Complexity of Eve’s Speeches in Relation to the Question of Subjection

...

Eve then encounters an angelic figure, who is a parallel with Eve herself. Not only does the angel elevate Eve to a goddess, but he has “dewy locks distilled/ Ambrosia…” (56-57, p117), which bears clear resemblance to Eve’s tresses “in wanton ringlets waved/ As the vine curls her tendrils, which implied/ Subjection” (306-308, p94). The end curls entwined by vine are almost identical to the locks “distilled Ambrosia,” as Ambrosia is the tasty food for God. The emphatic “subjection” in the beginning of the line with a capital “S” thus also applies to the angel in relation to God, and the angel’s speech in turn echoes Eve’s own thought. The angel, interestingly, does not initially engage with Eve, but instead addresses his speech to the tree. He sympathizes with it, charges the higher power for being envy, and audaciously voices out the critical question that if no one accepts the tree’s offer, “why else set here?” (63, p117). His challenge to God’s design is strengthened by his subsequent deed of picking a fruit, and his ensuing sense of joy rendered more daring by Eve’s contrasting sense of “horror.” The idea of the fruit making “gods of men” is itself paradoxical, but Eve falls for the problematic logic and “could not but taste” the fruit offered by the angel. This is another example of the tension between outside influences and Eve’s internal desires. On the surface level, Eve is merely yielding to the external temptation, but since the angel’s opinion represents Eve’s own, and the entire speech is about Eve’s dream, the passage draws a natural connection between Eve’s fall and her intrinsic yearning for disobedience.

Similar to the previous case, Adam appears to reiterate Eve’s constrained capacity and ensure her subjection, constructing the rationale for - or lack thereof - the dream. Eve reacts to Adam’s speech by silently shedding a tear “from either eye, and wipe[s] them with her hair” (130-131, p119). If the hair is a symbol for her submission, the removing of the tears by her hair signifies a replacement of the more intimate and natural emotions by forced servility. The narrative then makes a shift from Eve’s perspective to Adam’s, which mirrors Eve’s surrender to Adam at the moment. Adam sees Eve’s tears as “gracious signs of sweet remorse/ And pious awe, that feared to have offended” (134-135, p119). His view is left unchallenged, and as if Adam’s freedom of interpretation and exemption from rebuttal were not explicit enough, the narrator adds in the beginning of the next verse “so all was cleared” (136, p119), decisively ending a scene, started by Eve, on Adam’s understanding.

The conflict between Eve’s will to confirm her power and the customary prioritization of Adam’s opinion reaches a culmination in the speech Eve directs to herself after eating the real fruit. She reasons that reserving the newly acquired knowledge for herself would “add what wants/ In female sex, the more to draw his (Adam’s) love…” (822-823, p229). The gesture of defining her worth in terms of the expectation and satisfaction of the other sex is itself a denial of her value. Yet immediately following this line of thought is an exceptionally revolutionary idea that keeping the knowledge “render[s] me more equal, and perhaps/ A thing not undesirable, sometimes/ Superior; for inferior who is free?” (823-825, p230) The conspicuous “superior” with a capital “S” succeeds and replaces the former “subjection,” and underlies her transitory sense of superiority, before another tide in the cycle of going back and forth upholds the dependency on Adam and propels her to finally decide to share the knowledge. “Confirmed then I resolve/ Adam shall share with me in bliss or woe” (830-831, p230). These two lines are bizarrely out of place, because Eve digresses from the soliloquy to summarize her action, as if narrating the event to another person, and from a later time, instead of thinking aloud at the moment. The complexity of her speech is thus exhibited by not only the integration of irreconcilable views, but even a conversation within oneself, or between different personas.

It is clear that external factors, especially Adam’s dominance in words and action, reinforce Eve’s subjection, which at times clashes with her questioning of the status quo. Yet the incorporation of different layers of communication in her speeches makes it difficult to put forward a theory that supports either her advocation or denunciation of the submissive role. The conflicting views even serve to check the development of any one, calling the very notion of free will into question. The same characterization applies to the book as a whole. Milton intends to experiment with “things unattempted yet in prose or thyme” (16, p4), and is simultaneously present and absent in his work. By using words such as the “author” to refer to the creator, he himself as the supreme literary creator tacitly joins the power hierarchy in the poem. Yet by never quoting or distinguishing between different standpoints, he preempts the readers from extracting beliefs of his own. Perhaps this style of the poet is another testimony to his constant exploration of free will and the refraining from assertion - of words, and of power - before God.