as it did in Paradise Lost and especially in Paradise
Regained, it should express a certain expertise and the maintenance of control. “Should”, for –
as I shall point out later in this chapter – the use of tricola by Virgil are not used as markers of
205
Aeneid, II.348-354; my italics.
Kline 2002, 50. Slightly variated upon at the beginning based on my own translations.
207
Highet 1972, 305-319 (appendix 2).
208
Aeneid, IV.573-574; my italics. Translation: Kline 2002, 109.
206
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 69
control over speech, but occur at random, i.e. also in situations where such control is clearly
absent.
Secondly, as was the case with Satan’s rhetoric, the commands hint towards Aeneas’ uptake of
the role of commander over his troops, rather than being the first among equals. Like Satan,
who, when first addressing Beelzebub, utters: “[…] homeward with flying march where we
possess / The quarters of the north”,209 Aeneas, too, sets out by referring to his companions as
“we” or “us”. Similar to Satan’s later shift to a singular denotation of possession – “Farewell
happy fields / Where joy for ever dwells: hail horrors, hail / Infernal world, and thou
profoundest hell / Receive thy new possessor”210 – Aeneas, too, shifts to the use of imperatives
and the use “I” or “me” in later speeches addressed to his Trojans. Remark, however, that the
increase of occurrences of “I” and “me” does not necessarily result from a replacement of gentle
encouragements such as, for example, “let us fight” by commands, for these gentle
encouragements can – and do – co-occur with accumulations of imperatives. Rather, the
increase of occurrences of “I” and “me” depends largely upon the more frequently occurring
scenes in which Aeneas is the sole protagonist, and can thus mostly be explained through the
content of the narrative. When recounting events that Aeneas alone has faced, the use of “we”
or “us” becomes, not surprisingly, impossible to use. Yet, herein too Aeneas resembles Satan,
who, in the long narration of his own adventures in Eden, pays too little attention to his
addressees and self-obsessively takes up the role of leader of his troops and recounts what has
occurred to him.
Aeneas’ rhetoric, shifting from expressing a feeling of unity to one of leadership, closely
resembles that of Satan in the delivering of commands and the increasingly used “I” instead of
“we”, accompanied by a similar presence of self-obsessiveness. In doing so, it resembles
Satan’s rhetoric of power. However, the question remains whether Aeneas really did avoid
commands and the use of “I” when addressing his companions before he reached Carthage, or
whether this avoidance is the result of adaptations made by Aeneas while he is narrating the
embedded story. After all, unlike what was the case with the embedded narrative told by
Raphael in Paradise Lost, Aeneas has more to win when he succeeds in pleasing Dido with his
story. He could, as it so happens, buy his stay at the Carthaginian court through his words.
209
210
Paradise Lost, V.688-689; my italics.
Paradise Lost, I.249-252; my italics.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 70
Moreover, the address form “iuuenes”211 (“young men”) also calls into question the authenticity
of Aeneas’ words. In all eight speeches delivered to the Trojans, six address forms appear,
“iuuenes” being the chronologically first one of them. The only address form that occurs twice
is “uiri” (“men”),212 as seen in the sentence above “uigilate, uiri, et considite transtris; / soluite
uela citi”, thus making it the most plausible to be entitled as neutral address form. The deviation
“iuuenes” from this supposed neutral address form can be explained easily when one
presupposes an adaptation of the Aeneas speaking in Carthage. It would mean that Aeneas
reflects upon a speech delivered by himself in the past, when his companions could still be
called “young men” or perhaps “men inexperienced [in battle]”. That Aeneas’ narrative might
be a reflection upon a speech delivered in the past, is also confirmed by Arthur L. Keith, who
claims that, “even when the speech occupies an entire book, the self-control of the speaker
[which not only marks his long narrative, but, as I will point out later, his other speeches as
well] suggests that the part told is brief in comparison with all he has suffered”.213 In other
words, what is told is something entirely different than what has occurred in reality. Again, one
must be careful with such presumptions; that Aeneas merely addressed his companions as he
then thought appropriate remains a possibility one cannot simply ignore.
More important is it that both Aeneas’ neutral address form, “uiri”, and the deviation from it,
“iuuenes”, appear rather poor in comparison to address forms used by Satan, such as “Thrones,
dominations, princedoms, virtues, powers”.214 Yet, the function of the address forms, and
especially of the deviations from neutral ones, remains the same in that they both serve the
purpose of aiding in the persuasion process. Whereas Satan’s salutations in his temptation of
Eve guide Eve towards her own “apotheosis” – as Harding describes it215 – by gradually
building towards a transcendence of earthly boundaries through his address forms,216 Aeneas,
in his last speech to the Trojans, climatically addresses his companions as “o ciues”.217
Although again appearing as poor when compared to Satan’s series of highly flattering
salutations, it helps in appeasing Aeneas’ audience by assuring them of a “happy ending”. The
penultimate speech to his Trojans, after all, has revealed a discord to have taken place. Aeneas,
211
Aeneid, II.348.
Aeneid, IV.573; XI.14.
213
Keith 1921, 50.
214
Paradise Lost, V.772.
215
See Harding 2007, 172.
216
Satan consecutively addresses Eve as “sovereign mistress” (IX.532), “Empress of this fair world” (IX.568),
“universal dame” (IX.612), “Queen of this universe” (IX.684), and “Goddess humane” (IX.732).
217
Aeneid, XII.572.
212
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 71
clearly distinguishing himself from the rest of his troops, tries to soothe his peers with the
following words:
quo ruitis? quaeue ista repens discordia surgit?
o cohibete iras! ictum iam foedus et omnes
compositae leges. mihi ius concurrere soli;
me sinite atque auferte metus. ego foedera faxo
firma manu; Turnum debent haec iam mihi sacra.218
[Where are you running to? Why this sudden tide of discord?
O, control your anger! The agreement has already been struck,
and its terms fixed. I alone have the right to fight:
Let me do so: banish your fears. I’ll prove the treaty sound
with this right hand: these rites mean Turnus is already mine.] 219
When Aeneas, in the above speech, shouts “me sinite atque auferte metus” (“Let me do so:
banish your fears”), he refers to a fear (“metus”) that is, apparently, present among his troops.
He continues by assuring them of victory: “ego foedera faxo / firma manu” (“I’ll prove the
treaty sound / with this right hand”), marked by a strong alliteration of the /f/ sound. Very
similarly, Aeneas’ “o ciues” also serves the purpose of assuring his companions of an
unquestionable victory:
scilicet exspectem libeat dum proelia Turno
nostra pati rursusque uelit concurrere uictus?
hoc caput, o ciues, haec belli summa nefandi.
ferte faces propere foedusque reposcite flammis.220
[Do you think I can wait until Turnus can face battle with me,
and chooses to meet with me again, though defeated before?
218
Aeneid, XII.313-317; my italics.
Kline 2002, 308.
220
Aeneid, XII.570-573; my italics.
219
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 72
O citizens, this man is the fountainhead and source of this wicked war.
Quickly, bring burning brands, and re-establish the treaty, with fire.]221
Also remark that, immediately after Aeneas hope-inspiring address form, a similar alliteration
of the /f/ sound again occurs: “nefandi. / ferte faces propere foedusque reposcite flammis”
(“[…] of this wicked war. / Quickly, bring burning brands, and re-establish the treaty, with
fire”). Highet claims that, referring to this particular alliteration, Aeneas ends his speech in “a
burst of fury emphasised by explosive initial sounds”.222 However, although Highet rightfully
points out Aeneas’ burst of fury, he neglects other occurrences – such as the previous one and
those still to follow in this chapter – of strongly alliterated passages appearing at moments
where Aeneas does not burst out in fury. The problem causing the incompleteness of Highet’s
comment lies in a distinction that must be made between the content of the speeches, on the one
hand, and, on the other, their form and style. I shall return to the problem concerning this
distinction later in this chapter, when I discuss the Dido-episode in more detail. For now, I wish
to return to Aeneas’ use of address forms. One can conclude that the used salutations serve the
purpose of persuasion similar to the way they often did in Milton’s epics, especially in Satan’s
speeches. Yet, Aeneas’ salutation “o ciues” also serves another purpose, again very similar to
Satan’s rhetoric, i.e. it helps in persuading not only Aeneas’ companions, but also Aeneas
himself. “O ciues” partly answers the question preceding it: “Do you think I can wait until
Turnus can face battle with me, / and chooses to meet with me again, though defeated before?”.
Taking place just before the decisive duel, Aeneas, by uttering a rhetorical question, shows –
however small it may be – a sign of critical reflection or even doubt. The presence of such
rhetorical question revokes an earlier mentioned comment by Pallister who had pointed out “the
persistence of the rhetorical question in demonic speech” as indicative of “doubt, uncertainty,
speculation, [and] forecasting”.223 It is, therefore, useful to compare this scene of Virgil’s
Aeneid to a similar scene in Milton’s Paradise Lost. The following excerpt shows how Satan,
moments before he enters Eden at the beginning of the fourth book, expresses feelings of
uncertainty, and how “horror and doubt distract / His troubled thoughts”:224
221
Kline 2002, 315.
Highet 1972, 31.
223
Pallister 2008, 180-181.
224
Paradise Lost, IV.18-19.
222
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 73
Forgetful what from him I still received,
And understood not that a grateful mind
By owing owes not, but still pays, at once
Indebted and discharged; what burden then?
O had his powerful destiny ordained
Me some inferior Angel, I had stood
Then happy; no unbounded hope had raised
Ambition. Yet why not? Some other power
As great might have aspired, and me though mean
Drawn to his part; but other powers as great
Fell not, but stand unshaken, from within
Or from without, to all temptations armed.
Hadst thou the same free will and power to stand?
Thou hadst: whom hast thou then or what to accuse,
But heaven’s free love dealt equally to all?
[…]
O then at last relent: is there no place
Left for repentance, none for pardon left?
None left but by submission; and that word
Disdain forbids me […].225
In its most basic form, the above given excerpt presents the same abstract scheme of
development as one finds in the earlier quoted speech of Aeneas: rhetorical questions exerting
a feeling of doubt, immediately followed by a rebuttal to the created uncertainty. Yet, despite
this similarity, the tone of both excerpts could hardly be more dissimilar. Whereas the
remarkable accumulation of rhetorical questions uttered by Satan calls forth a masterfully
created feeling of severe doubt depicting a conflict taking place in the innermost depths of his
soul and threatening the very purpose of Satan’s existence, the sole rhetorical question in
Aeneas’ speech expresses a feeling of hesitation that has been drained of all credibility even
before the question has fully found its way to its audience. The absence of more than one
rhetorical question is striking in comparison to the scene one finds in Paradise Lost, and
underlines the determinedness of Aeneas.
225
Paradise Lost, IV.54-82.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 74
What is more, the difference in the amount of rhetorical questions further confirms the
observation that, in comparison with Milton’s Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained, the
rhetorical style of Virgil’s Aeneid appears rather poor. Knowing that Milton received a
rhetorical education characterised by a preoccupation with style, it becomes possible to see in
it the influence of the baroque with its abundance of eye-catching decorations and compositions.
One might even label Satan’s address forms too decorated, i.e. an extremity of decorations
which can hardly be imagined to take on an even more ornamented form. The address forms –
and, more generally: the speeches – in Virgil’s Aeneid, on the other hand, “all seem perfectly
spontaneous, each of them rooted in its context and the character of its speaker. Rarely, in such
a speech, are we aware that some devices which an orator might use are present”. 226 Highet,
here, rightfully points out the subtlety in style featuring in the speeches of the Aeneid, but also
briefly touches upon the importance of the character of the speaker. Herein, I believe, Highet’s
comment remains incomplete by mainly reading the content of the speeches without paying
equal attention to their form and style. That the speeches are, as Highet argues, rooted within
their context seems indeed undeniable, i.e. the content of the speech is determined by the
context in which it is spoken; yet, the claim that the speeches are also rooted in the character of
their speaker appears to be wishful thinking and might be the result of more contemporary
narratives, such as Milton’s epics, in which character development very obviously determines
at least a part of the rhetoric of the character in question. To clarify this, I wish to take at hand
the opening lines of the speech Antonie Wlosok has described as the “centre of composition”
of the Dido-episode,227 i.e. Aeneas’ last speech to Dido, before leaving Carthage, in which he
justifies himself for refusing Dido’s plea to stay:
ego te, quae plurima fando
enumerare uales, numquam, regina, negabo
promeritam, nec me meminisse pigebit Elissae
dum memor ipse mei, dum spiritus hos regit artus.
pro re pauca loquar. neque ego hanc abscondere furto
speraui (ne finge) fugam, nec coniugis umquam
praetendi taedas aut haec in foedera ueni.228
226
Highet 1972, 279.
Wlosok 1999, 176.
228
Aeneid, IV.333-339; my italics.
227
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 75
[O queen, I will never deny
that you deserve the most that can be spelt out in speech,
nor will I regret my thoughts of you, Elissa,
while memory itself is mine, and breath controls these limbs.
I’ll speak about the reality a little. I did not expect to conceal
my departure by stealth (don’t think that), nor have I ever
held the marriage torch, or entered into that pact.]229
The above given passage provides crucial insights into the development – one must actually
say: stagnation – of Aeneas’ character. As was the case in the two previous excerpts illustrating
Aeneas’ rhetoric, here, too, a repetition, again of the /f/ sound, takes place. That the repetition
is, perhaps, less eye-catching than the two previous ones, is of lesser importance than the
occurrence of the word “foedera”. Richard C. Monti points out that “foedera” is “a term current
in Roman political vocabulary”,230 and, after seeing it occurring in the context of the duel with
Turnus, one must conclude that it is also not uncommon to appear in military vocabulary. The
similarity between the two speeches, i.e. the similarity in the tone of the speeches, is remarkable
considering the different context they occur in. Not, after all, were the Trojans at war when they
abode in Carthage. What is more, Aeneas experiences a feeling of love. Meaningful in this
context are Aeneas’ words “hic amor, haec patria est”.231 Highet points out that “he might easily
have said “hic domus, haec patria est,” as he is to do in 7.122; but he chooses to say “amor,” to
show Dido that he has given up his sexual infatuation under the pressure of a higher motive”.232
The political undertone accompanying the use of “foedera”, then, leads us to the concept of
kairos: it shows how Aeneas, even in a context of love, assesses the situation as a political and
military one, as he does throughout the entire Aeneid. It is always within this single context of
military politics that Aeneas speaks, hence the character developments of love and, as I will
come back to later in this chapter, of hate are also taking place within that context of military
politics. The difference with Satan’s development is a subtle one: whereas Satan’s character
development entails, among others, a loss of seeing the kairos, the right moment, hence
influencing his speech, Aeneas’ view of the situation – whether his assessment of the situation
as a military or political one is a correct assessment of the situation at hand or not – never
229
Kline 2002, 102-103.
Monti 1981, 44.
231
Aeneid, IV.347.
232
Highet 1972, 77.
230
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 76
changes. The question at hand, then, is not only whether, in that context of politics, the rhetoric
undergoes changes alongside the experiences of love and hate, but also whether the presence
or absence of such changes is due to the unchanging kairos or due to the changing experiences
of love and hate.
Starting the inquiry into the first of these questions, I shall start by looking at the closing lines
of the above mentioned speech: “desine meque tuis incendere teque querelis; / Italiam non
sponte sequor” (“Stop rousing yourself and me with your complaints. / I do not take course for
Italy of my own free will.”).233 They express the torture Aeneas feels, when having to leave
against his will. That same idea is also mentioned by Aeneas when he addresses Dido in the
underworld: “inuitus, regina, tuo de litore cessi. / sed me iussa deum” (“I left your shores
unwillingly, my queen. / I was commanded by gods”),234 to which the narrator of Virgil’s
Aeneid comments that Aeneas spoke the words full of love while his tears dropped down
(“demisit lacrimas dulcique adfatus amore est”).235 It invites us, as Monti states it, “to make the
comparison between his words and his deeds”.236 Remarkably, those feelings of love remain
entirely absent in Aeneas’ words. Monti claims that, “[w]hen in his reply Aeneas addressed the
question of his relationship with Dido, he dispensed with any explicit reference to his emotional
disposition to Dido and considered only the weight of his responsibilities towards her”.237 Rand
claims, concerning the opening lines of Aeneas’ last speech to Dido before he leaves Carthage,
that “[s]urely these are heartless words, if they express all that Aeneas feels”.238 Indeed, one
might, of course, argue that Aeneas remains unmoved by Dido’s plea, but, again, the narrator
of the Aeneid claims differently:
ac uelut annoso ualidam cum robore quercum
Alpini Boreae nunc hinc nunc flatibus illinc
eruere inter se certant; […]
haud secus adsiduis hinc atque hinc uocibus heros
tunditur, et magno persentit pectore curas;
mens immota manet, lacrimae uoluuntur inanes.239
233
Aeneid, IV.360-361; my italics. Translation: Kline 2002, 103.
Aeneid, VI.460-461; my italics. Translation: Kline 2002, 157.
235
Aeneid, VI.455.
236
Monti 1981, 45.
237
Monti 1981, 48.
238
Rand 1908, 29.
239
Aeneid, IV.441-449; my italics.
234
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 77
[As when northerly blasts from the Alps blowing here and there
vie together to uproot an oak tree, tough with the strength of years:
[…] so the hero was buffeted by endless pleas
from this side and that, and felt the pain in his noble heart.
His purpose remained fixed: tears fell uselessly.] 240
In fact, it becomes possible to discern three different descriptions of Aeneas: firstly, there is the
Aeneas as he appears in the content of his own words, assessing the situation as a political one.
Next, there is the Aeneas as he appears in the tone and style of his speech, showing us nothing
of value in that sense that it is the same tone we have seen in most, if not all, of the previous
speeches. Thirdly, then, there is the Aeneas as described by the narrator, who clarifies that
reason remains unmoved, but leaves no doubt that Aeneas is tormented by Dido’s words. It is
exactly the absence of any proof of such torment in the tone of his speech that is striking. After
all, Satan’s decision to do ill does not change either, yet the inner struggle he experiences has
an impact on the words he speaks. Aeneas’ speech, on the other hand, despite the torment he
feels within, is not marked by such impact. Conington remarks that, although Aeneas’ speech
is longer than that of Dido, it is described by Virgil as “pauca”,241 which suggests that “the
words come slowly and with effort, and bear no comparison to what the lover would have said
had he given way to his emotion”.242 Rand agrees with Conington, arguing that Virgil too, in
his introduction to Aeneas’ last speech to Dido, “has not yet spoken so plainly”.243 No visual
formalistic or stylistic influence of character development – which is, after all, based on what
one experiences and feels within – upon rhetorical development is, at least in the Dido-episode,
perceptible. In other words, although Aeneas, heartbroken by having to leave Dido behind, must
have felt a feeling of loss, his rhetoric does not develop similarly to that of Satan into a rhetoric
of loss, but instead is rooted as a rhetoric of power, most clearly seen in the use of imperatives
in the words “uigilate, uiri, et considite transtris; / soluite uela citi” (“Quick, men, awake, and
man the rowing-benches: run / and loosen the sails”),244 spoken immediately after Aeneas has
left the shores of Carthage at a time when the feeling of loss is expected to still be fresh in mind.
Consequently, a gap manifests itself between, on the one hand, the feelings Aeneas experiences
240
Kline 2002, 105-106.
Aeneid, IV.333.
242
Vergilius and Long 1863, 287.
243
Rand 1908, 29.
244
Aeneid, IV.573-574; my italics. Translation: Kline 2002, 109.
241
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 78
according to the narrator, and, on the other hand, the words he speaks, whereas both character
and rhetoric are, in Milton’s epics, completely synchronised.
The remaining question, then, is whether such stagnation on a formalistic and stylistic level is
the result of an absence of influence of character development on rhetorical development, or
should be explained through Aeneas’ unchanging assessment of the situation and the resolution
of his reason. The answer to this question must be found in another key-episode of the Aeneid,
where, unlike what was the case in the previous example, not only the feelings experienced by
Aeneas change, but his reason as well, hence resulting in perhaps the only situation not
considered by Aeneas to be one of military politics. It is, more precisely the scene in which
Aeneas kills Turnus at the end of the twelfth book. Important is that, for the first and perhaps
the only time in Virgil’s Aeneid, Aeneas no longer assesses the situation as a political one.
Turnus, as he claims himself, has, after all, already been defeated and Aeneas has won the war
and, with it, the girl and the land. To clarify this, I wish to compare this last speech of Aeneas
with a part of the previously mentioned speech delivered to Dido, where Aeneas rebuts Dido’s
“claim [of love] with the counter-claim of duty”,245 and, more importantly, the counter-claim
of family:
me patris Anchisae, quotiens umentibus umbris
nox operit terras, quotiens astra ignea surgunt,
admonet in somnis et turbida terret imago;
me puer Ascanius capitisque iniuria cari,
quem regno Hesperiae fraudo et fatalibus aruis.246
[As often as night cloaks the earth with dew-wet shadows,
as often as the burning constellations rise, the troubled image
of my father Anchises warns and terrifies me in dream:
about my son Ascanius and the wrong to so dear a person,
whom I cheat of a Hesperian kingdom, and pre-destined fields.]247
245
Monti 1981, 48.
Aeneid, IV.351-355; my italics.
247
Kline 2002, 103.
246
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 79
The extract above shows us, apart from the counter-claim of family, part of an accumulation of
subtle alliterations which extends beyond the boundaries of this excerpt. So far, each speech
discussed in this chapter was marked by the presence of one or more alliterations. Aeneas’ last
speech in the Aeneid, moments before Aeneas kills Turnus, is, in that respect, no different:
tune hinc spoliis indute meorum
eripiare mihi? Pallas te hoc uulnere, Pallas
immolat et poenam scelerato ex sanguine sumit.248
[Shall you be snatched from my grasp, wearing the spoils
of one who was my own? Pallas it is, Pallas, who sacrifices you
with this stroke, and exacts retribution from your guilty blood.]249
Due to the metre, Aeneas’ last words turn into a trifold alliteration: “scelerat-ex sanguine
sumit”. As mentioned before, the presence of an alliteration is nothing special compared to other
speeches delivered by Aeneas. In fact, nothing formalistically or stylistically out of the ordinary
can be observed in this speech. Yet, one would expect something exceptional to occur. The
situation is, after all, uncommon: whereas Aeneas has, throughout the Aeneid, clung to the
counter-claim of family and has been characterised by exactly that, he, moments before this
speech was delivered, completely neglects Turnus’ family-plea. Turnus’ words “miseri te si qua
parentis / tangere cura potest, oro (fuit et tibi talis / Anchises genitor) Dauni miserere senectae”
(“If any concern for a parent’s grief / can touch you (you too had such a father, in Anchises) / I
beg you to pity Daunus’s old age”)250 explicitly echo the argument brought up by Aeneas in the
Dido-episode, even referring to Aeneas’ own father Anchises. Those words – for a moment, so
the narrator tells us – seemed successful in moving Aeneas, but upon seeing the baldric of young
Pallas, Aeneas experiences a sudden burst of rage and completely neglects Turnus’ claim of
family. Similar to the Dido-episode, he answers beside the point, carefully and systematically
avoiding any commentary that resembles the claims used by his antagonists. In fact, Aeneas, in
the above given excerpt, does not once resort to the repudiation of Turnus’ family-argument,
thus making the dialogue entirely divergent from the dialogue between Satan and the Son in
Paradise Regained, where the replies of the Son renege on those of Satan. Aeneas’ moving
248
Aeneid, XII.947-949; my italics.
Kline 2002, 327.
250
Aeneid, XII.932-934. Translation: Kline 2002, 325-327.
249
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 80
away from the political argument of “building a city for his family” proves the reversal in his
assessment of the situation. Moreover, it is literally Pallas who undertakes action, thus
underlining the development away from an assessment of the situation as one of politics to one
of revenge even further. One might point out that, in times of such anger, the control over one’s
speech fades away, hence leaving Aeneas with nothing else than violence and revenge in mind,
and, consequently, in his words as well. This would, indeed, explain the absence of any terms
relating to family, which have characterised Aeneas throughout the story, but brings with it
another problem since no signs of such anger can be perceived on a stylistic level of his rhetoric.
A comparison with Milton’s epics is, I believe, required here. Whereas Satan, in the beginning
of Paradise Lost, turns to a rhetoric of power – and consequently loses most of his rhetorical
craftsmanship – when faced with the heat of battle, Aeneas, when faced with – as the narrator
states it – gruesome anger (“ira terribilis”),251 loses control over the content of his rhetoric (i.e.
he loses the ideals of fighting for family), yet the form of it remains unchanged. In his speech,
alliterations occur as they did before. What is more, the repetition of “Pallas” allows for a
tricolon to be seen in it: “Pallas [gives] you this wound” (“Pallas te hoc uulnere”), “Pallas
sacrifices [you]”, (“Pallas immolat”), “[Pallas] punishes you with death” (“et poenam scelerato
ex sanguine sumit”). Unlike Satan,252 Aeneas does not uncontrollably fill his speech with signs
of abundance, nor does he, for that matter, deliver a shorter speech than what he is used to. In
fact, Highet’s study points out that many of the speeches delivered by Aeneas are about the
same length or even shorter than the one he delivers to Turnus at the end of the Aeneid.253
Moreover, the question wherewith Aeneas opens his speech, can be, not unlike what I have
pointed out earlier in this chapter, interpreted as a question to Turnus – whom he then not gives
the necessary time to reply, for he kills him while still uttering his own speech – or, what I
believe to be more likely, as a rhetorical question to himself, in which case he, again,
immediately answers his question by punishing Turnus with the sentence of death. Every
stylistic or structural marker is, thus, one that occurs in others situations as well, i.e. in situations
where Aeneas is not characterised by a sudden burst of anger. This implies that Aeneas’ rhetoric
– in so far as rhetoric without its content can be called rhetoric – does not experience an
evolution based on the setting in which the speech occurs.
251
Aeneid, XII.946-947.
Cf. supra: “Satan’s Second Threshold: Regaining What Was Lost?,” p. 39-40.
253
Highet 1972, 327-329 (appendix 4).
252
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 81
In short, those parts of rhetoric that are focused on the form of it, not the content, appear to be
an invariable throughout Aeneas’ development as a character. When Highet claims, then, that
“through the speeches of Aeneas we see his character developing”, arguing that “[h]is first
speech is a cry of despair heard above the roar of a hurricane (1.94-101)” while “[h]is last is a
furious shout of anger, spoken in the midst of a horrified crowd”,254 he focusses on the content
of Aeneas’ rhetoric. It more precisely entails rhetorical markers such as, among others, the shift
from “I” to “we”, the use of commands, the presence of rhetorical questions expressing doubt
or uncertainty, and the change in address forms. After all, the content of Aeneas’ speeches must
be adapted to the progress of the narrative that it helped creating in the first place. The same
can, of course be said about Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained. However, a lot more
different than Milton’s epics is the stagnation of formalistic and stylistic rhetorical markers.
These, as shown in this chapter, do not develop as the story, and Aeneas with it, progresses. It
more precisely entails rhetorical data such as, among others, alliterations, the amount of
rhetorical questions used to express doubt or uncertainty, the use of poorly decorated, yet
manipulative address forms, and tricola, but also includes, for example, the length of the
speeches. As such, a similar development from a rhetoric of power to a rhetoric of loss does not
occur, even when Aeneas, according to the narrator, experiences such feelings of loss and grief.
In fact, it becomes hard to even entitle Aeneas’ use of commands, as well as the increasing
presence of “I” denoting some sort of self-obsessiveness, as a rhetoric of power, since no
developments whatsoever – and therefore nothing we can ascribe as characteristic to a certain
emotion or state of mind of Aeneas – are present in his speech. It is exactly therein that part of
the strength of Milton’s epics lies, i.e. in that the formalistic and stylistic rhetorical markers of
Satan’s rhetoric, together with the conceptual ones, develop alongside his character.
Milton’s Speech Models and the Language of the Gods
In this chapter, I shall look at the rhetoric of Jupiter in order to, on the one hand, look whether
the same or a similar observation of stylistic and formalistic stagnation can be made as the one
concerning Aeneas’ rhetoric, and, on the other hand, to compare Jupiter’s language, as king of
the gods, to that of the Father – and by extension that of the Son – in Milton’s Paradise Lost.
Earlier in this thesis, I concluded that the rhetoric of the Father was characterised by a divine
foreknowledge, which, consequently, made both character and rhetorical development
254
Highet 1972, 29.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 82
impossible to occur. Any changes in the style of His rhetoric were, thus, not caused by any
development of some sort, but rather by different assessments of the situation at hand. Herein,
His rhetoric differed from that of Satan appearing in Paradise Regained, i.e. in that the Father
never loses the ability to see the kairos, the right moment, and to speak accordingly. Similarly
to the investigation conducted in that previous chapter dealing with the rhetoric of the Father,
this chapter, too, must dive deeper into the concepts of kairos and foreknowledge. However,
through Jupiter’s own speeches, it quickly dawns that he does not possess a divine
foreknowledge that can serve as a counterpart for that of the Father. To illustrate this, I wish to
take at hand the opening and ending lines of Jupiter’s fourth speech, delivered to an assembly
of the gods:
caelicolae magni, quianam sententia uobis
uersa retro tantumque animis certatis iniquis?
abnueram bello Italiam concurrere Teucris.
quae contra uetitum discordia? quis metus aut hos
aut hos arma sequi ferrumque lacessere suasit?
[…]
tum certare odiis, tum res rapuisse licebit.
nunc sinite et placitum laeti componite foedus.255
[Great sky-dwellers, why have you changed
your decision, competing now, with such opposing wills?
I commanded Italy not to make war on the Trojans.
Why this conflict, against my orders? What fear
has driven them both to take up arms and incite violence?
[…]
then it will be fine to compete in hatred, and ravage things.
Now let it alone, and construct a treaty, gladly, as agreed.] 256
Jupiter, in the above given excerpt, opens with the words “caelicolae magni” (“Great skydwellers”), thus addressing his fellow gods in what at first sight seems to be a flattering
salutation. Having only two speeches delivered by Jupiter to the other gods as a group – this
255
256
Aeneid, X.6-15.
Kline 2002, 245.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 83
one and Jupiter’s next speech which is part of the same dialogue, hence omitting the address
form – we possess too little data to name “caelicolae magni” Jupiter’s neutral address form.
Yet, it could indeed be presumed as such, given that the flattering nature of it fits the nature of
the gods, the same way Satan’s address form “Thrones, dominations, princedoms, virtues,
powers”,257 as spoken to his comrades in his chronologically first speech, not only flatters them,
but also displays the truth. One must, of course, keep in mind that the degree of decorations in
Jupiter’s address forms – as was the case for those uttered by Aeneas – cannot be compared
with the decorations in Milton’s epics, although Jupiter does, as I will point out later in this
chapter, possess the necessary rhetorical arsenal to flatter them more than he does in the above
given extract. Despite, thus, this lower degree of decoration, one cannot describe “caelicolae
magni” as condescending. However, the positive nature of it seems to be in conflict with the
content of Jupiter’s speech. The gods, after all, have disobeyed one of his commands, i.e. to not
take part in the war and for Italy to not fight off the Trojans. Jupiter, whom we expect to show
signs of angriness or disappointment, does not at all resort to an unbalanced rhetoric, but, proven
by, among others, the address form, remains calm and in control of his language, at least, if
nothing else, in the rhetorical style of his speech.
The same calmness and control is also perceptible in the tricolon of questions with which
Jupiter opens his speech. Again, we thus observe a gap between, on the one hand, the emotions
and state of mind of the speaker at the time of delivering the speech, and, on the other, the tone
that accompanies the words of the speech and is mainly build upon the foundations of the
rhetorical style the speaker uses. Moreover, the questions are, in themselves, of great
importance as well, since they serve as an indication of the absence of omniscience like the one
characterising the Father. In fact, of the ten speeches uttered by Jupiter,258 no less than four are
marked by not one question, but by a series of questions. Compare this to the speeches of the
Father, where, all 34 speeches taken into account, only seven speeches are marked by one or
more questions, creating a total of fourteen questions, two of which were merely “to try”
Adam,259 three of which the Father answers himself, and another two containing critical
thoughts which are merely constructed as questions, hence not portraying signs of
unknowingness. Seven questions denoting unknowingness or begging for an answer thus
remain, six of which to be found in the questioning of Adam and Eve after they have tasted the
257
Paradise Lost, V.772.
Highet 1972, 334 (appendix 4).
259
Paradise Lost, VIII.437.
258
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 84
forbidden fruit.260 The difference with Jupiter, who utters a total of eighteen question in only
ten speeches, none of which he answers himself and all of which uttered to someone else, thus
likely to be begging an answer, seems undeniable. In the following excerpt, too, Jupiter,
addressing Mercury and imposing on him the task of encouraging Aeneas to leave Carthage,
speaks with a tricolon of questions:
uade age, nate, uoca Zephyros et labere pennis
Dardaniumque ducem, Tyria Karthagine qui nunc
exspectat fatisque datas non respicit urbes,
adloquere et celeris defer mea dicta per auras.
[…]
si nulla accendit tantarum gloria rerum
nec super ipse sua molitur laude laborem,
Ascanione pater Romanas inuidet arces?
quid struit? aut qua spe inimica in gente moratur
nec prolem Ausoniam et Lavinia respicit arua?
nauiget! haec summa est, hic nostri nuntius esto.261
[Off you go, my son, call the winds and glide on your wings,
and talk to the Trojan leader who malingers in Tyrian Carthage
now, and gives no thought to the cities the fates will grant him,
and carry my words there on the quick breeze.
[…]
If the glory of such things doesn’t inflame him,
and he doesn’t exert himself for his own honour,
does he begrudge the citadels of Rome to Ascanius?
What does he plan? With what hopes does he stay
among alien people, forgetting Ausonia and the Lavinian fields?
Let him sail: that’s it in total, let that be my message.] 262
260
See Paradise Lost, X.103-158.
Aeneid, IV.223-237; my italics.
262
Kline 2002, 98-99.
261
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 85
Like the tricolon of questions in the previous speech, Jupiter, again, expresses his oblivion and
incomprehension over the thoughts of someone else, here Aeneas. When Monti states that “[i]n
Jupiter’s speech Vergil leaves unsaid as much as he states explicitly” concerning the relation
between Aeneas and Dido,263 he mistakenly blames it on Virgil. Instead, it is not Virgil, but
Jupiter who fails in knowing the thoughts and emotions of Aeneas, the same way he is
unknowing of the inner thoughts and emotions of the gods, and, as I will point out later, those
of his wife Juno. Consequently, Jupiter is, throughout the Aeneid, never called omniscient – i.e.
he knows destiny, as proven by, for example, his prophesising answer “to Venus’ complaint in
the opening book, in which he unrolls the scroll of Fate and foretells that after vast war Aeneas
shall triumph in Italy”,264 but not necessarily knows the way to it, nor the inner thoughts of
those around him. He, as R. B. Steele observes, is called the omnipotent father (X.100); the
eternal power of men and of things (X.18), and their discoverer (XII.829); he is the genitor
(IX.630); the king of men (I.65); the father (IX.495); director (VIII.572); ruler (IV.269); ruler
of the Olympus (VII.558); and the “summus” (I.665).265 Yet, strikingly, the title “omniscient”
remains absent, thus again confirming the presumption, based on the frequently occurring series
of questions, that Jupiter knows the final turnout of destiny, yet not necessarily the way to it,
nor the inner emotions of those around him.
Secondly, the tricolon of questions at the end of the above given excerpt again bears in it a
certain balance and control. Remark that, very similarly, Jupiter opens with a tricolon, this time
one entailing the repetition of the /a/ and /e/ sounds: “uade age, nate” (“off you go, my son”).
Still, however, the address form appears to be poor with what often occurs in Milton’s epics.
Again, the rhetorical style appears to be one of calmness and control. The accumulation of
questions – showing, unlike those of the Father, signs of unknowingness and incomprehension
of the thoughts of others – do not undermine the calmness nor the presumed role of a leader.
Instead, the composition of the questions in tricola strengthens the idea of control. What is
more, both this excerpt and the previous one have shown that the questions do not imply the
exclusion of commands, thus still allowing the role of leader to come to the fore. Herein,
Jupiter’s speech is notably different from what we see in Paradise Lost: whereas the Father
hides his foreknowledge – as seen, for example, in Satan’s words “till then who knew / The
263
Monti 1981, 47.
Moore 1921, 140.
265
Steele 1907, 1.
264
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 86
force of those dire arms?”266 – Jupiter openly displays the absence of his omniscience through
his frequent questions, while at the same time also maintaining his position as a leader amongst
the gods.
Building on the premise, then, that Jupiter’s questions are indeed caused by, and are a marker
of, an absence of divine foreknowledge, it must follow that character development is possible.
Unlike the Father, after all, Jupiter can be taken by surprise and he can feel sudden emotions
such as disappointment and doubt, as opposed to the Father, whose emotions can, due to the
very nature of his being and the presence of divine foreknowledge, never be sudden. The
questions that present themselves, then, are, on the one hand, the question whether character
development does occur – the possibility of it occurring, after all, does not necessarily equal
the occurrence of it – and, on the other, the question examining the influence of Jupiter’s
character upon his rhetoric. Before diving deeper into either of these questions, however, it is
important to stress the difference between character development and contextual characteristic
differences. The concept of kairos here, once again, makes its introduction. As opposed to
Aeneas, who evaluated all contexts as a context of a military politics – as Monti pointed out
through the use of the word “foedera” – Jupiter does not assess the domestic atmosphere as a
political one, i.e. as one where he has to act as the leader one sees occurring in the two
previously discussed speeches, nor does he assess the political atmosphere as a domestic one.
The main question of this chapter, then, must not be whether his rhetoric differs when he speaks
as a leader from that when he speaks as, for example a husband or a son. Briefly coming back
to the rhetoric of Aeneas, it is exactly because he makes no difference concerning the context
in which he speaks that we are able to examine character development. This does not imply, of
course, that Aeneas does not experience love or other emotions, but merely that he always
places his speeches in the same context and that character development – such as caused, for
example, by the experiences of love and hate – occurs within the boundaries of that context.
Similarly, one must look at character developments and, afterwards, at rhetorical developments
within the different contexts in which Jupiter delivers his speeches.
The first context one can easily deduce from Jupiter’s speeches, is that in which he takes up the
position of a leader of the gods. The two excerpts discussed so far in this chapter show that, like
the rhetoric of Satan, the Father, and Aeneas, Jupiter’s rhetoric, too, is, in this particular context,
266
Paradise Lost, I.93-94.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 87
marked by imperatives. In both of the above given speeches, Jupiter assesses the situation as
one in which his leadership is, for whatever reason it may be, required. The question whether
character development influences Jupiter’s speech within this leader-based context is a
problematic one. Not, as one might think, because of the rhetorical part of the inquiry, but due
to the investigation of character development. When examining Jupiter’s character, one is
confronted with the exact boundaries of the concepts of, on the one hand, contextual and thus
temporarily emotional outbursts, and, on the other, of permanent character development. The
distinction becomes, I believe, more clear when we again take at hand the speech delivered by
Jupiter to the assembly of the gods. We read in it a certain dissatisfaction and perhaps even
anger towards the gods for not obeying Jupiter’s given command, and we read it, more
precisely, in the words of his speech. In his rhetorical style, on the other hand, we read – as was
the case with Aeneas – no signs of any emotional surprise, dissatisfaction or anger. In fact,
Jupiter appears to be, again similar to Aeneas, in complete control over his speech:
caelicolae magni, quianam sententia uobis
uersa retro tantumque animis certatis iniquis?
abnueram bello Italiam concurrere Teucris.
quae contra uetitum discordia? quis metus aut hos
aut hos arma sequi ferrumque lacessere suasit?
[…]
tum certare odiis, tum res rapuisse licebit.
nunc sinite et placitum laeti componite foedus.267
[Great sky-dwellers, why have you changed
your decision, competing now, with such opposing wills?
I commanded Italy not to make war on the Trojans.
Why this conflict, against my orders? What fear
has driven them both to take up arms and incite violence?
[…]
then it will be fine to compete in hatred, and ravage things.
Now let it alone, and construct a treaty, gladly, as agreed.] 268
267
268
Aeneid, X.6-15.
Kline 2002, 245.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 88
Even in moments where Jupiter openly displays his own unknowingness,269 his rhetoric is
characterised by the balance as for example seen in the tricolon of questions. Yet, the noticeable
feeling of control goes beyond merely the deployment of tricola, but is also, as Arthur L. Keith
has indirectly pointed out, to be found in the length of Jupiter’s speeches: in book X, 270 “the
term paucis (“short”) is used to describe Jupiter’s speech […] of ten lines, while Venus’s
speech, which follows, of forty-five lines, is characterized as non pauca. Probably the poet
intended thus to contrast the decision of Jupiter’s words with Venus’s helpless rage”. 271 Keith
continues by arguing that the term pauca is often not used to describe “short” speeches, since
several examples can be found where a speech labelled pauca is, in fact, longer than one
labelled multa or non pauca. Consequently, according to Keith, “[m]ulta goes with wild and
unrestrained speaking” while the “brief speeches” are more associated with the self-control of
the speaker.272 He who thus believes to read a feeling of uncontrolled anger in Jupiter’s speech
must be mistaken; yet the context allows it, and so do Jupiter’s words. A possibility is that, like
Aeneas’ rhetoric, Jupiter’s language is not influenced by the changing moods of his character,
in which case Virgil – proven by the presumed use of pauca – must have been aware of this
desynchronisation. More likely, however, is that Jupiter remains in control, thus not
experiencing any kind of character development. The difference with Aeneas is to be situated
in the earlier mentioned difference between temporary emotions and permanent character
developments: whereas Aeneas, after his encounter with Dido, gradually turns more lonely – to
be seen, for example in the increasing use of imperatives and the pronoun “I” – and resembles
Satan’s development in that it is a more permanent adaptation of his speech, 273 Jupiter
resembles not Satan, but the Father, in that a temporary moment of dissatisfaction, surprise or
disappointment controls his words, i.e. the content of his speeches. When we, as a reader, move
on to Jupiter’s following speech, which is part of the same dialogue taking place during the
assembly of the gods, the feeling of presumed disappointment, anger or surprise has already
left his words:
accipite ergo animis atque haec mea figite dicta.
quandoquidem Ausonios coniungi foedere Teucris
269
Here merely meant as opposed to omniscience like that of the Father in Paradise Lost.
Keith mistakenly places it in book IX, see Keith 1921, 50: “This is clearly shown in 9.I6, where the term
paucis is applied to Jupiter's speech”.
271
Keith 1921, 50.
272
Keith 1921, 50.
273
“Permanent” in this context meaning that the adaptation occurs over the boundaries of a single speech, and
only ends when another development unravels itself.
270
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 89
haud licitum, nec uestra capit discordia finem,
quae cuique est fortuna hodie, quam quisque secat spem,
Tros Rutulusne fuat, nullo discrimine habebo,
seu fatis Italum castra obsidione tenentur
siue errore malo Troiae monitisque sinistris.274
[Take my words to heart and fix them there.
Since Italians and Trojans are not allowed to join
in alliance, and your disagreement has no end,
I will draw no distinction between them, Trojan or Rutulian,
whatever luck each has today, whatever hopes they pursue,
whether the camp’s under siege, because of Italy’s fortunes,
or Troy’s evil wanderings and unhappy prophecies.] 275
If there was ever a feeling of surprise, anger or disappointment to be read in the words of
Jupiter’s previous speech, it only existed within the boundaries of that one speech. Not has it
changed the character itself of Jupiter, who, after that one speech, again acts in his usual, nonangry way. Although, as shown in the beginning of this chapter, Jupiter should, unlike the
Father, be able to undergo character development, he, like the Father, does not experience any
such developments that change the nature – or, in other words, the character – of his being.
Instead, it is merely the suddenness of emotions that, momentarily, presents the reader with a
different Jupiter. Important is that these sudden emotions, too, do not influence the rhetorical
style, which can best be deduced from the tripartite structures in Jupiter’s speeches, even when
spoken in situation of surprise or disappointment. On top of that, the use of imperatives creates
a feeling of leadership to be felt in all the speeches that have been discussed in this chapter so
far. In doing so, they enhance a similar impression of character stagnation, resulting in the
stylistically rhetorical stagnation that has been pointed out to occur in the above discussed
speeches. Similar to the stagnation of Aeneas’ rhetoric, that of Jupiter is also marked by the
usual alliterations, which – again confirming the stagnation – do not increase nor decrease based
on the emotions of the speaker at the time of delivering his speech while speaking as a leader.
274
275
Aeneid, X.104-110.
Kline 2002, 248.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 90
The same observations can be made in a second context that can be deduced from Jupiter’s ten
speeches, i.e. a context where he, unlike the first one, does not act as a leader, but as a domestic
speaker. It is especially through the private speeches to his wife Juno that one encounters this
domestic context between husband and wife. Apart from that, however, Jupiter’s domestic
speeches also occur, for example, when he addresses his mother Cybele in book IX. Once more
begging for answers, Jupiter opens his speech with the following words:
o genetrix, quo fata uocas? aut quid petis istis?
mortaline manu factae immortale carinae
fas habeant? certusque incerta pericula lustret
Aeneas? cui tanta deo permissa potestas?276
[O, my mother, to what do you summon fate? What do you seek
for them? Should keels made by mortal hands have eternal rights?
Should Aeneas travel in certainty through uncertain
dangers? To what god are such powers permitted?] 277
First of all, remark that Jupiter, throughout this speech, does not resort to imperatives to convey
his message. As was the case with Satan’s rhetoric, commands are associated with one’s
position as a leader. Consequently, as can be seen in the above given excerpt, the use of
imperatives disappears when Jupiter, temporarily, lays off his role as leader. Also
accompanying that transition from one context to another is that Jupiter, in the above given
extract, opens with a series of five questions, diverging therewith from the tricola of questions
consistently used when speaking as a leader. What is more, the amount of alliterations has, how
small the difference may be, increased in comparison to, for example, his speech to the gods.
Especially the final line of the same speech, “et Galatea secant spumantem pectore pontum”
(“[…] and Galatea, who part the foaming sea with their breasts”),278 clearly shows Jupiter’s
skill of speaking with alliterations. Apart from that, one also finds in it a repetition of words –
as in Milton’s epics, yet not to the same extent279 – more precisely of the word “mortaline”,
which is later echoed in “immortale” (IX.95) and “mortalem” (XI.101). That the repeated words
276
Aeneid, IX.94-97; my italics.
Kline 2002, 223-224.
278
Aeneid, IX.103; my italics. Translation: Kline 2002, 224.
279
Cf. supra: “Satan’s Fall As a Rhetorical Threshold,” p. 22-24, 28-32; “Stagnating Voices: The Rhetoric of the
Father and the Son,” p. 42-44, 47-48.
277
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 91
denote the same set of contrasted meanings that also occurs in Satan’s final speech of temptation
is probably a coincidence and the result of the context in which it appears. However, that it
occurs is something that remains largely unseen in any of Jupiter’s speeches, and even within
the boundaries of any single speech of Virgil’s Aeneid. Not yet resembling the degree of
decoration in the speeches of the Father, the difference in decorations with Jupiter’s rhetoric as
a leader is undeniable. Whereas the Father, based on the kairos, shifts between a more
decorative style and a rhetorical style marked by sobriety and balance, Jupiter, too, shifts
between different degrees of decorations. That same difference concerning the degree of
decorations between the two contexts Jupiter speaks in also becomes, and even more clearly,
perceptible in his first speech to Juno:
o germana mihi atque eadem gratissima coniunx,
ut rebare, Venus (nec te sententia fallit)
Troianas sustentat opes, non uiuida bello
dextra uiris animusque ferox patiensque pericli.280
[O my sister, and at the same time my dearest wife,
as you thought (your judgement is not wrong)
it is Venus who sustains the Trojans’ power,
not their own right hands, so ready for war,
nor their fierce spirits, tolerant of danger.] 281
Again, no imperatives are used in this private speech delivered to Juno, thus already hinting
that Jupiter’s speech shall not be one of military politics in which his leadership is required.
That same observation can also be made based on the address form with which Jupiter opens
his speech. Not only bears “o germana” distinct similarities with “o genetrix” used to address
Cybele, both whose informal characters are stressed by the exclamatory interjection “o”, but
the entire address form used in the above given excerpt, “o germana mihi atque eadem
gratissima coniunx” (“O my sister, and at the same time my dearest wife”), comes a lot closer
to what has previously been described as Milton’s extremity of decorations. It is, in fact, the
only address form uttered by Jupiter that exceeds the boundaries of his otherwise poor – again,
of course, in comparison to the highly adorned style of Milton’s epics – salutations. Banks J.
280
281
Aeneid, X.607-610.
Kline 2002, 262.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 92
Wildman describes it as Jupiter addressing his wife in “tender terms” and continues by claiming
that “[h]armony prevails in the domestic circle”.282 In doing so, Wildman distinguishes Jupiter’s
private speaking as taking place in a different context than the one in which his political
speeches are to be situated. Wildman’s claim, however, is incomplete in that it distinguishes
between two settings and not between the roles of the speaker. In the domestic circle, too,
Jupiter can speak as a military politician. Compare, for example, the address form used in the
above given extract to the address form used in book XII, where Jupiter merely addresses Juno
as “coniunx”:
quae iam finis erit, coniunx? quid denique restat?
indigetem Aenean scis ipsa et scire fateris
deberi caelo fatisque ad sidera tolli.
quid struis? aut qua spe gelidis in nubibus haeres?
mortalin decuit uiolari uulnere diuum?
aut ensem (quid enim sine te Iuturna ualeret?)
ereptum reddi Turno et uim crescere uictis?
desine iam tandem precibusque inflectere nostris,
[…]
ulterius temptare ueto.283
[Wife, what will the end be now? What will be left in the end?
You know yourself, and confess you know, that Aeneas,
is destined for heaven as the nation’s god: the Fates raise him to the stars.
What are you planning? What hope do you cling to in the cold clouds?
Was it right that this god be defiled by a mortal’s wound?
Or that the lost sword (for what could Juturna achieve without you?)
be restored to Turnus, the defeated gaining new strength?
Now cease, at last, and give way to my entreaties,
[…]
I forbid you to attempt more.]284
282
Wildman 1908, 28.
Aeneid, XII.793-806; my italics.
284
Kline 2002, 322.
283
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 93
In his penultimate speech to Juno, Jupiter thus calls her “coniunx” (“wife”). The degree of
decorations is poor compared to how tenderly Jupiter addressed her in his previous speech.
However, remark that this seemingly poor address form must not be underestimated. It makes
one think of the speech delivered by Venus to her husband Vulcan, meant to convince him of
building an armour for her son Aeneas. In her speech, Venus – with Aeneas as proof of her
adultery – addresses her husband as “carissime coniunx” (VIII.377) and presents herself
accordingly as the ideal wife.285 This speech of Venus, remarkable for its conjugal tone, clearly
uses “coniunx” as part of the persuasion process. Also remark that, with a similar intention of
persuasion in mind, “Venus tells Juno to approach Jupiter as his coniunx, all the while knowing
that such a request [i.e. for a union of Trojans and Carthaginians] will fail because of the
problems in her marriage”.286 Similarly, as the above given excerpts shows, Jupiter resorts to
the use of “coniunx” in his reconciliation with Juno, who is, at the time, heartbroken by the
outcome of the war in Italy. By the end of his speech, Jupiter, who himself is also not the ideal
husband, succeeds in his reconcilement, and the marriage between him and Juno can continue
the way it had been. The address form “coniunx” might thus appear rather poor, but a lot of
information is hiding behind it, and it serves a function similar to the adorned salutations in
Milton’s epic, i.e. to aid in convincing the addressee.
In addition to the “poorly decorated” address form, Jupiter’s speech to Juno also harbours the
use of imperatives “desine” and inflectere”. Their occurrence, however, is a problematic one:
on the one hand, it confirms the presumption that Jupiter is, once more, speaking as a leader
and no longer addresses his wife in tender terms. Jupiter’s last word, “ueto” (“I forbid”) displays
a very strong sense of leadership and offers a good example of the omnipotence he holds. On
the other hand, the function of both commands digresses from the previously used imperatives
uttered by Jupiter. No longer do they express the same degree of leadership as the ones delivered
to Mercury. Instead, they harbour an inoffensive connotation turning Jupiter’s message into an
appeal for reconciliation. The difference in function is confirmed by the many questions – not
just three or five, but seven – wherewith Jupiter continues his speech. In them, after all, one
sees the abundance as taken up by Satan in his dialogue with the Son. Similar to the use of the
imperatives, the occurrence of the questions, too, is a problematic one: while the address form
and the presence of imperatives characterise Jupiter as speaking from a leadership position, the
connotation accompanying the imperatives, as well as the abundance of questions, and
285
286
Gutting 2006, 273.
Gutting 2006, 272.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 94
therewith the divergence from the tricolon-structure, suggest an increasing distance from the
control Jupiter usually displays in his leadership role and are, instead, characteristic of Jupiter
as a domestic speaker. The answer to the problem, I believe, must be sought in the very element
that distinguishes Jupiter’s abundance from that of Satan, i.e. in the concept of kairos. Whereas
Satan’s abundance, is, after all, a sign of his growing irritation and loss of control, that of Jupiter
is usually the result of the assessment of the situation as a domestic one. In the above given
speech, then, Jupiter is speaking within a domestic setting, but correctly assesses the situation
as a military political one. The result is the occurrence of a hybrid speech displaying an
abundance that mirrors Juno’s melodramatic grief and, more importantly, offers her the active
role in what is to follow. In doing so, Jupiter confirms the non-imperative nature of his
imperatives and adapts his speech to the point where it will help him in the persuasion of his
wife, however without adapting his own status as a leader to the domestic sphere. As such,
Jupiter resembles the role of the Father, who also shifts – based on the assessment of the kairos
– between a plain and ornate style.
Finally, however resembling the rhetoric of Jupiter and that of the Father may be in their
dependence on the kairos, one last difference must be brought to our attention: the element
serving as the fundament of the used concept of kairos. Unlike the Father, who resorts to a
decorative speech when the main theme – i.e. to “justify the ways of God to men”287 – is present
in the content of his speech, Jupiter’s shift in style is not based on content, but rather on the
context in which it appears and, consequently, the role Jupiter is forced to play within that
context. The difference is, of course, a subtle one, since context inevitably influences content,
but remains a difference nonetheless. It is, after all, possible for the same content to appear in
different contexts. In both the domestic speech to Juno, for example, tenderly opening with the
words “o germana mihi atque eadem gratissima coniunx” (“O my sister, and at the same time
my dearest wife”), as well as in the more political one, formally opening with “coniunx”, the
same main theme is present: war, and, implicitly, the outcome of it. Unlike, the Father, then,
Jupiter does not make the distinction based on the content of his speech. Instead, he assesses
the more political speech as in need of a decision to be made, hence requiring Jupiter’s
capacities as a leader, and not so much as an important content to be delivered.
287
Paradise Lost, I.26.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 95
To sum things up, Jupiter’s rhetoric, unlike that of Aeneas, builds on an assessment of the
situation it is used in, hence presenting the reader with, at least, two different kinds of rhetoric:
a plain one and a more ornate one. Like Aeneas, however, Jupiter’s rhetoric does not change
within the boundaries of these specific contexts. The cause of that must not be looked for in a
stagnation of rhetorical development such as that of Aeneas, but in the stagnation of Jupiter’s
character, which differs from that of the Father in that character development could occur and
is not prevented by the very nature of Jupiter’s being. Remark that the stagnation of Jupiter’s
character is not equivalent to the impossibility of the presence of feelings in the words and
content of his speeches, for such feelings – for example anger, surprise or disappointment – do
occur. Remarkably, then, but entirely in accordance with the observations made concerning
Aeneas’ rhetoric, these emotions do not exert an influence on the stylistic level of Jupiter’s
speeches. Herein, Jupiter’s rhetoric, too, differs from that of Satan, whose speeches reflect both
the character and the emotions felt at the time of delivering the speech. What does influence the
language of Jupiter is the context in which he speaks – either one in which a leader is required,
or one in which Jupiter appears in a domestic environment. As such, this chapter serves as
proof, not of a single rhetoric characterising all the speeches in the Aeneid, but instead of a
limited influence of character and sudden emotions upon a rhetoric that is determined, on a
stylistic level, by the context it appears in.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 96
CONCLUSION
This inquiry into the influence of character development on rhetorical development in Milton’s
epics and into the comparison of it with that same relation in Virgil’s Aeneid has shown that a
gap exists between, on the one hand, the characters in Milton’s Paradise Lost and Paradise
Regained, and, on the other, those in Virgil’s epic. The difference must not so much be situated
on the level of the psychological elaboration of the characters, but rather manifests itself in the
rhetorical evolution they experience. By looking at the speeches in Milton’s Paradise Lost and
Paradise Regained, and by trying to discern in them an evolution of the use of rhetorical
markers, it became possible to – as a first intention of this thesis – connect the changes in
rhetoric to the progress of the narrative, and, consequently, to the developments or stagnations
of certain characters. Based on a select group of classical authors consisting of Cicero,
Quintilian and Virgil, whom, as the first chapter has shown through an investigation of Milton’s
Of Education, his Prolusiones, and his time at St. Paul’s school, Milton is sure to have
encountered during his school days and to have deemed authoritative in their respective fields
of writing, a comparison of this relation between character and rhetorical development with that
same relation as it existed in classical Latin literature could be – as a second intention of this
thesis – conducted. The aim of such a comparison was to explore whether Milton followed
those authors whom he himself regarded as authoritative, thus turning this study into a study of
reception implying a more active role of the receiver, i.e. one who can choose what to ignore
and what not to ignore.
Being a study of reception, this study, after having introduced the classical authors that would
feature in it, started by focusing on the speeches of Milton’s Paradise Lost and Paradise
regained separately, i.e. without referring to those classical authors. First of all, the inquiry into
the speeches of Satan displayed a complex development that strongly reflected the consecutive
changes in his state of mind. In his chronologically first speech within Paradise Lost, Satan
speaks as the archangel in heaven whose mind is set on a rebellion against the Father.
Attempting to persuade his companions, his rhetoric starts out as a rhetoric of persuasion, filled
with repetitions, rhetorical questions, and neutral address forms variated upon by introducing a
feeling of doubt that shall later aid Satan in his strategy of persuasion. After having succeeded
in convincing part of the other angels to join the rebellion, however, the war in heaven starts,
and Satan is one step closer to reaching the power he desired. The excitement he experiences at
this moment is present in the words of his speech and, similarly, influences his use of rhetorical
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 97
markers: rhetorical questions, as well as key words denoting a feeling of unity and equality,
have been replaced by commands and concepts of leadership, power and tyranny. In short,
Satan loses control over the rhetorical craftsmanship that helped him in almost achieving his
goal. The feeling of loss felt after losing the war, again, changes Satan’s character and,
consequently, his rhetoric. Instead of concepts of power, concepts of loss and defeat fill his
speeches. With it, the rhetorical questions and repetitions return and are meant to persuade not
his companions, but himself. Doubting how to proceed, Satan must convince himself of the task
still at hand, i.e. how to take care of the practical manifestation of his powers. Because only
Satan himself, and not his companions, needs convincing, his craftsmanship diminishes in
strength when addressing his peers. Only when he journeys to Eden and tempts Eve, his rhetoric
reaches an unseen rhetorical skill. All rhetoric markers lost in both his rhetoric of power and
his rhetoric of loss – i.e., among others, address forms, rhetorical questions, repetitions, and
tricola – are brought to a climax in his last speech of temptation. In the following speech
delivered to his peers, Satan addresses them with the same address form as used when still in
heaven, but excluded the at that time inserted feeling of doubt. At this point, the same evolution
repeats itself: Satan, having come closer to power, gradually loses control again. Commands
and concepts of power reappear and repetitions have, once more, disappeared from his
speeches.
In Paradise Regained, then, Satan’s development continues and, again, his rhetorical
development reflects the changes in his state of mind. The power obtained through the fall of
Adam and Eve has created in Satan a certain arrogance, resulting in Satan losing his ability to
see the kairos, the right moment, and to speak accordingly. Consequently, Satan’s rhetoric fails
to reach the same level of skill as the level he reached in his rhetoric of persuasion used either
in heaven or in Eden. Confronting the Son in an extensive dialogue, Satan gets frustrated, and,
reflecting his character, so does his rhetoric: no repetitions and rhetorical questions are present
and abundant enumerations have replaced the carefully controlled tripartite structures. The Son,
on the other hand, excels in addressing Satan with tricola. Calmness and control are the best
words to describe his speeches. The reason behind this control is that the Son, unlike Satan, has
not lost the ability to see the right moment and to speak accordingly, thus creating a tension
between two kinds of speakers based on their use of the concept of kairos.
Similarly to the rhetoric of the Son, the Father, too, builds on the concept of kairos and thus on
the assessment of the situation in delivering his speeches. Based on the presence or absence of
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 98
the main theme of Paradise Lost – to “justify the ways of God to men”288 – He shifts between
plain and ornate styles, thus in no sense being the inferior orator when compared to Satan, since
the Father’s ornate style is equally and usually even more ornate than that of Satan’s most
crafted rhetoric of persuasion. This tension between, on the one hand, the rhetoric of Satan, and,
on the other, that of the Father, harbours in itself Milton’s dubious attitude towards classical
rhetoric, and is a reflection of the society in which Milton received his education. It entails a
discussion about who is the ideal orator: either Satan, with his persuasive rhetoric filled by
rhetorical markers to hide the truth or spread lies, or the Father, whose speech is adapted to the
message it contains. Based on Milton’s own tractates Of Education and An Apology against a
Pamphlet call’d A modest Confutation of the Animadversions upon the Remonstrant against
Smectymnus, but also and especially on his Prolusiones, he seems to have preferred the last
one. The rhetoric of the Father, after all, is more in agreement with the rhetorical ideologies of
both Cicero, who stressed the importance of the co-occurrence of all three duties of the orator
– to please, to persuade and to instruct – and Quintilian, whose vir bonus dicendi peritus is
based on a similar definition of the ideal orator as a good man, thus again stressing not only the
style, but the content and context as well.
Nevertheless, Milton was also a product of his time. Given that the education in seventeenth
century England was especially focused on style, Milton’s ornate speeches are in perfect
accordance to the system in which Milton encountered rhetoric. Herein, the speeches in his
epics differ from what can be found in Virgil’s Aeneid. A good example was offered by the
address forms used by Virgil, which, although they appeared poor in comparison to those used
in Milton’s epics, often served the same function. Such differences, then, should not be
understood as differences concerning the influence of character development upon rhetorical
development, but merely result from the different status of rhetoric within society. What does
result from the influence – one must actually say the absence of influence – of character
development, however, is the stagnation of Aeneas’ rhetoric throughout the entire epic. In times
of a military politics, in times of love, hate, and anger, with family in mind, or bent on revenge,
Aeneas’ rhetorical style never changes. The content necessarily adapts itself to the progress of
the narrative, hence the evolution from “I” to “we”, the increase in use of commands, the
presence of rhetorical questions expressing doubt or uncertainty, and the change in address
forms. However, the use of rhetorical markers such as alliterations, tricola, and repetitions, as
288
Paradise Lost, I.26.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 99
well as the amount of rhetorical questions expressing doubt or uncertainty stay the same,
making the rhetorical tone in Aeneas’ speeches crucially different from what we find in
Milton’s epics. Aeneas’ speeches show no emotion, give no information concerning his state
of mind, and could very well be spoken by anyone else, while Satan’s speeches are highly
personalised and characteristic of only Satan. Consequently, if one changes Satan’s rhetorical
style, one changes Satan’s character development and, ultimately, Satan himself.
The stagnation of Aeneas’ rhetoric, however, in no sense implies a unity of speech throughout
the Aeneid. In other words, not all speeches share the same rhetorical tone as the one that
characterises Aeneas’ rhetoric. The chapter examining the rhetoric of Jupiter has shown that,
for Jupiter alone, there are already two rhetorical styles to be found in the Aeneid. Which one
he uses depends on the context he speaks in: based on an assessment of the situation as either
requiring a political leader or as requiring the domestic son or husband, Jupiter shifts between,
respectively, a rhetorical style that expresses calmness and control and is characterised by its
tricola, commands and poorly appearing address forms, and, on the other hand, a rhetorical
style that excels in its abundance, renounces the use of commands in conveying the message at
hand, and, uniquely, displays an address form ornamented beyond what is usually occurring in
the speeches of the Aeneid. By shifting between two styles of rhetoric, Jupiter resembles the
Father in his reliance on the assessment of the situation, and thus on the kairos. It would turn
out to be an interesting study to examine in how far such dependence on the concept of kairos
is characterising for the language of the gods in literary works other than Virgil’s Aeneid and
Milton’s Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained. However, although both depending on an
assessment of the situation, their assessment of the kairos is determined by different parameters:
whereas the Father shifts to an ornate style when the main theme of Paradise Lost comes to the
fore in the content of his message, Jupiter does not build on the parameter of content, but on
that of the context or, in other words, the atmosphere in which he speaks; a subtle, but
nevertheless important difference.
Moreover, Jupiter’s rhetoric shows no signs of emotional outbursts, not in either of the two
contexts in which he speaks. Similar to Aeneas, then, who, until right before his final speech,
always assesses the situation as a military political one, feelings such as anger, love, regret,
disappointment, and the need for reconcilement leave no traces in either of their speeches. The
problem, therefore, lies not in the absence of character or character development. Like Satan,
Aeneas is a complex character experiencing feelings of undisguised grief, destructive love and
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 100
intense hatred while at the same time sacrificing everything to please the gods and do their
bidding. Virgil masterfully presents to the reader the mind and emotions of a hero who, despite
all the hardship that has befallen him, has the courage to put aside his own dreams and wishes
and to fulfil the destiny he has been given. He who claims, then, that Aeneas has no emotions
or no psychological depth, has not read the Aeneid to its full potential and underestimates the
poet that is Virgil. Instead, Aeneas’ character and character development are to be read between
the lines of Virgil’s epic, in the words of its narrator and in the actions of Aeneas himself, but,
strikingly, remain absent in the rhetorical tone accompanying his words.
That Satan’s speeches, on the other hand, reflect his character development, argues in favour
of Milton’s innovative epic. Not, after all, does Milton merely copy the classical authors he
deems so highly – such as Virgil, with whose Aeneid Milton’s Paradise Lost undoubtedly
shares countless similarities – but he also creates something entirely new. The in the last
decades so frequently discussed similarities between Milton’s writings and those of classical
authors must therefore not be taken too far and result in the inscription of Milton’s epics into a
literary tradition. However, Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained are more than just part of a
tradition; they are, in fact, an ideal example of a reception in which Milton behaves as an active
receiver, adjusting what needs to be adjusted. This inquiry into the influence of character
development on rhetorical development has shown how Milton perfectly understands the
workings of the mind, and, more importantly, how he can, unlike what we saw in Virgil’s
Aeneid, adapt the speeches of his characters to it, turning his epics into masterpieces reflecting
on the status of rhetoric, and indirectly that of language, in society, as well as introducing a
psychological elaboration of his characters through the spoken word. As such, the arguments
made in this thesis confirm that Milton’s Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained are, indeed,
more than just an inscription in an ancient tradition and further uncover the unique relation
between character and rhetorical development as created by Milton.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 101
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Berek, Peter. ““Plain” and “Ornate” Styles and the Structure of “Paradise Lost”.” PMLA 85.2
(1970): 237-246. JSTOR. Web. 30 March 2016.
Bloom, Harold. Ruin the Sacred Truths: Poetry and Belief from the Bible to the Present.
London: Harvard University Press, 1989. Print.
Clark, Donald Lemen. John Milton At St. Paul's School: a Study of Ancient Rhetoric In
English Renaissance Education. New York: Columbia University Press, 1964. Print.
Clark, Donald Lemen. Rhetoric and Poetry in the Renaissance: A Study of Rhetorical Terms
in English Renaissance Literary Criticism. New York: Columbia University Press,
1922. Print.
Coleman, Henry Peter, and William Walker. Man in Devil's Guise: Satan's Exceptional
Humanity in Milton's Paradise Lost. MA Thesis. University of Canterbury, 1998.
Web. 27 March 2016.
Decreus, Freddy. Receptiegeschiedenis van het klassieke. Gent: Academia Press, 2010. Print.
De Temmerman, Koen. “Ancient Rhetoric as a Hermeneutical Tool for the Analysis of
Characterization in Narrative Literature.” Rhetorica 28.1 (2010): 23-51. Web. 14
March 2016.
Devreese, Matthias, and Wim Verbaal. Contrasting the Classical and the Modern: A
Comparative Study of Rhetoric in Milton's “Paradise Lost” and Vergil's “Aeneid”.
BA Paper. Ghent University, 2015. Print.
Fortenbaugh, William W., and David C. Mirhady. Peripatetic Rhetoric After Aristotle. New
Brunswick (N.J.): Transaction publishers, 1994. Print.
Goldsmith, Steven. “The Muting of Satan: Language and Redemption in Paradise Regained.”
Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900 27.1 (1987): 125-140. JSTOR. Web. 30
March 2016.
Gutting, Edward. "Marriage in the Aeneid: Venus, Vulcan, and Dido." Classical Philology
101.3 (2006): 263-279. JSTOR. Web. 16 July 2016.
Harding, Pitt. “Milton's Serpent and the Birth of Pagan Error.” Studies in English Literature
47.1 (2007): 161-177. JSTOR. Web. 25 March 2016.
Highet, Gilbert. The Speeches In Vergil's Aeneid. Princeton (N.J.): Princeton university press,
1972. Print.
Kastor, Frank S. Milton and the Literary Satan. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1974. Print.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 102
Keith, Arthur L. “‘Briefly Speaking’ in Vergil.” The Classical Weekly 15.7 (1921): 50-51.
JSTOR. Web. 21 July 2016.
Langford, Thomas. “The Temptations in Paradise Regained.” Texas Studies in Literature and
Language 9.1 (1967): 37-46. JSTOR. Web. 30 March 2016.
Major, John M. “Milton's View of Rhetoric.” Studies in Philology 64.5 (1967): 685-711.
JSTOR. Web: 25 June 2016.
Milton, John. An Apology against a Pamphlet call’d A modest Confutation of the
Animadversions upon the Remonstrant against Smectymnus. London, 1642. Early
English Books Online: Text Creation Partnership. University of Michigan Library,
1999. Web. 26 June 2016. < http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebogroup/>.
Milton, John, and Alastair Fowler. Paradise Lost. 2nd ed. Harlow, England: Longman, 2007.
Print.
Milton, John, and Frank Allen Patterson. The Works of John Milton. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1936. Print.
Milton, John, and John Carey. The Complete Shorter Poems. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge,
2007. Print.
Milton John. Paradise Lost. Ed. Luxon, Thomas H. The Milton Reading Room. Dartmouth
College, 1997. Web. 22 April 2016. < http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton>.
Monti, Richard C. The Dido Episode and the Aeneid : Roman Social and Political Values in
the Epic. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Print.
Moore, Clifford Herschel. “Prophecy in the Ancient Epic.” Harvard Studies in Classical
Philology 32 (1921): 99-175. JSTOR. Web. 21 July 2016.
OED
Online.
Oxford
University
Press,
June
2016.
Web.
16
July
2016.
<http://www.oed.com/>.
Pallister, William. Between Worlds: The Rhetorical Universe of Paradise Lost. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 2008. Print.
Praet, Danny. Stijlvol Overtuigen : Geschiedenis En Systeem Van De Antieke Rhetorica.
Gent: Didactica classica Gandensia, 2001. Print.
Rand, Edward Kennard. “Virgil and the Drama. Part I.” The Classical Journal 4.1 (1908): 2233. JSTOR. Web. 19 July 2016.
Rand, Edward Kennard. “Young Virgil’s Poetry.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 30
(1919): 103-185. JSTOR. Web. 24 April 2016.
Raymond, Joad. Milton's Angels : the Early-modern Imagination. Oxford: Oxford university
press, 2010. Print.
The Modern in a Classical Perspective
Devreese 103
Smith, George William Jr. “Iterative Rhetoric in “Paradise Lost”.” Modern Philology 74.1
(1976): 1-19. JSTOR. Web. 25 March 2016.
Steadman, John M. ““Magnific titles”: Satan’s Rhetoric and the Argument of Nobility.” The
Modern Language Review 61.4 (1966): 561-571. JSTOR. Web. 30 March 2016.
Steele, R. B. "Fate and Free Will in the Aeneid. In Two Parts—Part II." The New York Latin
Leaflet 7.164 (1907): 1-3. JSTOR. Web. 21 July 2016.
Thompson, Elbert N. S., “Milton’s “Of Education”.” Studies in Philology 15.2 (1918): 159175. JSTOR. Web. 23 April 2016.
Vergilius Maro, Publius. Aeneid. Trans. A. S. Kline. Poetry In Translation, 2002. Web. 12
July 2016. < http://www.poetryintranslation.com/>.
Vergilius Maro, Publius, and George Long. P. Vergili Maronis Opera. With a Commentary by
John Conington, M.A. London: Whittaker & Co., 1863. Print.
Vergilius Maro, Publius, and R. A. B Mynors. P. Vergili Maronis Opera. Oxford: Clarendon
press, 1969. Print.
Wildman, Banks J. “Juno in the Aeneid.” The Classical Weekly 2.4 (1908): 26-29. JSTOR.
Web. 19 July 2016.
Wlosok, Antonie. “The Dido Tragedy in Virgil: A Contribution to the Question of the Tragic
in the Aeneid.” Virgil: Critical Assessments of Classical Authors. Volume IV: The
Aeneid (continued). Ed. Philip Hardie. London: Routledge, 1999. 158-181. Web. 18
July 2016.