Miltonic Divorce: The Inescapability of Dominant Power Structures

Dustin Haider

Dr. S. Morrison

English 638

February 23, 2011

around the theme of reserving rights for the individual instead of vesting them in other

institutions. Three specifically stand out in their call for individual rights: The Doctrine and

Discipline of Divorce, Areopagitica, and The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates. In addition to

calling for certain rights to be taken from institutions of power and given to the populous, these

three texts also share a common way of achieving these rights for the populous: divorce.

However, this is not just a divorce where certain rights exercised by institutions like the church

or political government are given (back) to the individuals in society, but a divorce that

simultaneously claims the right from each person in the process. Many critics of Milton prefer to

stop before encountering this tension or contradiction, where the rights are being separated from

both institutions of power and the individuals. As Greteman states, “In recent years critics have

moved away from trying to resolve such contradictions … attempting instead to theorize

moments of conflict and irresolution and demonstrate their place within Milton’s theology and

aesthetics” (399). Rather than trying to resolve paradoxes or avoid them all together, this paper

will attempt to show that the theme of divorce is inherent in The Doctrine and Discipline of

Divorce, Areopagitica, and The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates then that divorce attempts to

provide a more constructive union between certain rights/powers and the individuals in society.

Finally, in the process of creating more constructive unions, the rights/powers given back to the

people end up getting divorced from the individuals, resulting in a schism in the ability for many

of the benefits of divorce to come to fruition.

Before discussing the implications of divorce in Milton’s three prose texts, the possibility

of divorce must be made known in each of the texts. It should be rather obvious that a text

entitled The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce would develop the concept of divorce
extensively, and it does. In this text, the concept of divorce is primarily limited to its

understanding within the framework of a marriage. Yet, there are a few ideas about divorce that

bear mentioning. The first is that Milton sees divorce as a way to reset a union gone bad. Milton

states, “the prohibition [of divorce] opposes the expresse end of Gods institution, suffers not

marriage to satisfie that intellectuall and innocent desire which God himself kindl’d in man”

(Milton, 946). Divorce in a marital sense, then, is a way to return to a state of equilibrium with

God and self. Milton never sees divorce as a mere separation, it is always conceptualized as a

separation followed by another, presumably better, union. It is almost as though Milton is stating

that once someone is married, that person should always be married. The implication is that if the

power to declare divorce resides in the individuals not only do they have to realize that the

individual they are with is not fulfilling their needs in some way, but also that they are

responsible for finding another partner immediately; a freedom has turned into an obligation.

The second idea worth mentioning about this text is Milton stating, “in Gods intention a

meet and happy conversation is the chiefest and the noblest end of marriage: for we find here no

expression so necessarily implying carnall knowledge, as this prevention of lonliness to the mind

and spirit of man” (Milton, 938). Now there is much debate about whether this segment of text is

referring to both men and women or men only; our purpose is not to engage in that debate, but

rather to note that the focus of marriage, to Milton, is conversation. Milton cannot be referring to

just any conversation, but a conversation that can only be had after developing a deep, unique

trust with another individual. The conversation is something that one would not be able to have

with just anyone; else it wouldn’t be unique to marriage. The type of conversation would have to

be one that was very personal and would require extensive time to develop the circumstances

that would allow such a conversation. This means that after a divorce occurs there would be
some time (even if one got married immediately) before the rapport had been built between the

individuals to the extent that a personal, meaningful conversation could be had.

Next, moving on to how Areopagitica incorporates the idea of divorce. In this text,

divorce is understood as a separation of the church from the printing industry. Milton is arguing

that it is not always an unambiguous decision when trying to distinguish good from evil, “Good

and evill we know in the field of this World grow up together almost inseparably; and the

knowledge of good is so involv’d and interwoven with the knowledge of evill … that those

confused seeds which were impos’d on Psyche as an incessant labour to cull out, and sort

asunder, were not more internixt” (Milton, 1006). It can be difficult to distinguish good from evil

and it is not always a matter that can be resolved and applied in every situation. Often times,

there will need to be individual application and reflection to discern at what point something is

good or evil. Therefore, it is in the best interest of everyone involved to allow censorship to

occur on an individual basis, rather than removing it from ever being published and letting it

have no opportunity to be applied in individual cases.

The Areopagitica also states “when God gave him reason, he gave him freedom to

choose, for reason is but choosing” (Milton, 1010). Were adversaries to Milton correct, the

church would hold the sole ability to reason about the goodness or evilness of things. This would

be problematic because there are other areas of life that demand individuals to reason and make

decisions for themselves, such as making purchases (will this item account for too much of my

allotted monthly expenditures?) or prioritizing work (should I complete the expense

reimbursements before I balance the accounts they will be drawn from). These examples are

quite simplistic, but without an ability to reason mistakes could be made which would lead to

deterioration of an individual’s ability to function in day to day life.

divorce. This text strives to divorce the ruler(s) of the power used to rule the populous. As

Milton says, “It being thus manifest that the power of Kings and Magistrates is nothing else, but

what is only derivative, transferr’d and committed to them in trust from the People, to the

Common good of them all, in whom the power yet remaines fundamentally, and cannot be tak’n

from them, without a violation of thir natural birthright” (Milton, 1060). Milton is trying to

reconceptualize the source of power utilized by the ruling bodies. Rather than the power being

something that is a right of the ruler, Milton states that the power comes from the people. Thus,

by separating the power from the ruler and giving it to the people, Milton provides a means for

the ruler and the populous to have a mediator, in this case it is the law. With a Miltonic

conception of the law, there is an impartial body that tells everyone what his/her place is in

society allowing for an equality of sorts, in that the different parties know what is expected of

them and what benefits they receive from the union. While some individuals in society might

prefer a more powerful central authority, “For indeed none can love freedom heartily, but good

men; the rest love not freedom, but licence” (Milton, 1057), Milton’s framework allows those

whom Milton deems “the rest” to have their desire of licence because the law, for them, can take

the place of a central, powerful ruler.

Milton is intentional in his advocacy of divorce. From these texts, we can draw the

several implications. The most obvious of which is that powers that were traditionally awarded

to the government or church would now be in the hands of the people. This leads to decentralized

power structures. Whether the people in Milton’s day liked it or not, the church and government

wielded immense power over their day to day lives and Milton’s ideas could have potentially

disrupted their process. “Milton worked during a period in which linguistic uncertainty … could
be perceived by royalists and rebel alike as dangerously destabilizing” (Greteman, 400). The

majority of the things Milton advocated dealt explicitly with certain texts or documents that

granted certain powers to the church or central government. Milton was advocating a power

structure based on the populous, rather that the institutions that governed them. Liberty might be

gained through such a transition, but it comes at the cost of destabilization. Not only

destabilization within the institutions themselves, but also within the populous who would not

know what to do with such power, or perhaps even how to exercise it.

When these divorces happen, they create discursive gaps between the individuals or

institutions involved. Rather ironically, it should cause more dialog to occur between the two

parties. For example, consider a couple who wants a divorce. While the church holds the power

of divorce, there is no discussion that needs to take place because they are stuck with one another

with no possibility of escape. Even if one of the individuals were to run away from the other,

there is still the tie of marriage looming over their individual existences. Yet were the possibility

for divorce opened up to the couple they would be forced to have a dialog with each other

regarding the impending divorce. No matter how small or insignificant the conversation might

be, just the fact that they communicated with each other means there is at least a possibility for

future communication where none existed before. When there is a possibility for communication,

there is the possibility for a continued relationship since the problem in the marriage was the

marriage itself, the parties have resolved, in a sense, that dilemma and can have a functioning

relationship outside of the realm of marriage. In other words, the possibility of communication

leads to a continued relationship. This means that divorce does not necessitate the complete

severance of one individual from another and can in fact develop additional modes of

communication between the two parties.

of the union from which the individual was just divorced. Milton states, “God saw it was not

good that man should be left alone to burn in; the desire and longing to put off an unkindly

solitarines by united another body, but not without a fit soule to his in the cheerfull society of

wedlock” (Milton, 939) and this shows us way the union of marriage was originally constructed.

By extension, when a divorce happened, the goal would be to get into another union in order to

stave off solitude. Additionally, this analysis can be applied to the other forms of divorce. For

example, were a society to allow all texts to be published (no pre-published censorship)

organizations and individuals will rise up and advocate for certain texts to be censored. Take

Philip Greaves e-book The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of

Conduct originally sold on Amazon.com. The book was published and many organizations

threatened to incite boycotting campaigns to have the book removed, which it eventually was

removed. The point is that if there is no centralized licensing agency that allows the publication

of books, other modes of censorship (unions created with the populous) arise to fulfill that

vacancy, albeit with a narrower jurisdiction and the need to garner popular support in order to be

effective.

Though there appears to be several benefits to the process of divorce, there are also

unintended consequences that must be considered before a conclusion about the efficacy of

divorce can be determined. The most prevalent consequence of such divorces is the inability of

the divorce to be contained to only one area. When one divorce occurs, cracks trail behind it and

affect other relationships because divorce is a highly rhetorical act. Not only in the sense that the

reason for a divorce happening is the lack of conversation that Milton sees as the bedrock of the

marriage covenant, but because in order for the divorce to be in effect it must be declared. One
person cannot wake-up one day and just decide that he/she does not wish to be married anymore,

and then by some mystical power the individuals are no longer married, even though marriage is,

under Milton’s conception of the term, a private matter. There are certain steps that must be

fulfilled to ensure that the divorce is recognized by those in authority so there is no confusion

(i.e. being married to multiple people, receiving a tax incentive when none is warranted, etc).

Thus, this private act has public implications as well. Milton recognizes the dual private

and public implications of divorce when he states, “The cause therefore of divorce expres’t in the

best and equalest sense of Moses Law. Which being a matter of pure charity, is plainly moral,

and more now in force then ever: therfore surely lawfull” (Milton, 937). The Law of Moses did

not just apply to the individual, but to the community as a whole, which is why there were

ceremonies like Yom Kippur, which atoned for the sins of the entire community. Moreover,

Greteman says, “The interpretive act was at the core of Milton’s theology, and his insistence that

the individual, guided by the spirit, must be left free to interpret the scripture without compulsion

has clear relevance to his politics” (405). Ultimately, the rhetorical act that Milton engages in

causes unintended ruptures to occur. As LaBreche notes, the Miltonic model makes a distinction

between the private and public spheres, “the modes of rule exercised by men in the domestic and

public spheres are not necessarily compatible with on another” (979). Instead of a clear means of

handling divorce (it is not allowed) that resides solely in the public sphere, Milton complicates

divorce and causes the term itself to be divorced from itself as it now has to reside in the public

and private spheres. Additionally, looming between the man and woman in a marriage covenant

is the specter of divorce, causing an ever-present gap between the two individuals that literally

could not exist prior to adopting Milton’s advocacy.

divorce. by conceiving of divorce as the remedy to many of the issues plaguing the people. “The

king according to Milton in The Tenure, never has actual inviolable power … As in a metaphor

where meaning is transferred figuratively but not actually from one term to another” (Greteman,

403). Milton claims the power of a ruler resides with the people and even though the people

entrust the power in the ruler, the power is still with the people. Greteman states Milton’s

understanding of power relations between a ruler and her people is “almost verbatim the early

modern definition of metaphor” (403). In other words, the office of ruler is nothing but a

metaphor of the power the people actually hold. Greteman notes the following implication,

“Milton’s view leaves no outside power to be resisted. In reconceiving the power as

fundamentally in the people, The Tenure reconceives both the king and the office of king as not

only unnecessary but nonexistent as real entities” (404). By extension, Milton’s claims in the

Areopagitica and The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce that certain powers of the church

reside in the people also implicate the church as “not only unnecessary but nonexistent as real

entities.” If the church and government are nothing more than metaphorical manifestations of the

people’s power, one could legitimately call into question each and every mandate issued by these

institutions, stripping them of any authority they once had and placing the responsibility solely

on the individuals in the society.

Finally, from the perspective of the Areopagitica divorce actually forces constraints upon

the society. Prior to Milton’s advocacy, if a book met certain criteria it never made it legally into

the public sphere. However, post Milton, a certain level of acceptance must be imposed upon the

society, even when a text is not desired. It forces society to accept, at least initially, the validity

of all published work, “Only genuine inclusivity could make good the public sphere’s claim to
allow the free exercise of reason and thus the discovery of the fundamental laws of a just

society” (LaBreche, 976). This means that any judgment against a text has riding with it an

implicit acceptance of the text’s merit to be published. This is problematic in that it creates a

schism within the judgment an individual exercises. In addition, it forces the rational judgment of

the individual to contain aspects of irrationality and enter into the realm of the ironic. The goal to

have a free choice, which is by definition rational (Milton, 1010), it now contains a kernel of

irrationality. Greteman indicates that such instances require a complete withdrawal from the

possibility of rationality, “In this account, the indeterminacy created and maintained by Milton’s

endlessly ironic language ultimately requires a Lutheran leap of faith and withdrawal from the

process of rationalization” (Greteman, 406). Lack of rationalization undermines any Miltonic

notion of divorce and sets it back in the realm of the irrational and thereby taking back the ability

of the individual to choose; rendering any gain society made by using divorce moot. This is

further complicated since the people now have all of the power of the ruler and church in their

possession. Ultimately, divorce leads to instability, irrationality, and the inability to choose on

every instance of every power taken from the church and state.

In conclusion, there seems to be several advantages to instituting a Miltonic divorce, but

after taking these advantages to their logical conclusions, its prospects seem dim. Considering

that the rights get severed from the individuals as well as the institutions, eventually someone

will begin to exercise that power again, leaving us in the same predicament we found ourselves

in prior to divorcing certain powers from centralized institutions; completely subjected to the

will of an authority.
 Works Cited

Greteman, Blaine. ""Exactest Proportion": The Iconoclastic and Constitutive Powers of

Metaphor in Milton's Prose Tracts." English Literary History 76.2 (2009): 399-417.

ProjectMUSE. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.

LaBreche, Ben. "Espousing Liberty: The Gender of Liberalism and the Politics of Miltonic

Divorce." English Literary History 77.4 (2010): 969-94. ProjectMUSE. Web. 15 Feb.

2011.

Milton, John. The Riverside Milton. Ed. Roy Flannagan. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998. Print