Was Milton a Rebel or a Conformist?
Author: Martin Munyao Muinde
Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com
Word Count: 2,000 words
Abstract
John Milton (1608-1674) stands as one of the most enigmatic figures in English literary history, embodying both revolutionary ideals and traditional values in ways that continue to perplex scholars and readers alike. This essay examines the complex question of whether Milton should be characterized as a rebel or a conformist by analyzing his political writings, religious beliefs, literary works, and personal philosophy. Through careful examination of his major works including Paradise Lost, Areopagitica, and his political pamphlets, this analysis reveals that Milton’s identity cannot be reduced to a simple binary classification. Instead, he emerges as a figure who was simultaneously rebellious against certain established authorities while conforming to deeply held classical and Christian traditions. The evidence suggests that Milton’s apparent contradictions reflect the broader tensions of his historical moment, when traditional religious and political structures were undergoing radical transformation during the English Civil War period and its aftermath.
Introduction
The question of whether John Milton was fundamentally a rebel or a conformist has captivated literary scholars, historians, and political theorists for centuries. This enduring debate stems from the apparent contradictions in Milton’s life and work: he was a revolutionary republican who defended regicide, yet he wrote an epic poem that seemed to justify God’s ways to man in thoroughly traditional terms. He championed individual liberty and freedom of thought, while simultaneously advocating for strict moral discipline and hierarchical social structures. These paradoxes have led to widely divergent interpretations of Milton’s character and significance, with some scholars portraying him as a radical democrat ahead of his time, while others see him as a conservative moralist wrapped in revolutionary rhetoric.
Understanding Milton’s true nature requires careful examination of the historical context in which he lived and wrote. The seventeenth century was a period of unprecedented political, religious, and intellectual upheaval in England, marked by civil war, regicide, republican government, and eventual restoration of the monarchy. Milton lived through these transformative events not as a passive observer but as an active participant, serving as Secretary for Foreign Tongues to the Commonwealth government and producing influential pamphlets that shaped public discourse. His literary works, particularly Paradise Lost, were composed during the Restoration period when his political ideals had been decisively defeated, adding another layer of complexity to his legacy.
Milton’s Political Rebellion
Milton’s reputation as a political rebel rests primarily on his unwavering support for republicanism and his defense of regicide during one of the most turbulent periods in English history. His political writings demonstrate a consistent opposition to absolute monarchy and arbitrary authority that placed him at odds with mainstream political thought of his era. In The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates (1649), Milton argued that political power derives from the consent of the governed and that people have the right to depose tyrannical rulers, even unto death. This pamphlet, published shortly after the execution of Charles I, provided intellectual justification for what many contemporaries viewed as an unprecedented act of rebellion against divine authority (Hill, 1977).
Milton’s political radicalism extended beyond theoretical arguments to active participation in revolutionary government. As Latin Secretary to the Commonwealth, he served as the regime’s chief propagandist, defending English republicanism against European critics and monarchist sympathizers. His Defensio Prima (1651) and Defensio Secunda (1654) articulated a vision of government based on merit rather than birthright, individual liberty rather than traditional hierarchy, and rational discourse rather than inherited privilege. These works established Milton’s international reputation as a leading republican theorist and marked him as a dangerous radical in the eyes of royalist opponents (Worden, 2001).
The depth of Milton’s political rebellion becomes even more apparent when considering his continued advocacy for republican principles after the Restoration in 1660. Despite the obvious personal danger, Milton published The Ready and Easy Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth just months before Charles II’s return to power, making a last desperate plea for republican government. This timing demonstrates either remarkable courage or dangerous naivety, but certainly confirms that Milton’s political convictions were not merely opportunistic accommodations to changing circumstances. His willingness to risk his life and liberty for abstract political principles marks him as a genuine ideological rebel rather than a pragmatic conformist.
Religious Nonconformity and Theological Innovation
Milton’s religious beliefs represent another dimension of his rebellious nature, though one complicated by his deep commitment to Christian orthodoxy in certain areas. His rejection of episcopal authority and embrace of Protestant individualism aligned him with Puritan reformers who sought to purify the Church of England of what they viewed as popish corruptions. However, Milton’s theological positions went far beyond mainstream Puritan thought, embracing doctrinal innovations that bordered on heresy by contemporary standards. His De Doctrina Christiana, not published until the nineteenth century, reveals beliefs in mortalism (the idea that the soul dies with the body), polygamy under certain circumstances, and Arianism (denial of Christ’s full divinity) that would have shocked even his Puritan allies (Campbell & Corns, 2008).
Milton’s approach to Biblical interpretation exemplified his rebellious attitude toward traditional religious authority. Rather than accepting established church doctrine or scholarly consensus, he insisted on reading Scripture with his own reason and conscience as guides. This hermeneutical independence led him to conclusions that challenged fundamental Christian teachings while maintaining his identity as a devout believer. His famous declaration in Areopagitica that “a man may be a heretic in the truth” reflects his conviction that individual interpretation of divine revelation takes precedence over institutional orthodoxy, a position that places him squarely in the tradition of Protestant radicalism.
The religious dimension of Milton’s rebellion also manifested in his advocacy for religious toleration and separation of church and state. His pamphlets on divorce reform challenged both civil and ecclesiastical authority by arguing that individuals should be free to dissolve marriages that had become spiritually or emotionally incompatible. This position, developed partly in response to his own unhappy first marriage, demonstrated his willingness to prioritize personal liberty over social stability and traditional moral codes. Similarly, his later writings on religious liberty argued that civil magistrates had no authority over matters of conscience, a position that challenged the fundamental assumptions of both episcopal and presbyterian church polity.
Literary Innovation and Classical Conformity
The question of Milton’s rebellious or conformist nature becomes particularly complex when examining his literary works, which display remarkable innovation alongside deep reverence for classical traditions. Paradise Lost, his masterpiece, represents both a revolutionary departure from contemporary literary practice and a sophisticated engagement with ancient epic conventions. Milton’s decision to write an epic poem in English rather than Latin was itself a rebellious act that challenged the assumption that vernacular languages were unsuitable for the highest forms of literature. His rejection of rhyme in favor of blank verse further demonstrated his willingness to break with established poetic conventions in pursuit of what he considered a more natural and noble form of expression (Lewalski, 2003).
The thematic content of Paradise Lost reveals similar tensions between innovation and tradition. Milton’s sympathetic portrayal of Satan has been interpreted by many readers as a subversive critique of arbitrary authority, whether divine or political. The poem’s emphasis on individual choice and moral responsibility reflects Enlightenment values that challenged traditional notions of predestination and passive obedience. However, these potentially rebellious elements coexist with a fundamentally orthodox Christian framework that affirms God’s justice, human sinfulness, and the necessity of redemption through Christ. Milton’s epic thus embodies the same paradoxical combination of revolutionary and conservative elements that characterizes his political and religious thought.
Milton’s approach to classical literature reveals another aspect of his complex relationship with tradition and innovation. His deep knowledge of Greek and Latin authors informed every aspect of his literary production, from his early Latin poetry to his mature English works. However, his engagement with classical sources was never merely imitative; instead, he sought to adapt ancient forms and themes to address contemporary concerns and Christian beliefs. This creative synthesis of pagan and Christian elements represented a form of literary rebellion against both classical orthodoxy and contemporary literary practice, while simultaneously demonstrating profound respect for traditional learning and cultural authority.
Educational Philosophy: Reform and Tradition
Milton’s educational philosophy provides another lens through which to examine his status as rebel or conformist, revealing characteristic tensions between revolutionary ideals and traditional methods. His treatise Of Education (1644) proposed sweeping reforms to contemporary educational practice that challenged fundamental assumptions about learning and pedagogy. Milton criticized the universities for their emphasis on scholastic philosophy and theological disputation, arguing instead for a practical curriculum focused on useful knowledge and moral development. His vision of education combined classical learning with modern subjects like science and technology, preparing students for active citizenship rather than merely scholarly contemplation (Parker, 1996).
The revolutionary aspects of Milton’s educational program become apparent when compared to conventional seventeenth-century practice. His emphasis on vernacular literature alongside classical texts challenged the assumption that education should be conducted primarily in Latin. His advocacy for teaching modern languages and practical skills reflected a democratic impulse to make learning relevant to broader social needs rather than elite cultural formation. Most radically, his conviction that education should develop independent thinking rather than passive acceptance of authority aligned with his broader political and religious commitments to individual liberty and rational inquiry.
However, Milton’s educational philosophy also revealed deep conservative commitments that complicate any simple characterization of his position as rebellious. His curriculum remained firmly grounded in classical texts and traditional liberal arts disciplines, reflecting his belief that ancient wisdom provided the best foundation for modern learning. His emphasis on moral discipline and character formation echoed traditional humanist values that prioritized virtue over mere intellectual achievement. Furthermore, his assumption that education should be restricted to a small elite of talented individuals conflicted with more democratic educational philosophies that would emerge in later centuries.
Personal Contradictions and Historical Context
Understanding Milton’s complex identity as both rebel and conformist requires careful attention to the personal contradictions that marked his life and character. His advocacy for individual liberty coexisted with authoritarian tendencies in his personal relationships and political recommendations. While championing freedom of thought and expression in Areopagitica, he simultaneously supported press censorship when it served Commonwealth interests. His defense of divorce reform was motivated partly by personal frustration with his first marriage, yet he maintained traditional patriarchal assumptions about gender roles and family hierarchy throughout his life (Hill, 1977).
These apparent contradictions reflect broader tensions within seventeenth-century intellectual culture, where traditional authorities were under attack but alternative frameworks had not yet been fully developed. Milton’s generation lived through unprecedented political and religious upheaval that required them to reconstruct fundamental assumptions about authority, liberty, and social organization. In this context, apparent inconsistencies in Milton’s thought may represent not personal hypocrisy but honest attempts to navigate competing values and changing circumstances. His commitment to both individual freedom and social order, religious truth and rational inquiry, classical tradition and contemporary innovation reflects the broader cultural tensions of his historical moment.
The question of whether Milton was ultimately a rebel or conformist may thus be unanswerable in simple terms, not because of inadequate evidence but because the question itself may be inadequately formulated. Milton’s significance lies precisely in his ability to embody seemingly contradictory impulses within a single coherent worldview. His rebellious opposition to arbitrary authority was balanced by conformist respect for legitimate hierarchy; his innovative literary techniques served traditional moral and religious purposes; his radical political theories were grounded in classical republican traditions.
Conclusion
The enduring question of whether John Milton was fundamentally a rebel or a conformist ultimately reveals more about our contemporary desire for clear categories than about Milton’s actual historical significance. This analysis has demonstrated that Milton’s identity cannot be reduced to either label without significant distortion of the evidence. He was simultaneously a political revolutionary who defended regicide and a religious conservative who affirmed traditional Christian orthodoxy; a literary innovator who broke conventional rules and a classical scholar who revered ancient traditions; an advocate for individual liberty who supported authoritarian measures when they served his vision of the greater good.
Rather than viewing these apparent contradictions as evidence of confusion or hypocrisy, we might better understand them as reflections of the broader cultural tensions that characterized seventeenth-century England. Milton lived through a period of unprecedented change that required creative responses to new political, religious, and intellectual challenges. His ability to synthesize revolutionary and traditional elements within coherent worldviews may represent not contradiction but sophisticated adaptation to rapidly changing circumstances.
Milton’s true legacy may lie not in his status as either rebel or conformist, but in his demonstration that these categories need not be mutually exclusive. His life and work suggest that genuine intellectual and moral integrity sometimes requires simultaneous rebellion against corrupt authorities and conformity to legitimate traditions. In our own era of rapid change and cultural conflict, Milton’s example offers valuable insights into the complex relationship between tradition and innovation, authority and liberty, individual conscience and social responsibility.
The question “Was Milton a rebel or a conformist?” may thus be best answered: “Yes.” His greatness lay not in choosing one side or the other, but in his ability to transcend such simplistic categories through the force of his moral vision and literary genius. This complex legacy continues to inspire and challenge readers who seek to understand the relationship between individual conviction and social obligation in times of historical transformation.
References
Campbell, G., & Corns, T. N. (2008). John Milton: Life, Work, and Thought. Oxford University Press.
Hill, C. (1977). Milton and the English Revolution. Faber & Faber.
Lewalski, B. K. (2003). The Life of John Milton: A Critical Biography. Blackwell Publishing.
Parker, W. R. (1996). Milton: A Biography (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Worden, B. (2001). Literature and Politics in Cromwellian England: John Milton, Andrew Marvell, Marchamont Nedham. Oxford University Press.