The Collapse of Manichaeism

Key works:

• “Monster Cultures
  (Seven Theses)” (Cohen)

• “Monsters and the Moral Imagination” (Asma)

• Paradise Lost (Milton)

• “The “Uncanny”” (Freud)

Milton upsets the very foundations of Christian philosophy and metaphysics with Paradise Lost, and Book I is exemplary of how his use of Cohen’s third thesis disrupts all Manichaen ideas of good and evil. Assuming the veracity of Christian philosophy and epistemology, sin is the primary evidence for 'free will' and disproving determinism. Milton, however, announces that man’s descent into sin was part of God’s plan, upsetting the idea that we can indeed choose to delineate from His path. What is ‘sin’ or ‘evil’ if God wills it to happen? Can an action be considered a transgression against a law because the authoritative figure who supposedly enforces this law labels it so with not actually desire to prevent anyone from performing it? What does that make God if He not only does indeed ignore the plights of man but also actually wills all of them to happen for some unknown plan? Milton’s work is riddled with unanswered questions and categorical chaos, but in a very good way: he obfuscates metaphysical categories and questions Christian morality to introduce a more philosophically holistic genre of Christian thought.

The idea that God wills pain and suffering existed before Milton, but that this is because he actually willed original sin raises doubt regarding self-determination in a Christian world. Moreover, it blurs distinctions between un/acceptable actions. What is unsurprising, though, is that he uses pride as the primary malefactor to vacillate Satan between the regions of ‘good’ and ‘evil’. The introduction to Satan mentions his pride within the first sentence, detailing his fall from Heaven:

Th’ infernal Serpent; he it was, whose guile

Stirred up with envy and revenge, deceived

The mother of mankind, what time his pride

Had cast him out from Heav’n…

(I 34-7)

Yet later on after he is casted into Hell,

All these [demons] and more came flocking; but with looks

Downcast and damp, yet such wherein appeared

Obscure some glimpse of joy, to have found their chief

Not in despair, to have found themselves not lost

In loss itself; which on his count’nance cast

Like doubtful hue: but he his wonted pride

Soon recollecting, with high words, that bore

Semblance of worth, not substance, gently raised

Their fainting courage, and dispelled their fears.

(I 522-30)

While in Heaven, pride gets Satan exiled, and there is no undertone of sympathy from Milton. The narration of the rebellion highlights God’s sheer omnipotence in comparison to the angels, and Satan is simply represented as a biblical Icarus for much of the beginning of Book I. By the second quote, however, Milton has established a sense of humanity within the fallen angels and their personalities, so that their description as “downcast and damp” elicits sorrow from the reader, while Satan’s display of pride “[dispelling] their fears” almost brings joy. This is where Milton implements Cohen’s fourth thesis, along with the later description of Satan crying. Cohen explains that, “By revealing that difference is arbitrary and potentially free-floating, mutable rather than essential, the monster threatens to destroy not just individual members of a society, but the very cultural apparatus through which individuality is constituted and allowed.” (Cohen 12) The specific cultural apparatus at risk of destruction in this case is the Manichaen division of good/evil, right/wrong, a/mortality. Because Milton constantly characterizes Satan’s actions and emotions in humanizing ways, his displays of pride are seen as not just realistic but relatable. While the narrative’s potential symbolic relation to the English Civil War is not the main focus of this paper, it is important to note that Milton’s framing of Satan as a political “Other” in comaprison to God as a tyrant-king allows him much more relatability to the reader- other English subjects also desiring a republic. He is further challenging the notion that Satan is an irredeemable monster, which also brings back the question of whether God’s omniscience and omnipotence nullify the distinctions of morality. 

Whereas Milton offers a lot of room for empathy using the fallen angels’ mental states, his description of their and their new residence’s physicality leaves room for only repulsion, confusion, and desire- the necessary components for a monstrous environment. The theme for his description of Hell is confusion, though: unimaginable landscape proportions, variable body sizes surpassing human possibility, and widespread identity crises. If Satan’s mind represents Cohen’s fourth thesis, his physicality represents the third:

This refusal to participate in the classificatory "order of things" is true of monsters generally: they are disturbing hybrids whose externally incoherent bodies resist attempts to include them in any systematic structuration…

The horizon where the monsters dwell might well be imagined as the visible edge of the hermeneutic circle itself: the monstrous offers an escape from its hermetic path, an invitation to explore new spirals, new and interconnected methods of perceiving the world. In the face of the monster, scientific inquiry and its ordered rationality crumble. (Cohen 6-7)

He is compared to the Titans and Giants who Jove sentenced to the underworld and the Leviathan which was compared to Satan in the Bible. Barring the fact that comparisons to mythological creatures already renders inaccessibility in terms of imagery, the comparison to creatures of unimaginable stature is what creates the uncanny and monstrous imagery of a demon so large that one cannot even begin to picture it. While Milton does illustrate the burning landscape of Hell in vivid terms at times- the most categorically chaotic being the fires that radiate darkness- the most striking description is that of the quantity of fallen angels. Anytime he must address the amount of demons roaming the underworld, he uses metaphors for living creatures, most notably insects- bees and locusts. For example, when they assemble for their “Sultan” after his motivational speech, they were compared to the plague of locusts Moses summoned to Egypt, so numerous that the area covered by the assembly equaled that of the  European land between the Rhine and North Africa. Hell offers new and very different metaphysical properties to all who enter, enough so that apparently even God Himself allegedly experiences “desire” for it: “... here at least / We shall be free; th’ Almighty hath not built / Here for his envy…” (I 258-60) What does it mean for God to “desire” a place as Satan claims, especially when desire implies current lack of, but God is omniscient and omnipotent? Does this mean Hell is not actually of His creation like Milton claims, so He cannot access it? Given that chaos is the abject absence of authority and order- precisely what God represents and what Satan despised- this would make sense. If this is the case, then Satan’s punishment for rebelling against Him would be his banishment to somewhere in which He has no control. However, if that is true, then how was this part of His plan?

God must have dominion over Hell because if not then his omniscience and omnipotence, which Milton confirmed, would be nullified. The only answer must be that Satan is not telling the truth, but why not? God could never build in Hell because what He creates is in His image, but philosophical ‘truths’ seem to be inverted in Hell: the consequences of pride, the metaphysics of the body, etc. Too many category violations exist for the quintessence of order and authority to have reign of this place, and so Satan lays claim to it with his demons. What he does not know is that this was part of God’s plan, and the reason why will be discussed later. In lines 209-13, Milton explicitly states that God’s will has kept Satan chained on the burning lake, 50 lines before Satan assured Beëlzebub of God’s powerlessness in this domain. Of course, this means God did not want Satan to know that he still had control over him. He wanted Satan to believe he was free. Even though Hell represents a supposed egalitarian republic- no king, no aristocracy, no hierarchies, all demons/gods are equal- is it truly an escape from a monarchy if there’s still an invisible hand in control?

So far, every analyzed aspect of the book ends in a category crisis, a question of whether/or; however, they all also present Satan at the borders of the possible, “... [standing] as a warning against exploration of its uncertain demesnes.” (Cohen 12). Because Satan represents pride as discussed earlier, and also the traversal of ‘good’ to ‘evil’ due to his fall from heaven, Milton attaches pride to the gates at the Manichaen border. Thus, no matter how much he tries to escape the Greco-Roman tradition, it follows him. While he tries to situate himself within the tradition of Greco-Roman epics with his writing style, he also tries to distance himself from Greco-Roman culture by identifying his artistic source as the Holy Spirit instead of one of the nine muses. He also upends the typical conventions of these epics by ascribing the battle with hubris to the story’s antagonist as opposed to its protagonist. Regardless, pride/hubris is still at the center of the narrative, and it is the only factor standing between the “protagonist” (at least in Book I) and their fall from grace, except Satan fell before this story began. Christianity in general suffers a co-optation of Greco-Roman mythmaking, with Eve representing a Christian version of Pandora. Following this connection, all the evils of Hell and potentialities of sin and divine transgression are made available to humans because of Eve, which is really because of Satan, which is really because of God.

When God chose to release Satan and his band of rebel angels from his immediate dominion, He was not just opening up our race to sin but to 'free will'. Manichaeism has obfuscated the reality of 'free will' and undeterminism: choices are binarized into good and bad, right and wrong, nice and mean, etc. Hell, however, invites us into “interconnected methods of perceiving the world.” If God still has dominion over the demons in Hell, albeit unbeknownst to them, then Satan’s insistence on mirroring all of God’s good deeds with evil acts-

To do aught good never will be our task,

But ever to do ill our sole delight,

As being the contrary to high will

Whom we resist. If then his providence

Out of our evil seek to bring forth good

Our labor must be to pervert that end,

And out of good still to find means of evil;

(I 159-165)

- is all part of God’s plan, creating a holistic world where ‘good’ and ‘bad’ coexist because it would be literally impossible for one to exist without the other.  This begs the question of the natural existence of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ deeds, though. 

Manichaeism is built on the belief in universal moral codes- killing is bad, stealing is wrong, pride will get one killed, etc.- stemming from an eternal struggle between ‘good’ and ‘evil’, but those are disrupted when this belief system coexists with an omnipotent God. What is the danger of evil, chaos, etc. if God still has dominion over these regions? Asma- 

In our liberal culture, we dramatize the rage of the monstrous creature- and Frankenstein's is a good example- then scold ourselves and our "intolerant society" for alienating the outcast in the first place. The liberal lesson of monsters is one of tolerance: we must overcome our innate scapegoating, our xenophobic tendencies. Of course, this is by no means the only interpretation of monster stories. The medieval mind saw giants and mythical creatures as God's punishments for the sin of pride. For the Greeks and Romans, monsters were prodigies- warnings of impending calamity.
(Asma 289)

- and Freud provide much clarity regarding this concept:

Our conclusion could then be stated as follows: the uncanny element we know from experience arises either when repressed childhood complexes are revived by some impression, or when primitive beliefs that have been surmounted appear to be once again confirmed. Finally, we must not let our preference for tidy solutions and lucid presentation prevent us from acknowledging that in real life it is sometimes impossible to distinguish between the two species of the uncanny that we have posited.
(Freud 155)

The fear of darkness- and by extension the unknown- is the primary childhood complex and primitive belief at work here. When Satan reviews his surroundings at the burning lake, 

… he views 

The dismal situation waste and wild, 

A dungeon horrible, on all sides round 

As one great furnace flamed, yet from those flames 

No light, but rather darkness visible 

Served only to discover sights of woe, 

Regions of sorrow, doleful shades, where peace 

And rest can never dwell, hope never comes

That comes to all; but torture without end …

(I 59-67)

“darkness visible” is an extremely unsettling case of imagery, and it serves to further entrench the connotation of darkness with that of evil and malignance. Milton never details any existence of evil, but rather eternal sorrow and punishment made visible to all without the presence of light. This almost implies that all aspects of Hell/Chaos are simultaneously visibly known and unknown to all who enter: what is visible is the darkness, and the darkness is only associated with sorrow and pain. However, Satan’s invasion of Earth/Eden introduced sorrow and pain to humanity through Pandora’s apple, completing his mission of turning God’s ‘good’ to ‘evil’. Are we in hell?

Satan claimed he “Can make a Heav’n of Hell, a Hell of Heav’n.” (I 255) Eden, and therefore Earth, were Paradise, devoid of ‘sin’ and ‘evil’ prior to the Serpent’s arrival and equivalent to a mortal version of Heaven, “not yet accursed.” When the Serpent convinced Eve to bite the apple, he essentially affixed it with the vestiges of Hell, introducing chaos in its most primal sense of the word- lack of order and authority, or in this case, the lack of God. The banishing from paradise is a mortal equaivalent of Satan’s banishment from Heaven, further reinforcing Earth as a moral domain equivalent to the Manichaen distinction of Heaven/Hell: Satan unregretedly displays pride so he is “Hurled headlong flaming from the’ ethereal sky” (I 45) while Adam and Eve’s display of pride (in the sense of them prioritizing their desires over God’s word) as well as the lust, greed, and vanity associated with Hell “Brought death into the world, and all our woe, / With loss of Eden…” (I 4). Satan in fact brought Hell to Earth, or at least what is considered Hell. This, however, is where the argument presents two conclusions.

Hell can either represent the abject absence of 'free will' coupled with the unbeknownst determinism of God’s greater plan, or the interconnected nature of opposing forces within the universe. Both could be true, but that seems a rather superfluous conclusion for Milton to reach. Because God is truly yet secretly in control of Satan and his fallen angels in Hell even though he believed “... Here at least / We shall be free,” (I 258-9) and because his corruption of Adam and Eve caused their banishment from Paradise- a mortal equivalent to Heaven- it would follow that they are now forced to dwell the mortal equivalent to Hell where they still would not have 'free will'. If Satan was banished into Chaos and God still had dominion over his actions, how could humans be believed to have control on Earth? The other conclusion offers a much less nihilistic and deterministic worldview, and is probably closer Milton’s intention considering his disagreement with determinism. The idea that God purposely introduced Satan to Eden to catalyze the connection of opposing forces within the universe and on Earth is unacceptable with Christian thought, however, because the concept of ‘sin’ would crumble, as well as the idea of the Christian God. 

Satan’s story in Paradise Lost is that of the fluidity, nuance, and différance of all thoughts and actions, e.x. the varying emotional responses from the reader as well as punitive responses from God to Satan’s displays of pride in different spatiotemporal contexts. Because Adam and Eve are innocent creatures completely incapable of sin until they eat the apple, the distinctions of ‘sin’ and ‘virtue’ were not of natural order before Satan’s arrival to Earth, but rather the distinctions of when to perform such actions. Lust as in Adam and Eve’s desired romance and sex with one another is differrent than Eve’s lust for forbidden fruit. Pride as in Satan’s self-confidence to dispel the fear and despair incited by Hell is different from his self-aggrandizement to challenge God’s omniscience and omnipotence. In the sociopolitical context of his day, the pride that forms monarchies and hierarchies with tyrants and kings is not deserving of protagonist-framing to Milton, but instead it is the pride of the underdogs who form a somewhat egalitarian republic based on 'free will' that deserve his locus of attention.