How Paradise Lost's "Sympathetic" Portrayal of Satan Bespeaks the True Nature of Evil

[astrum]

"Some have criticized Paradise Lost for its sympathetic portrayal of Satan as a heroic and appealing character. At times, Satan’s actions seem somewhat justified: he considers himself to be an innocent victim, suffering alienation once exiled from Heaven. This begs the question: why is Milton’s Satan not more obviously "evil?" Why has the stereotypical, red-horned "Devil" been replaced by a somewhat sympathetic, fallen angel? Does this imply that Paradise Lost failed at its task of moral education, or that perhaps Milton’s own understanding of evil was ambiguous, unclear, or incomplete?

To answer these questions, one must consider that it would have been far too easy for Milton to cast Satan and his followers as simple heathens, tyrants or monsters; this would assert that evil is recognizable, knowable, and easily avoided. What Milton demonstrates in his sympathetic depictions of the devils, rather, is a far more complex understanding of the essential nature of evil as a strong, seductive force that must be resisted with vigilance. Milton’s final depiction of Satan in Book 10, in which all the devils are reduced to hissing serpents, offers readers a lasting vision of evil. The transformation of the devils into snakes recalls Satan’s serpentine disguise as the Tempter in Book 9, and reasserts that what makes evil so dangerous is not its size, shape or form, but rather its luring guile, deception, and temptation....

The devils’ inability to speak, and ability only to hiss, further emphasizes this point: for God (and the good) will no longer allow Satan and evil to have a "voice" to which Man is susceptible; he can no longer tempt through false reasoning, lies, and justification, and is stripped of his ability to do further harm. Thus, not only does Milton in this scene expose evil as the greatest temptation, he also reaffirms God as omnipotent--the great good that will always prevail."




I stumbled upon this essay (above is an excerpt) on the Web not long ago. It raises several interesting points and provides much food for thought. I would love to hear what others think.
Read rest here: http://www.alexandrakp.com/text/2007/12/seductive-evil-in-miltons-paradise-lost/

[Vota]

This isn't going to be a particularly academic response, but I feel that Milton knew what he was doing when he wrote Satan the way he did. Good and Evil are not always black and white. I felt like Satan was actually an alright guy, but he had one tremendous black mark; he lusted for power and adulation and was willing to do whatever it took to get it. He even reconsiders tempting Eve because his conscious is telling him it isn't right, but he knows after what he's done that he can never be reconciled with God, and even if he could be reconciled he wouldn't be satisfied with Jesus being first among all and not himself.

I think the fact that he knows what is right, but ignored it and chooses to do wrong to spite the Creator and to potentially bolster himself is at the heart of the sin Satan commited. I've lost my track, but I just read this a couple months ago and though it's not my favorite epic poem, it's still damn good.

[astrum]

This isn't going to be a particularly academic response, but I feel that Milton knew what he was doing when he wrote Satan the way he did. Good and Evil are not always black and white. I felt like Satan was actually an alright guy, but he had one tremendous black mark; he lusted for power and adulation and was willing to do whatever it took to get it. He even reconsiders tempting Eve because his conscious is telling him it isn't right, but he knows after what he's done that he can never be reconciled with God, and even if he could be reconciled he wouldn't be satisfied with Jesus being first among all and not himself.

I think the fact that he knows what is right, but ignored it and chooses to do wrong to spite the Creator and to potentially bolster himself is at the heart of the sin Satan committed. I've lost my track, but I just read this a couple months ago and though it's not my favorite epic poem, it's still damn good.



Satan was consumed with envy/jealousy and pride.

[MorpheusSandman]

This is not dissimilar to the argument that Stanley Fish makes in Surprised by Sin. I still think it's a dubious claim, as it's almost a cliche by now that "bad" characters are simply funner to write and have more appeal. The notion that Milton made the "bad" Satan so interesting merely to "teach his readers a lesson" presupposes Milton's unswerving godliness and dismisses the much simpler conclusion that Milton simply found Satan alluring/interesting himself. The fact that Milton has it end badly for Satan is not proof of anything because Milton was not trying to "rewrite" The Bible and, in the end, he still had to chalk up the victory for his totally unappealing, inhuman, God. Empson's Milton God goes more into this aspect. Hell, I still think Blake said it best with his simple dictum that: "The reason Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of Angels & God, and at liberty when of Devils & Hell, is because he was a true Poet and of the Devil's party without knowing it!" Of course, Blake understood "the devil" to be symbolic of his Orc, or emotion/will that the totalitarian God of the OT has to chain underground in order to create a controllable society. Blake thought it was artists' responsibility to use their vision to shape Satan/Orc to create world revolutions (including political ones), and Milton was largely his inspiration for that.

[astrum]

I wonder if Milton's political pamphlet, Areopagitica, partly inspired Stanley Fish's theory?

In Areopagitica, Milton stresses how good and evil often resemble each other and that the "true warfaring Christian" should be wary of evil's subtle & appealing nature.