Eric Momou

MISOGYNY AS A POST-FALL MILTONIAN CONSTRUCT

From the seventeenth-century onward, scholars have disputed the nature of the sexes, hierarchy, and patriarchy in Paradise Lost. To gain a better understanding of this issue in our analysis of Milton’s work, we must create a dichotomy between the two main functions of meaning as they pervade to the topic of gender. This is the originalist meaning of gender, as Milton himself, would have been accustomed to using it with Lenhof’s white, masculine archetype. Second, there is our modern definition that includes the social structure, and political foundations of the 21st century. With a further consideration of the latter, we will further contextualize our sense of fallen meanings, and recontextualize them within the parameter of Paradise Lost. This reevaluation will shed light on how the duality of meaning gives birth to the  post-fall construct, as we know it. Looking at the relativity of exegesis, and eisegesis will give a better understanding of both the unconscious, and conscious nature of this construct. In so doing, we will call forth such scholars as Rosanna Cox, Elisabeth Liebert, Shannon Miller as well as the modern intersex activist, and clinical psychologist Tiger Devore. 

First, we must decipher Milton’s work on gender based off of its original meaning. Milton’s originalist perspective certainly has garnered criticism in regards to gender. For one, scholar Kent R. Lenhof  asserts Milton’s work is often attributed to in terms of sex, being confined to the white, English patriarchy of his era. However, his perspective shines light on both the political and social structure during this period. As Lenhof relates in Performing Masculinity in Paradise Lost, Milton’s notion of gender in Paradise Lost was a function of his time during the Commonwealth of English antiquity. This would have been, strictly speaking “a white male” patriarchy with its affiliated “body and its effects” (Lenhof, 64). The roles, on Milton’s account pervade to a “seventeenth-century political theory” which organized the “domestic and public spheres” (Miller, 152). Gender typically, in Paradise Lost typically refers to the interplay of the sexes: male and female. To think of gender with a modern day definition is indicative of a non-original, and modern day interpretation of the text. It is this modern day understanding that I seek to address in the following paragraphs. 

In her article, Gender, Miller makes several points from other notable scholars including Ester Sowernam, who pairs the unbalanced nature of Adam and Eve’s creation with their primacy, or times of creation. Sowernam asserts against the notion of the patriarchal firstborn for divine providence, mentioning that the creation of woman was “from Man himself,” therefore being heaven’s final gift (Miller, 153). In so doing, Sowernam lends a precedent towards the sole, perfect, and unique gift of Woman, as she is manifest in the garden of Eden. This places Sowarnam’s sanctitude of power, without hierarchy, in another territory. It speaks towards the nature of hierarchy itself as a patriarchal construct, and against the countless permutations of misogynistically driven regimes throughout the ages. The fact is, she and Miller see the construct of gender for what it is: an amalgamation of male-driven order that must be challenged in order to prevent marginalization, and oppression for those who do not fit beneath its paradigm of elitism. Only through its questioning, can it be surmised. 

Sowernam’s argument speaks accordingly to the issue of normalizing hierarchy. This latent creation of Eve is a testament against the male privilege of rulership. Her argument poses into question the condition of one’s birth, and whether or not they are fit to rule. As poignant as this point is, the procession of divinely appointed sovereignty does not equalize the gender claim. 

To counter example this argument, it must be discerned how much we wish to identify as fallen readers. We may read Milton’s words within the confines of the text, as a rendition of Milton’s biblical exegesis from its original intent. That is, choosing to identify with Adam and Eve as a fallen reader, one may look at the parameters within the poem itself. This is indicative of exegesis. Second, we can choose to look at it through an eisegesis lens. ascribe to and relate with the nature of Adam and Eve’s fall with modern scholars in mind. The brilliance of Milton rests on our current understanding of his characters through time. Whether they exist within or outside the Bible, they serve as fervent contrasts of moral virtue. 

It must be noted that there is a stark difference between what scholars consider textual, as opposed to secular renditions of Mitlons work; that there is a stark difference between exegesis, and eisegesis. Exegesis is the “critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially of scripture” (Oxford Dictionary). Eisegesis, rather is the  interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one’s own ideas (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). As modern day readers of the text, it is vital to look at both exegesis and eisegesis. The reason is not simply to discern truth from fiction for the sake of armament, but rather to understand the Bibicular from the extra-biblical. The fact that notions of gender can exist as a product of our time, and not within the confines of Paradise lost is a point worth mentioning. A possible reason for this is our nature of discernment on the psychological front. 

A point of extribibicular contention rests in the psycho-social make ups of Milton’s Adam and Eve. In Cox’s paper Milton, Marriage, and the Politics of Gender, she discusses the differences in Adam and Eve’s psychological makeup. To note, Adam and Eve serve as occupying separate components. Scholars, such as Ariela Pelaia, have mentioned the Yahwinistic account of Adam’s creation differing from its “first account in Genesis 1”  (Pelaia, 1). Other scholars have amalgamated this discrepancy into the being of one person (Baskin, 1). 

Interestingly enough Man is the only creature described as not possessing a male or female binary before the first account. This has put into question the nature of the Jungian Anima in relation to the androgyne archetype (Von Franz, 205). This puts into question one notable point: how much of each masculine or female essence comprise the Other? 

This puts into consideration the nature of masculinity in Paradise Lost, as proposed by Lenhof. Unlike human beings, spirits “can either sex assume” (PL 1.424). 

This has led some scholars to believe in an androgyne essence to Adam, and that after his creation he was considered as a wholesome Man, but undivided from the essence of Woman.   In so doing, being replete, having the power of procreation within himself (Pelaia, 1). This essence to man is what must be questioned with the current gender binaries. That, as matter and energy are a spectrum so too could be gender. 

With matter as a spectrum of affiliate energy, it would make sense to have a spectrum of gender and sex. A person who knows this spectrum of gender and sex well is Dr. Tiger Devore. Devore has appeared on several talk shows, including The Oprah Winfrey Show, and KRON 4.  Dr. Tiger Devore is a proponent against infant genital mutilation. As a clinical psychologist his work lies in the public sector. Having appeared on several forums, he is an advocate for personal choice in regards to intersex-born individuals. The beauty of Dr. Devore’s work rests in the logos of his claim, as he himself is an intersex-born, licensed, medical professional. 

At his birth, he was not given the choice to choose his biological sex. His experience represents the state of 1 in every 1000 births throughout the world (Intersex Society of North of America). It must be noted however, that the terms intersex and hermophrodite are not exchangeable. As hermaphroditism is not physiologically possible, due to the completeness of gametes in either biological sexual chromosome, this is a misnomer. However, as gender and sex serve as both a spectrum and social construct in the modern day, this function cannot be ignored. 

However, as Pelaia was not a contemporary of Milton it is not likely that Milton would have shared this particular sentiment. In all likelihood with the decline of Oliver Cromwell, in the seventeenth-Century, his stance was better described in the Doctrine of Discipline of Divorce, aligned with the traditional doctrine of the church at his time. This separateness of church body, and marriage equates to unequal components. It was this misappropriation of separation that is better exemplified in the Doctrine of Divorce. Thus, the  belief in Adam and Eve as physically separate individuals would have been a rampant idea readily accepted, lending to a psychological bias of inequality. Divorce being seen as immoral, would have been considered a product of moral ineptitude, or a sacrilegious breaking of the divine contract.  

If this idea was one shared by Milton, it would make sense that the formative nature of the first pair, being both their masculine and female essence to have been equal counterparts of the other: equal in thought, equal in mind, of truly one flesh. Thus, Adam and Eve served as “co-equal” complements to each other, in relation to the whole of God. 

How then does the psychological impact of gender effect the state of misogyny in the poem? 

Thus, given this question arises in terms of equivocality of the sexes: in physical form, spiritual posterity, but in mental disposition. 

The value I stress upon this notion is the idea of completeness of “one flesh,” that is a rudimentary foundation of Christian marriage. The complex this poses is the egalitarian nature of human beings. What must be discussed however is how Milton’s rendition of gender, must be reevaluated with the 21st century in mind, perhaps with the notion of an androgyne Adam. It must be held under the microscope of the modern audience, one keen to the matrimonial effects of a totalitarian establishment and the oppression it proliferates. Also, given the definition of gender, we must reevaluate the meaning of misogyny. 

Gender, defined in the Oxford Library has several meanings that differ markedly from the modern meaning. In the 15th century gender expanded from its use as a term for a grammatical subclass to join sex in referring to either of the two primary biological forms of a species, a meaning sex has had since the 14th century; phrases like “the male sex” and “the female gender” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

While this doctrinal idea of man serving as the godhead over woman is not specific to Christianity, it is topic worthy of discussing — especially within the context of misogyny. This is exemplified in the work itself, as Adam is considered to have an original role, of assigning names to the animals overshadowing Eve’s naming of plants. Yet, even so despite her plight as the only woman at the start of creation, Milton still refers to her at PL V 288-299 as “Godlike erect,” with “Majestie” as one of the “Lords” of creation. 

For one, we can choose to see Adam’s rebuke against Eve as a reclamation of his divinely appointed masculine role. Or, we can choose to see it as the first example of verbal abuse.  From Michael’s description of Adam’s “effeminate slackness” (PL11.634) it appears that the failure to withstand was his own, and that his exclamation of “_” was an attempt to psychologically satiate his conscience. 

We must define the term “misogyny,” as it appears in the Oxford dictionary. Misogyny, defined by the Oxford dictionary, is  Hatred or dislike of, or prejudice against women. We must examine whether any hatred, dislike, or prejudice against women is evident in the nature of the poem. 

I will assert that misogyny is in fact evident in the poem: perhaps not through utmost hatred, but through dislike and disdain on the part of Adam to Eve after the Fall. In displacing the anger of his own error upon Eve, Adam fails to internalize the fact that his acceptance of the fruit is a symbol of his failure to have withstood temptation. Instead, his masculine essence is “fondly overcome with Femal Charm” (PL 9.999). This evident lack of masculinity, characterized by Michael’s description of “effeminate slackness,” is counsel he fails to psychologically accept (PL11.634). Instead, he supplants this internal discontentment of himself on Eve — who simply acts according to her nature. 

The adulation given to Eve attests to an idolatry of this female image, beset by an infatuation and an inability to assume his divine appointment as leader. According to Lenhof, this realization is made most evident through Michael’s speech to Adam, where he says, “Was she thy God…Thou didst resign thy Manhood, and the Place” (PL 10.145-51).

However, it must be noted that Eve’s subsequent guile does not rest upon a purposeful seduction, as a femme fatale. Her disposition contrasts to that of Lillith as a succubus. Rather, Adam’s misplacement of godhood onto Eve, rendering her as an Aphrodite of sorts above divinity results in his fall. Upon that realization, rather than accept it, he rebukes her [Milton source]. After that subsequent folly, his reprimand holds little weight, as he is guilty of misogyny onto Eve. The pride of his inability to accept his own vanity makes him the first fallen misogynist. Therefore, the fault of misogyny undoubtedly rests upon Adam’s shoulders. 

This nature of the fall opposes Tertullian’s, who described the nature of Eve’s lot as a yoke all women should bear. In asserting Man’s dominion over Woman, On the Apparel of Women fails to address the duality of Adam’s character in relation to his inaction in opposing temptation. Tertullian’s scathing denunciation only serves to exacerbate Adam’s hypocritical claim. Thus, this intergenerational trauma is a false accusation of man’s ineptitude, being blamed upon women.  

In essence, the exigent use of power to signify that “might is right,” for its own sake, is where co-equality ends and codependency begins. This unequal distribution of power, as is exemplified with Adam’s condemnation, lends to the deleterious effects of misogyny and misandry. 

It must be noted the divine appointment of Adam over Eve in terms of domestic headship, is not an implication of defined misogyny. Rather, Adam’s over-extension of power in regards to this leadership served to his detriment, and subsequent misogyny. 

The etymology of the word “misogyny,” is derived from the greek word “misos” (meaning hatred), and gynē meaning woman. Thus as this is a human word, derived from the human lexicon it is reasonable to assume that the eisegesis of the meaning of misogyny came into use after Milton’s rendition of the Fall.  Thus, as the word became in use after, it became a post-fall concept, and became a construct of fallen readers. 

However, was misogyny present before the Fall? Therefore with this fallen disambiguation in terms of etymology, I do not believe that humanistic misogyny existed before the fall of Milton’s Paradise Lost. Though, the angelic characters put on the mantle of masculinity, they are not truly the embodiment of Adam’s exclusive human manhood. Instead, they possess a myriad of attributes in one (PL 6. 350-53). Because angels can assume either sex freely, as a result of the spectrum of their material form—the true nature of their humanistic manhood cannot be metriculated with a similar barometer. 

While the concept of patriarchy might well have existed in Paradise Lost before the Fall, considering the predominantly masculine nature of spirit beings, and their embodiment — this does not mean that they possessed a hatred of women, as there were no women present before the creation of man. Rather, the disdain for the celestial patriarchy was evident in the heavenly rebellion, made evident through Satan’s dialogue in Book 1. 

This puts into question the benign nature of hierarchy in heaven without sex. The fact that no true humanistic sex existed before the fall puts into question the nature of the individual. 

In Paradise Lost, Adam serves as a figurehead of human masculinity, divinely appointed . In regards to a broader sense of masculinity, this extends further according to Lenhof impacting as far as spirit beings (Lenhof, 64). Thus, I believe that this heavenly hierarchy of Milton’s is specific to its “breed” of sentient spirit beings, utilizing the mantle of masculinity as translation of humanistic fortitude. 

A final agreement I have with both scholars Rosanna Cox, and Elisabeth Liebert is the nature of this particular equality at PL V 288-299, in which both Adam and Eve are regarded as sharing sovereignty over the entirety of earthly creation. Adam is appointed with naming the creation (PL VII). One point I contest, however, is the limitation of equality in so for as their roles are evident for each other. Like an employer of a corporation, it appears that God in Paradise Lost exists to appoint stewardship over his creation with variable roles. In so doing, with this appointment, each is limited to exercising their own roles without a true understanding of their compliment, or internal Animas. Adam and Eve are equal insofar as their purposes are defined for one another as compliments in mind, and body. However, the spiritual nature of their fall results in their evident awareness of their psychological, and physical differences.  Thus, tt is through the inciting incident of Adam’s rebuke, that renders misogyny, a Post Fall construct in Paradise Lost. 

Bibliography

Baskin, Judith. “Midrashic Women: Formations of the Feminine in Rabbinic Literature.” University Press of New England: Hanover, 2002.

 Dreger, Alice Domurat. 1998. Ambiguous Sex—or Ambivalent Medicine? Ethical Issues in the Treatment of Intersexuality. Hastings Center Report, 28, 3: 24-35.

How Common is Intersex? Intersex Society of North of America. https://isna.org/faq/frequency/. Online. 2008.

https://www.tigerdevorephd.com/blog/. Blog. Online. 2016.

Dodelson, Scott (2003). Modern Cosmology. Academic Press. ISBN 978-0122191411.

“misogyny.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2011. Web. 8 May 2011. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny

“Gender.” Oxford Dictionary. 2019. Online. 

Pelaia, Ariela. “Legend of the Androgyne.” Learn Religions, Apr. 17, 2019, learnreligions.com/what-was-the-androgyne-2076659.

Sowernam, Esther, Esther Hath Hang’d Haman: or, An Answer to a lewd Pamphlet (London, 1617).

M.-L. von Franz, “The Process of Individuation” in Carl Jung ed., Man and his Symbols (London 1978) p. 205-6

We Who Feel Differently. The Journal About Ephemera. https://wewhofeeldifferently.info/interview.php?interview=108. Online. 2019.