<i>Milton and the Burden of Freedom</i>. Warren Chernaik. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Pp. ix+274.

Abstract

Previous articleNext article FreeBook ReviewMilton and the Burden of Freedom. Warren Chernaik. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Pp. ix+274.Eric SongEric SongSwarthmore College Search for more articles by this author Full TextPDF Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreThe introductory chapter of this book displays a bifurcation. The author introduces his topic as the conflicted impulses regarding freedom in John Milton’s writings. Even though Milton hews toward Arminianism in his affirmations of human free will, he nonetheless upholds some belief in God’s mysterious election. In Milton’s political thinking, this translates into a commitment to the people’s freedom coexisting uneasily with a justification of “the forcible rule of the enlightened minority over the unregenerate minority” (8). Disentangling this interlace of religious and political beliefs is not exclusively or narrowly a historicist concern. Chernaik periodically invites us to compare Milton’s conflicted views about freedom to later configurations, both religious and secular. Yet the first half of the introduction does not specify what, exactly, this book will argue about Milton’s sense of freedom and what it can still teach us. Only in the latter half does Chernaik announce his intention: to argue against recent scholarship that discerns sharp discontinuities in Milton’s thinking or questions the applicability of the term “Puritan” to Milton. Chapter 1 cites Sharon Achinstein’s Literature and Dissent in Milton’s England (2003), Gordon Campbell and Thomas N. Corns’s John Milton: Life, Work, and Thought (2008), and Catherine Gimelli Martin’s Milton among the Puritans (2010) as exemplifying these tendencies. Chernaik aims to show that Milton’s view of freedom was inconsistent for consistent reasons—in a way that should locate him squarely within the Puritan tradition as described by earlier twentieth-century scholars.Despite being in agreement with some of Chernaik’s premises, I am not convinced that a case for Milton’s consistent inconsistency is compelling enough to motivate this particular study. As Chernaik puts it in the postscript, “Throughout this book, I have argued that Milton’s political and religious beliefs are closely intertwined, and that the classical humanist and polemicist Milton at times battle for supremacy, with varying results” (206). This strikes me as a deflating conclusion to reach after having pursued a topic as urgent as the genealogy of Western liberalism’s capacity to preach freedom while upholding minority rule. After broaching the question of what Milton can teach us about the religious and literary strands of this genealogy, the author insists that he has only set out to rebut the perceived distortions of revisionist scholarship.In practice, this means that the eight main chapters are at their best when they situate Milton in the company of others who also grapple with the relationship between human free will (or lack thereof) and political freedom. Yet these chapters locate fascinating problems only to retreat to the premise that Milton is consistently vexed in a manner not unlike other Protestants. Chapter 1 details how Milton espoused certain Arminianist teachings while opposing the kind of Arminianism associated with Archbishop William Laud. Chernaik does discuss the profound changes in Milton’s theology—including his rejection of the Trinity in Paradise Lost and De doctrina Christiana—but his main objective is to liken Milton to others who might be labeled post-Calvinists. The tendency to turn context into the central argument recurs prominently in the fourth chapter. Chernaik observes that Milton is, like many of his contemporaries, willing to appeal both to classical as well as biblical precedents to describe a viable form of republicanism. Milton’s appeals to classical and biblical republicanism can be understood, mutatis mut