By Jamie Burke (Fall 2022)
In this essay, John Milton’s Tenure of Kings and Magistrates will be analyzed. This will be done while looking at this text through the lens of politics and nationality, with a focus on identifying the role narratives and imagery play in the politics and historical context surrounding this work. I will also argue that Milton’s aim of combating the images and narratives of the English Royalists and precision in doing so displays a level of political savvy in the author. His own positions are couched in religiosity and he works within the theological framework of contemporary England to back up his claims and discredit those in the opposite camp from him. To put it succinctly, Milton utilizes morality, religion, and some republican ideals to justify the parliamentarians’ decision to kill King Charles the First and help topple the divine right of kings. I will focus my arguments into how different aspects of contemporary English life and politics play into supporting the argument for regicide and how Milton undermines the moral and religious grounds on which many Royalist arguments are founded upon. First of these aspects will be religion, as the image of King Charles I as a Christ figure is a powerful one, and Milton’s own arguments are religious in nature and display a strong foundation in theology on the author’s part. Another aspect is morality, something which is heavily entwined with religion in 17th century England. Lastly, I will cover how Milton supports popular rule and more decentralized and equitable styles of governance and how that plays into the wider political context of England and Europe. This period of history colored by revolutionary ideals and change has always interested me and I wish to help deepen my understanding of the period with this essay.
The historical event in which Milton’s Tenure of Kings and Magistrates is written in the wake of was the execution of King Charles the First of England by the parliamentarians who had solidified their control over England in the aftermath of Charles’s defeat in the Second English Civil War. The Second English Civil war was a conflict between supporters of the king Charles the First who I will refer to as Royalists, and the Parliamentarians. It occurred shortly after the First English Civil War which happened when Charles garnered support and raised various armies to his side after his defeat in the first civil war. At the end of the Second Civil war the Parliamentarians were faced with the problem of a captive king who would surely attempt to raise another army to his side just as he had before, so the Parliamentarians elected to try and execute him for high treason. The conflict between Parliament and the King was a longstanding one but many people quickly came to regret executing the King and he was propped up as a martyr by some. Theology played a crucial role in the conflict, as Charles the First claimed divine right of kings, which meant that to him and his supporters, his actions had the support of God and any hindrances or checks on his or any other reagent was an act against divine will. A counterpoint to this position is provided by Milton in The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, which puts forth the idea that man was not created to be subordinate to a king.
John Milton was an English intellectual and poet best known for his epic poem Paradise Lost. But before he publish said poem which would arguably inform the trajectory of modern protestant theology, Milton wrote a number of political texts and pamphlets which were distributed to argue against the positions of his opponents the Royalists who had begun framing Charles I as a martyr, and Presbyterians who had condemned their previous decision to kill king Charles I, and offer his reasoning for why the regicide was justified. That of course is a simplification of the message conveyed in The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, as Milton also offers wider insight into his worldview and how it interfaces with the present political situation in the wake of Charles the First’s execution. It also called for its readers to recontextualize their place in the world and see that, “No man who knows ought, can be so stupid to deny that all men naturally were borne free, being the image and resemblance of God himself, and were by privilege above all the creatures, born to command and not to obey: and that they liv’d so.” (Milton) This stance is starkly contrasted with the decades of traditional divine right style governance where royalty’s primacy over the peasantry was self-evident, in a political and moral sense; kings could not and should not be held responsible for their actions as a commoner could. This concept is predicated on the idea that Kings draw their right to rule directly from God, which Milton disputes, “It being thus manifest, that the power of kings and magistrates is nothing else but what is only derivative, transferred, and committed to them in trust from the people to the common good of them all.” (Milton) He does this while keeping theology in mind by referencing biblical tales of kings, judges, and other rules of the tribes of Israel as a historical source for his claims. While the Royalists had christ-imagery and precedent for Christendom to govern itself by way of divinely anointed kings, Milton founded his anti-monarchy arguments in theology and the subtext of various biblical tales which would have been common knowledge to most contemporary readers of his published argumentative works. Namely the biblical narrative of who should govern the united tribes of Israel, where God initially sees no need for a king despite the Israelites cries for one. These cries would eventually result in a king which Samuel claims God to have rejected in light of his poor performance. These biblical stories when read in this specific way provide a strong narrative for the self-governance of Christians either directly, or through the vessel of a righteous king who represents their people (such as the biblical King David).
It was common for English intellectuals to use excerpts and stories to support their arguments within the context of political writings and pamphlets. These primarily argumentative works which seek to outline and defend a certain line of thinking were common especially in the wake of King Charles the First’s death due to the controversy surrounding the situation. They were also a mainstay of contemporary British politics and intellectual activism. Milton who served as a civil servant for the English Commonwealth under Parliamentary control wished to undermine various pamphlets and speeches where were offering a counter-narrative of the execution, reframing the affair as a regrettable and rash decision to send a proud and noble king to his death made by men who had no right to do so, rather than the execution of a violent tyrant. Of particular importance to Milton was the decision of the Royalists and others who had come to regret the regicide to portray to set up King Charles the First as a christ-like-martyr and reinforce the King’s connection to divinity through the publication of works such as Eikon Basilike in the wake of his execution. While still coming from a distinctly protestant English framework, this line of thinking runs contrary to Milton’s belief that God created man who then gave power to Kings and can thus revoke that power freely. Milton then characterizes his opponents as unchristian or at the very least misguided by implying that they rever a mortal man more than they do God by stating, “Thirdly, it follows, that, to say kings are accountable to none but God, is the overturning of all law and government. For if they may refuse to give account, then all covenants made with them at coronation, all oaths, are in vain, and mere mockeries; all laws which they swear to keep, made to no purpose: for if the king fear not God, (as how many of them do not!) we hold then our lives and estates by the tenure of his mere grace and mercy, as from a god, not a mortal magistrate; a position that none but court-parasites or men besotted would maintain!” (Milton) This sort of playfully mocking tone is common in argumentative works written by contemporary intellectuals in England and is a clear indicator that this text is part of a wider debate within the sphere of British culture. It is at once responding to the present situation of the King’s execution and all past present and future arguments which may oppose Milton’s position on the topic and Parliamentarianism. Because of this the debate surrounding the Execution of King Charles the First is a sort of battle over which narrative English society will accept, and thus whether or not England still believes in the divine right of kings.
Milton’s wider body of works include religious and political writings, although those lines are often blurred. For instance within his best-known piece Paradise Lost, the protagonist of the earlier part of the story, Satan who was created as an angel by God and subsequently cast out after his rebellion, styles himself as King in his palace at Pandemonium in hell. This shows clearly that even evil people can become powerful rulers without God’s explicit approval. As a king, Satan also declares his rebellion against God, which was meant to be a self-evident irony as God created him and thus his ability to rebel hinges on God’s power and will for him to be able to do so. This is another way in which Milton makes Satan an allegory for real-world corrupt rulers, as they position themselves to be served above God which is an act of rebellion despite being created in his image as all people were in Christian theology. In other words, by putting themselves above his creations, Kings claim to be closer to divinity than mortality.
That is the argument that Milton uses to discredit the divine right of kings, which allows him to reposit his idea that Kings govern and make laws on behalf of the people and should thus be beholden to their word as well as other checks on their power, and most importantly be able to be removed from power if they no longer represent the will of the people they govern. Or as he puts it, “It follows, lastly, that since the king or magistrate holds his authority of the people, both originally and naturally for their good in the first place, and not his own; then may the people, as oft as they shall judge it for the best, either choose him or reject him, retain him or depose him though no tyrant, merely by the liberty and right of freeborn men to be governed as seems to them best.” (Milton)
While the idea of divine right to rule is no longer a popular one to defend in the modern world, Milton’s ground-up model of ideal governance which asserts that all rulers rule at the whim of the people to better represent them was foundational to the ideals of many if not all of the early modern revolutions such as the American and French revolutions. This democratic ideal which is rooted in Christian thought offered a crucial counter-narrative to the absolute power of monarchy which would pave the way for modern forms of representative government. Within the context of modern-day England, the monarchy still exists but in a much different form than how it did during the times of the English Civil Wars. Now they have a minimal role in governing their people and more clearly rule at their behest, rather than over them, although the royal family’s place in the United Kingdom is subject to much debate. That debate comes directly as a result of Milton’s assertion that the people should be able to choose if a Monarch has the right to rule over them, and the fact that there is a strong movement to abolish the monarchy is testament to that.
Works Cited
Togashi, Go. “Milton and the Presbyterian Opposition, 1649–1650: The Engagement Controversy and ‘The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates’, Second Edition (1649).” Milton Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 2, 2005, pp. 59–81. JSTOR.
This work is licensed under Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
