THE DEMONOLOGY OF PARADISE LOST

  GENERAL SOURCE SURVEY FOR THE DEMONOLOGY OF

PARADISE LOST

    (C) Copyright 1987 by Mike Blakemore

Abstract. While it is generally assumed that Milton's sources

for the demonology of PL are biblical, a cursory examination

of the evidence shows this is not the case. Although the

Bible was important in the work's composition, Milton also

drew upon sources apocryphal and pseudepigraphal, as well as

upon the large body of Hebrew legend concerning demons, much

of which pre-dates Judaistic thought. In the final analysis,

Milton opts for poetic sensibility over orthodox Scriptural

authority, using his varied materials as the dramatic needs

of his work dictated.

     In Paradise Lost it is the fallen angels, rather than

the faithful, who attract our interest. Before the fall, God

makes it clear they had all better go along with His program

if they know what's good for them. As He introduces His son,

whom He orders them to worship, he says:

    ...him who disobeyes

     Mee disobeyes, breaks union, and that day

     Cast out from God and blessed vision, falls

     Into utter darkness, deep ingulfts, his place

     Ordained without redemption, without end.

  (V, 611)

     Robert West notes that in Milton's day, the vast

majority of angelologists in England held that angels were

"secured by grace from the danger of lapse or by a compulsive

love of God."

     But this would make for a garden-variety angel who is

merely doing something about what he has little choice.

Also, an angelic elect would run counter to Milton's life-

long devotion to that intellectual freedom in which sapient

beings are ultimately responsible for their own behavior.

That same idea of an angelic elect would also remove most of

the dynamism of PL's plot.

     Lucifer is like the classical tragic heroes in that his

Špride (hubris) demands expression (as did Eve's.) Satan has a

certain appeal, at least in the beginning, where he is cast

as an anti-hero, a cad whom we admire for his direct attempts

to get what he wants. He has very human virtues and failings;

courage, persistence and ingenuity. But his tragic flaws are

unsavory.  He has a huge ego and a petty streak. If God won't

let him share the dais, he will at least damage God's newest

creation -- man.

     C.S. Lewis states it is easier to draw a villain than a

hero. "To make a character worse than oneself it is only

necessary to release imaginatively from control some of the

bad passions which, in real life, are always straining at the

leash," he writes. "To draw a `good' one, it is necessary to

rise above oneself; hence the scarcity of well drawn 'good'

characters."

     In his Satan, Milton creates a character of truly

Olympian proportions. For a worthy foe of God, nothing less

will suffice. But the questions prompted by this creation

make it patently absurd to look at PL in either strictly

allegorical or literal senses. Angelology and demonology are,

at best, imperfect branches of theology, itself built on a

revealed doctrine which defies empirical examination, 

and in which legend and bias inevitably infect any reasonable

metaphysical speculation. Milton dealt with this problem in

the manner of a thinking and literary man, counterweighting

his logic with what often seems a tenuous belief in God. He

was, as was said of Browning, a man who would call himself

Christian no matter what he believed in, diverging from

mainstream Puritan thought as his conscience dictated.

     Scholars have made much of the fact that in the entirety

of PL, Satan gets the best lines, and use this to argue a

certain Miltonic sympathy for him. But while Satan may be

more eloquent than the others, it is only early in the story

that His Infernal Eminence has heroic virtues. Before the end

of book two, his grandeur is visibly crumbling.

     At the gates of Hell as he begins his first foray into

the world, the reader sees his first post-fall interaction

with anyone outside of his "horrid crew." He is a wanton, as

witnessed by the conversation with his daughter Sin and his

son-grandson Death, and by revelation of his grotesque

relationship with them.

     He continues his degeneration, becoming a common sneak

in his use of trickery to obtain directions to Eden from a

charmingly gullible Uriel. Thus, his demeanor moves even

farther from his previous persona of the magnificently active

Šand vibrant Lucifer, the bearer of light, confirming himself

by his own free will as the truly evil Satan, who needs

darkness to do his work.

     In the Old Testament, Satan was not such a bad fellow.

His name literally means adversary, or accuser. He was the

prosecuting attorney in God's court. Although sometimes given

unpleasant tasks, his actions were always undertaken with

God's sanction, one example being the harassment of Job. In

the New Testament, he is the tempter of Jesus. Citing

extensive Talmudic commentary, Leo Jung lists, among Satan's

virtues; "Kindness, consideration, [and] delicacy of

feeling." He also mentions Satan's sense of humor.

     In the Hebrew pantheon was a class of demons known as

the sedim, suggesting a linguistic connection. The concept of

these beings may have come from Babylonia, where they were

sometimes represented by winged bulls -- a common fertility

symbol, according to Frazer.

     By contrast, the Islamic Shatan (or the Zoroastrian

Satan,) is a truly evil and dynamic devil, who refused to

worship God's new creation, man (consistent with the Jewish

tradition), and was, hence, turned into a demon, swearing an

oath of revenge against God. John B. Noss suggests a

Zoroastrian influence on Islam here. In Jewish and Islamic

thought, Satan operated only with the permission of an

omnipotent God, although in Zoroaster's thinking, the forces

oæ eviì werå powerfuì anä poseä á verù reaì threaô tï Ahurá 

Mazda, literally, "Wise Lord."

     Buô iô ió iî thå Ne÷ Testamenô thaô Sataî evolveó aó

á trulù eviì character® Althougè hió connectioî witè thå 

serpenô ió onlù toucheä upoî iî Genesis¬ Revelatioî (12¬ 7-10)

ió explicit.

  Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his

      angels waged war upon the dragon. The dragon and

      his angels fought, but they had not the strength

      to win, and no foothold was left them in heaven.

      So the great dragon was thrown down, that serpent

      of old that led the whole world astray, whose name

      is Satan, or the devil -- thrown down to the earth

      and his angels with him.

     John again identifies the dragon as Satan in the opening

of Rev. 20.

Š     That Lucifer has taken a full third of the angelic

complement with him prompts Sir Herbert Grierson to wryly

note that "if the third part of a school or college or nation

broke into rebellion we should be driven, or strongly

disposed, to suspect some mismanagement by the supreme

powers."

     Unlike the Jewish Satan, Milton's Christianized Satan

was the very personification of evil, although just how the

name Lucifer creeps in as the unfallen angel is unclear. Jung

comments this may be due to a misinterpretation of Isaiah 14,

12-13.

     How you have fallen from heaven, bright morning star,

     felled to the earth, sprawling helpless across nations!

     You thought in your own mind, I will scale the heavens;

     I will set my throne high above the stars of God,

     I will sit on the mountain where the gods meet

     In the far recesses of the north.

     Robert H. West states that this is more likely the

railings of the prophet against Nebuchadnezzar, who, like

most kings, probably enjoyed court flattery which compared

him to either the Morning Star (Lucifer), the Sun or to God

himself. Along these lines, Luke quotes Christ as saying, "I

watched how Satan fell, like lightning, out of the sky."

(10:18), a citation upon which the the early Church Fathers

speculated for several centuries.

     It should also be noted that descending stars were often

considered fallen angels in a number of Middle Eastern

folk cultures. Considering that the Zoroastrians were no mean

astrologers, it would do well to remember that it was a group

of Zoroastrian Magi (from whence comes the word "magic") who

were the first to adore the infant Jesus. This Christian

concept of Satan may well have connections with the

Islamic/Zoroastrian idea.  The Persian Zoroastrians spoke a

branch of Indo-Aryan, a sub-school of Indo-European, the same

language grouping of most modern European language. Their

malevolent daevas were the precursors of our modern devils.

     Zoroastrian influence on western religious thought must

not be underestimated. It has in common with all the

Mediterranean religions the concept of a tripartite universe,

including a heaven, earth and underworld. (Hindu cosmology is

a much more unified operation, without such clear divisions.)

Zoroastrianism has also provided a comprehensive dualistic

theology appearing later in the Manicheanism, still very much

Šalive in some Middle Eastern Christian sects. It has always

been easier to see things in black and white rather than in

shades of gray, and metaphysical arguments concerning evil as

an aspect of good have gone on for thousands of years and

into the present. Another tenet of Zoroastrianism held in

common with Christianity is the general resurrection to come

at the end of the present world order, the condemned spending

eternity in an unpleasant place called "The House of the

Lie."

     In both Hebrew and Islamic traditions, Shatan (or Satan)

was a prominent angel who became a devil through

disobedience, and who took his revenge upon God by seducing

man. The Muslims and early Jews, however, reject the idea

that Satan can actually rebel. The idea was more fully

developed later, in a Hellenized Judaism where lesser beings

rebel against God, an idea central to Greek mythology.

     In the popular theology of his day, Milton was safe in

casting Satan as ruler of Hell and chief demon. The rest of

his infernal hierarchy, however, has a certain arbitrary

quality to it that can only be justified as poetic license.

Milton draws upon the large and often-contradictory body of

Semitic legend for his precedents, and taps into a

tradition of reducing gods overshadowed by Yahweh to the

ranks of demons, as will be more fully explained below.

     First after Satan is Beelzebub, henchman and chief

lieutenant. After the initial onslaught, it is to Beelzebub

that Satan first speaks, referring to him as "Fall'n Cherub."

In both Jewish and Christian traditions a cherub is a high

order of angel. In ancient Babylonia, a kerub was a griffin,

half-mammal, half-bird, similar to the Hebrew sedim. These

were the same cherubim of Moses and Solomon, says Emily Hahn,

"carved and gilded supports of God's throne, each with one

great golden wing curving up and around the throne and above

it to meet the other in a sort of arch that shaded the divine

Occupant." They also appeared on the Ark of the Covenant.

     It was Beelzebub whom the Pharisees called the prince of

demons and who is one of the few three-dimensional characters

in Milton's hell, outside of Satan. The biblical references

to Beelzebub are well-known. It was by Beelzebub, said the

Pharisees, that Jesus cast out devils, prompting Jesus to

make the famous comparison about a house being divided

against itself. Putnam's suggests that the name of Beelzebub

comes from the Hebrew word Baal-zevuv, "Lord of Flies," or,

less kindly,  "Lord of Dung". Putnam's further suggests this

is a mocking corruption of the Canaanite Baal-zebul, or

"Prince Baal," Baal being a powerful fertility god, lord and

Šmaster of natural regenerative forces and identified with

lightning and rain. He was frequently represented as a winged

bull (sedim, kerub?), and in his mythology, was slain and

resurrected. In this he is analogous to other dying and

resurrected fertility gods such as Osiris, Zagreus,

Dionysius and Tammuz. Another name belonging on this list is,

significantly, the Greek Adonis, the word Adonai replacing

the Yahweh in later Judaism. In both Greek and Hebrew the

word means "my lord" or "my master."

     Moloch was another fertility god sometimes associated

with Baal, a nasty chap who liked having small children

sacrificed to him by fire.  The first commandment, "Thou

shalt not have strange Gods before thee" indicates God was

very much aware of the Hebrew inclination to flirt with other

deities. Moses had been gone up the mountain only a few days

when the Hebrews asked for another god and were given a

golden calf (Prince Baal?). Moloch was another one to whose

charms the Israelites often fell prey. Even the wise Solomon

built shrines to him (1 Kings 11.7), although it must be

noted in all fairness that he had a weakness for women and

built these shrines to placate his not-so-Jewish wives and

concubines, and not anywhere near the temple. Moloch enjoyed

such popularity, in fact, that in Leviticus (18.21; 20.2),

God was specific about not sacrificing one's children to what

Milton calls a

       horrid King besmear'd with blood

     Of human sacrifice, and parents' tears,

     Though for the noise of Drums and Timbrels loud

     Thir children's cries unheard, that pass'd through fire

     To his grim idol.

  (I, 392)

  At the council in Pandaemonium, Moloch is the first

to answer Satan's request for ideas. He was

      the fiercest spirit

      That fought in Heav'n; now fiercer by despair:

      His trust was with th' Eternal to be deem'd

      Equal in strength, and rather than be less

      Car'd not to be at all; with that care lost

      Went all his fear:

  (II, 44)

     In noting his desire for violence without regard to the

Šconsequence, Irene Samuel writes that

     he cares little whether that violence turns on God,

     Heaven, Hell, or himself. The only desirable

     alternative he sees to effecting his combative will

     is annihilation. Thus Milton links the impulses of

     murder and self-destruction and sees the roots of

     both in the aggressive need of brute force to

     dominate its world in order to feel adequate.

     After Moloch's speech comes Belial's.

     But all was false and hollow; though his Tongue

     Dropt Manna, and could make the worse appear

     The better reason, to perplex and dash

     Maturest Counsels; for his thoughts were low;

     To vice industrious, but to Nobler deeds

     Timorous and slothful: yet he pleased the ear."

  (II, 112)

     Milton's association of Belial with lust indicates he

may have been familiar with the story of the 200 Watchers,

which appears in slightly different forms in the

pseudepigraphal books of Enoch and Jubilees. In the story,

200 angels become infatuated with human women and make their

way to earth, a journey that takes nine days. That number

reappears in PL.

     Nines times the space that measures Day and Night

     To mortal men, hee with his horrid crew

     Lay vanquisht, rolling in the fiery gulf...

  (I, 50)

     Upon their arrival on earth, the Watchers take wives and

begin copulating to beat the band, their children growing up

to be giants and causing a number of problems. God chastises

both the Watchers and their beloved children with various

punishments. He first sends Uriel to warn Noah, then Raphael

to tie up Azazel, the Watcher's chief. Significantly, the Old

Testament Azazel was a wild desert demon associated with the

scape-goat.

     At God's direction, Gabriel then forces the giants to

kill each other. Michael makes the Watchers observe, then

Šdeposits them in the underworld to stay until the last

judgement, after which they will go into the eternal flames.

     Belial reappears in Paradise Regained, urging Satan to

tempt Christ with women. Satan scoffs, pointing out that

Belial is inclined to attribute his own personal weakness to

everyone else. Satan says;

     Before the flood, thou with thy lusty crew

     False titled sons of God, roaming the earth

     Cast wanton eyes on the daughters of men,

     and coupled with them, and begot a race.

  (PR II, 178)

     For a few members of his demonic host, Milton again

turns to folklore. By the Middle Ages, Europeans had started

classifying various demons as to their powers to entice men

to indulge in the more base instincts. In his continuing

demonology, Milton draws on the morality playwright's

practice of personifying sins as devils. As we have already

established, Lucifer's sin was pride. After his fall, it

becomes anger, an understandable response to thwarted

ambition.

     There is little scriptural authority for Mammon outside

of a few New Testament mentions as to the danger of wealth

(Mat. 6.24; Luke 16.9,11,13.), Milton does, however, mention

Spenser's "Cave of Mammon" (Faerie Queen) in Areopagitica.

     In the speeches at Pandaemonium, Mammon appears in what

is probably Milton's declining order of the importance of

various sins.

     Mammon, the least erected spirit that fell

     From Heav'n, for ev'n in Heav'n his looks and thoughts

     Were always downward bent, admiring more

     The riches of Heav'n's pavement, trodd'n Gold

     Than aught divine or holy else enjoy'd

     In vision beatific...

  (I, 679)

      He is Hell's architect, building a house of splendor

true to his love of riches and luxury. After all, he points

out, "This Desert soil/Wants not her hidden lustre, Gems and

Gold."

Š     The sheer volume of Milton's demonic catalogue makes its

complete discussion impractical. One personage who merits

being singled out, however, is Astoreth "whom the Phoenicians

called/Astarte, Queen of Heav'n..." One can only speculate

whether Milton might have developed her more fully, had he

the time or the the inclination. She was a fertility goddess

with a large following, similar to the Greek Aphrodite, the

Roman Diana and the Egyptian Isis. Written mention of her was

found in the 1931 West Syrian excavation of Ugarit, and has

been dated about 1,400 B.C. Like most female fertility

goddesses, she was associated with the moon. Although the

patristic Hebrews and Jesu-centric Christians worked hard in

trying to stamp out her worship, the lingering human desire

for a female fertility goddess has crept back into

circulation through Mary, the mother of Jesus and Queen of

Heaven. In the Roman Catholic calendar, the spring month of

May is reserved for her veneration.

     Hahn states that when one ancient tribe (or for that

matter, modern tribe) conquered another, the victor's deity

was imposed upon the loser, and that no sensible victor tried

to destroy the loser's gods. This would undermine the whole

business. Instead, the loser's gods were reduced in stature.

Both the Mosaic distaste for visual depictions of God and

this practice of transforming the old rivals of Yahweh into

demons reappears in Christianity. The early Christians were,

like most people in those days, an ignorant and superstitious

lot. Particularly in Greece and Rome, they believed that

devils resided in the pagan idols. Interestingly, Faunus,

(the Greek Pan), with his cloven hooves, stubby horns and

tail, could stand as a prototype for medieval depictions of

the devil.

     It was upon these wide-ranging concepts that Milton

drew, many of which appear to have been introduced into

Western Christianity by Pope Gregory I (c.540-604), an ex-

monk who wrote extensively on the Eastern Mediterranean ideas

of the early Church Fathers. Oriental sympathies did not

color all his thinking, however. In one of Christendom's more

embarrassing power struggles, he refused to recognize the

Patriarch of Constantinople and set off 500 years of dispute

ending in a complete break in 1054, and which today remains

unhealed.

     Milton was no stranger to literary license, inventing

and borrowing as his plot dictated. Such free selection of

material was needed to hybrid an arch-fiend of towering

stature for a true enemy of God and Christ. The lesser

persons in his supporting cast were similarly constructed

from the best sources available to shape them into consummate

Šfigures of wickedness.

     Oddly, Milton's epic never made it onto the Index of the

arch-conservative Roman Catholic Church. Although he

constructed a fanciful cosmology at odds with orthodox

views, he slid around the hair-splitting theological

arguments, using a poetic sensibility to make sense of

Scriptural spirit. He showed little or no interest in the

scientific accuracy of Scripture, but approached it with an

awareness of its background and development.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

     Adler, Mortimer J. The Angels and Us.  New York:

MacMillan, 1982.

     Bleeker, Claas Jouco, and Widengren, Geo. Historia

Religionum. Leiden: Brill, 1971.

     Curry, Walter Clyde. Milton's Ontology, Cosmogony and

Physics. Lexington: Univ. of Kentucky, 1957.

     Field, M.J.  Angels and Ministers of Grace.  New York:

Hill and Wang, 1971.

     Frazer, Sir James George. The Golden Bough. New York:

MacMillan. 1958.

     Grierson, Sir Herbert. Milton and Wordsworth. London:

Chatto and Windus, 1937

     Hahn, Emily, and Benes, Barton Lidice.  Breath of God.

New York:  Doubleday,  1971.

     Hieatt, A. Kent. Chaucer, Spenser, Milton. Montreal:

McGill-Queen's, 1975.

     Jung, Leo. Fallen Angels in Jewish, Christian and

Mohammedan Literature. New York: KTAV, 1974.

     Kaster, Joseph. Putnam's Mythological Dictionary. New

York:  Capricorn, 1964.

     Langton, Edward. Essentials of Demonology. London:

Epworth, 1949.

     Lewis, C.S. A Preface to Paradise Lost. London: Oxford, 1942.

     Martz, Louis L. (Ed.) Milton, A Collection of Critical

Essays. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1966.

     Noss, John B. Man's Religions. New York: Macmillan, 1967.

     Russell, Jeffrey B. Lucifer. Ithaca: Cornell, 1984.

     Samuel, Irene. Dante and Milton. Ithaca: Cornell, 1966.

     Ward, Theodora.  Men and Angels.  New York:  Viking, 1969.

     West, Robert H.  Milton and the Angels.  Athens,  Univ.

of Georgia Press,  1955.

     ###