Julia Robitaille
6 June 2021
Milton makes use of garden imagery in Paradise Lost, particularly of the elm tree and its entwining vine to describe Adam and Eve’s relationship. Milton’s idea of marriage is encapsulated in the metaphor of the elm and its vine and their coexistence in a garden with the shared goal of growing upward together towards sunlight, or in the case of Adam and Eve, up toward God (Bare).
Some critics believe that Milton’s vine and elm conceit implies Eve’s dependency on Adam, while others believe it reflects an interdependence of the vine and elm. Others contest these views to suggest the female’s vine independence despite her entanglement with the elm. This essay pushes back against existing critics by arguing that Milton’s monistic worldview, which causes him to conceive of matter and spirit on a continuum as opposed to two dual entities, impedes our ability to apply categories of interdependence or independence upon Adam or Eve in the vine and elm conceit. The lens of Milton’s monism offers a way to both advocate for Adam and Eve’s spiritual equality while sustaining a gendered hierarchy, which matches seventeenth-century norms.
Milton uses language to “redress” Eve as a vine when in in Book IV, she speaks of her own nativity. Eve’s transformation from lying by the bank to a tall, heightened state, entwined with Adam, is analogous to a vine’s ability to cling to a trunk to achieve higher physical stature and implies the female vine’s insufficiency without its elm. In Eve’s nativity, she awakes and finds herself “repos’d / Under a shade of flours” (IV.450-451). Without her elm, she is lost and physically lateral until she sees Adam, “fair indeed and tall” and manages to wrap around him (IV.477). Bare states that the “ultimate lesson in this scene is that Eve’s rightful position is “by [the] side” of Adam” (IV.485).
Milton employs “the abstract hierarchical conception of a relationship in which Eve’s dependence on Adam is central” (Green). In Book IV, when Eve is reluctant to follow Adam’s voice, “she discloses her dependence on and adherence to him, and, as a token of this, rests upon him,” much like a vine wraps around a tree. Milton’s depiction of bodily gestures confirm Adam as Eve’s “natural support in marriage” (Green 308). This follows Milton’s subscription to the biblical idea that “woman was purposely made for man” (Gen 1.27; “Tetrachordon”). This is illustrated in Book V, when Milton writes:
…they led the vine
To wed her elm; she espoused about him twines
Her marriageable arms, and with her brings
Her dower, the adopted clusters, to adorn
His barren leaves (V.212 – 216)
Milton depicts the entanglement of Adam and Eve as a wedding of the female vine to “her elm” for the purpose of benefitting the elm. The female vine “brings” to the elm her dower of fertility — of fruit and flowers to the “barren leaves” of the elm. Meanwhile, the elm provides support for the vine to grow upward and potentially flower and bear fruit. Milton’s garden language depicts the upward spiritual growth of Adam and Eve’s marriage in Paradise, which, in its prime, has the potential to flourish, or bloom (Bare).
While Bare acknowledges occasions in which Adam depends upon Eve, she does not press on this point. A vine does not, in theory, need an elm to exist. Effectively, a vine would not be able to succeed in growing upwards toward sunlight (ascending toward God) without the support of an elm — but a vine, left to its own, can grow laterally. It should be noted, however, that according to Milton, lateral existence is not as fully human as being “erect” and “tall,” as Adam is created in the image of God. The vine and elm’s mutual existence is beneficial to the forest’s ecosystem, as Adam and Eve are necessary to the world. Without the vine, however, the elm cannot flower or bear fruit. Without Eve, Adam cannot procreate and fulfill God’s commandment to “be fruitful, and multiply” (Gen. 128).
As D.P. Harding asserts, “the curled tendrils imply subjection, it is true, but also the kind of encroachment which may ensnare and destroy as well” (69). Eve’s submission does not inhibit her from seeking independence in Paradise Lost, as shown in Book VIII when she parts from Adam and Raphael’s conversation:
And Grace that won who saw to wish her stay,
Rose, and went forth among her Fruits and Flours,
To visit how they prosper’d, bud and bloom,
Her Nurserie; they at her coming sprung
And toucht by her fair tendance gladlier grew (VIII. 43 – 47)
As Eve departs from Adam to tend to her garden of “her Fruits and Flours,” they immediately bloom and appear “gladlier” upon her presence. Eve’s plants prosper at her moment of separation with Adam, conflicting with the idea of the female vine’s submission and dependence on the elm to flower and bear fruit, suggesting Eve’s potential ability to reproduce independently of Adam. The growth of the garden, however, is depicted in the poem as a burden, as its overgrowth is the catalyst for Adam and Eve’s separation. The ease through which Eve makes the garden flourish on her own may suggest that Eve, alone, is capable of danger, whereas in marriage, she serves a role for good.
In Book IX, Adam tells Eve she would be “safest” if she “by husband stays” (IX.268). Eve may be “safest” with Adam, as emphasized by the superlative, but Milton does not assert that Eve cannot not be safe on her own, granting her possibility for independence (Sammons).
In Metamorphoses, Ovid states: “if that tree stood there unmated to the vine, it would have no value save for its leaves alone” (XIV.623-697). Ovid employs the dependence of the elm on the vine through his description of the tree as “truncus” instead of an “arbor,” suggesting the male tree is not complete without its female vine – to be without a vine in a world which values fruitfulness and procreation is “damning” (Green). Without the embrace of the female vine, the elm tree is “barren” (5.219). Eve bears the burden of fruit, and thus has the potential to flower and produce, whereas Adam never will. Therefore, Adam is not physically dependent on the vine for existence, but he is dependent upon her for reproduction.
The elm’s dependence on the vine for reproduction is reflected in Timothy 13-15, which argues that woman is redeemed through childbearing: “Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” (Tim 2:13-15). This verse has been interpreted to suggest that woman is indispensable in the Bible because it is through a woman (Mary) that Jesus is born.
Without Eve’s presence, the garden to which the couple tend in Paradise would be dead, dark, and sterile. We cannot be certain, however, that this would be a bad outcome — bearing fruit and flower is productive, but the overgrowth of the garden is the catalyst for Adam and Eve’s separation. Adam says that gardening is “toilsom” but is only made “sweet” by the presence of Eve (IV. 436). It may be argued that the growth of the garden is divine, only when shared by both Adam and Eve. If gardening is left to Adam alone, the plants would die, and if left to Eve alone, it would overgrow. As Green writes, “it is true that Milton may refer to the couple in terms that seem to indicate their absolute equality, sometimes stressing their separateness as distinct individuals, at other times suggesting that they are complementary halves of a single composite whole, this is clearly not the whole truth” (301).
This suggests a sort of mutual necessity, which I would argue aligns with Milton’s monistic views. The role of Eve in the vine and elm conceit cannot not be neatly fixed into one category of submission or strangulation – only together can Adam and Eve flourish toward God. “Interdependence” or “dependency” may be false ways of looking at the vine and elm relationship because Milton sees them as one.
Milton’s monistic view rejects the Platonic idea that matter and spirit exist as two separate entities, and instead suggests a continuum “in which that which is usually called material is merely further removed from God than that which is normally called spiritual.” (Padgett, Lynn). Milton believes that all beings come from God (ex Deo). Thus, labelling a being as spiritual or corporeal is trivial as they are the same; naming only indicates where one falls on the spectrum. We might imagine the vine as more corporeal and the vine closer to producing spiritous fragrances.
If we view Adam and Eve’s marriage through Milton’s heterodox theory of monism, we see the vine and elm as individual entities, but as inseparable beings on a continuum. As stated by Welshans, Milton’s monist view has been accepted since Stephen Fallon’s claim in Milton Among the Philosophers (1991) – that matter and spirit originally arise from same substance and are thus the same — “spirit is refined matter, and matter is dense spirit” (Fallon 80). Fallon details the process of incorporation (ascending the spiritual ladder, becoming less corporeal) versus disintegration (descending the spiritual ladder and becoming more corporeal) (Welshans 68). According to Milton, becoming less corporeal and more spirituous is the process of becoming closer to God.
Welshans advocates for Milton’s “monist marriage,” in which “couples unite both body and soul for ‘mutual help’ towards spiritual advancement” (66). Milton’s monistic belief “that body and soul are merely two terms for the same substance” encourages us to see Adam and Eve as one soul, as the vine and elm as one entity, working toward mutual advancement.
Thus, if Milton may refer to man as “body” and angel as “spirit,” to distinguish their relative positions on the spectrum, but they are synonymous (Welshans 74-75). As in Protestant theology, Adam and Eve are united through marriage as a single entity — through Milton’s monist view we can interpret Adam and Eve as a single “monist materialist unity” working toward spiritual airieness or ascent (69). As Adam and Eve are joined in marriage, they help each other ‘up to spirit work,’” like the vine and elm work together to grow up towards sunlight and mutual survival (Welshans 69).
Milton’s monism reveals itself in imagery of plants compared to the “aerie” fragrances they emit. In Book V of Paradise Lost, Raphael explains the process by which physical matter turns into airy substance; how body turns to spirit. This can be paralleled to the spectrum on which humans and spiritual beings exist, according to Milton’s monism.
… So from the root
Springs lighter the green stalk, from thence the leaves
More aerie, last the bright consummate floure
Spirits odorous breathes (V.482)
Raphael’s description of the “aerie” fragrances furthers the goal of the vine and elm, which is to grow up together toward God, to grow “lighter the green stalk,” to transform from body to “more aerie,” “spirits odorous” (V.482). In addition to pursuing the mutual health or compatibility of each entity and to ultimately bear fruit (to produce offspring), the marriage serves as a vehicle for spiritual growth.
While the lack of division between body and soul allows the vine and elm to be the same, the hierarchy of the spectrum allows beings to be of differing spiritual ranks, causing complications in labelling Adam and Eve’s roles. According to Milton’s monistic view, the more corporeal “green stalk,” is spiritually inferior compared to the “bright consummate floure,” as the most spirituous odors released by the flowers are each more refined than the last. Since all comes from God, the corporeal and the spiritual are essentially the same, except that which is aerie is more spiritual and closer to God. Milton’s monism in conjunction with the vine and elm conceit makes us wonder if Eve has a higher affinity for spiritual growth than Adam, as the vines’ leaves are closer to producing aerie spirits than a “barren elm,” which only sprouts needles. But only with the support of the elm can the vine produce flowers which emit spiritous fragrances.
Viewing the Paradisal marriage through the lens of Milton’s monism, rejects existing critics which state that one entity is dependent on another, and that rather, once married, the vine and elm become one – body and spirit; elm and vine. Only through marriage intertwined can vine and elm merge into one to achieve spiritual ascent. Welshans argues for equality in Adam and Eve marriage, as she writes: “within this framework, the Platonic hierarchy between matter and spirit falls apart; neither is superior to the other, as spirit itself derives from ‘one first matter.’” (69).
Milton’s heterodox monism makes us portray the vine and elm (Adam and Eve) as equals only when joined together or entwined in marital pursuit, while separately they retain contemporary roles of gendered hierarchy, for “Not equal, as thir sex not equal seemd” (IV.296). Milton notes this in Book IV: “For contemplation hee and valour formd / For softness shee and sweet attractive Grace,” suggesting Adam and Eve are one being (IV.294). In other words, Adam’s intelligence and Eve’s beauty work complimentarily together. Welshans argues that “Adam and Eve ideally work together in a hierarchy where the soul’s intellect (Adam) governs its temporal counterpart (Eve)” (71).
Viewing the vine and elm metaphor through Milton’s monism allows us to see the paradoxical role of the vine as it highlights its simultaneous equality of the vine and elm, in essence, but a potential superiority of the vine as well as its dependency on the elm for spiritual growth.
According to Milton’s monistic marriage ideals, matter cannot be separated from spirit because they are the same, with one only more refined than the other. The vine and elm metaphor seems to contradict this — the vine and elm can separate if they no longer serve as “fit companions in spiritual progress” (Welshans 70). To reconcile Milton’s divorce perspective with the inseparable nature of body and spirit, Milton might argue that if the vine and elm are thriving, there are no grounds for divorce and the two cannot be separated – they are one. But if the couple is not succeeding in ascending, they must physically separate, as they never were one, and must each find their complimentary half in order to ascend.
Since Milton advocates for marriage to be a be union “founded on a couple’s continued intellectual and spiritual compatibility,” if two cease to be compatible for functioning towards mutual spiritual advancement, Milton would argue that they can rightfully divorce. (Welshans 70). That is, if the female vine is not fulfilling its duty in flourishing and producing fragrances spiritous, it can fittingly be pulled by the roots and replaced with another vine – its malleability and mobility allows this. The right of a man to divorce his wife is supported by the Doctrine of Discipline and Divorce. But if the elm does not properly support the vine, can she seek another tree for support? The elm, stiff and erect in nature, is less likely to move. If the elm is not thriving in the relationship, does she have the right to seek another elm?
The vine and elm metaphor, which represents “the intertwining of two organic elements together” is a suitable metaphor for describing Milton’s view on marriage which bases its validity on love and compatibility rather than the rites of vows. Milton’s monistic view on marriage provides nuances to the vine and elm conceit, preventing us from being free to identify dependence of the vine on the elm – in marriage, the vine and elm are they are one entity, working together for spiritual advancement. Only together can the entangled couple ascend upwards, closer to God.
Works Cited
Bare, Alison L. “A Lakoffian Reading of the Vine-Elm Metaphor in John Milton’s Paradise
Lost.” ANQ (Lexington, Ky.) 29.3 (2016): 134–137. Web.
Green, Mandy. “‘The Vine and Her Elm’: Milton’s Eve and the Transformation of an Ovidian
Motif.” The Modern Language Review, vol. 91, no. 2, 1996, pp. 301–316. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3735013. Accessed 9 May 2021.
Davis P. Harding, The Club of Hercules: Studies in the Classical Background of ‘Paradise Lost’,
Illinois Studies in Language and Literature, 50 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1962), p.69.
Fallon, Stephen M.. Milton Among the Philosophers: Poetry and Materialism in Seventeenth Century England. United States, Cornell University Press, 2018.
Milton, John. “The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce” The John Milton Reading Room. Edited by Thomas Luxon. https://milton.host.dartmouth.edu/reading_room/ddd/book_1/text.shtml. Accessed 18 May 2021.
Milton, John. “Paradise Lost” The John Milton Reading Room. Edited by Thomas Luxon https://milton.host.dartmouth.edu/reading_room/pl/book_1/text.shtml. Accessed 18 May 2021.
Milton, John. “Tetrachordon” The John Milton Reading Room. Edited by Thomas Luxon https://milton.host.dartmouth.edu/reading_room/tetrachordon/intro/text.shtml. Accessed 18 May 2021.
Mustard, Wilfred Pirt. Stories from Ovid’s Metamorphoses. United Kingdom, Macmillan, 1907.
Ovid. United States, Harper & Bros., 1844.
Sammons, Todd H. “‘As the Vine Curls Her Tendrils’: Marriage Topos and Erotic Countertopos in
‘Paradise Lost.’” Milton Quarterly, vol. 20, no. 4, 1986, pp. 117–127. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24464148. Accessed 10 May 2021.
The Bible. Genesis 1.28. King James Version, Bible Hub. https://biblehub.com/genesis/1-28.htm
The Bible. Timothy 2:13-15. King James Version, Bible Hub. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+2%3A13-15&version=KJV
Padgett, Jeffrey L. The Monistic Continuity of the Miltonic Heresy, 1987.
Welshans, Melissa. “‘So Hand in Hand They Passed’: Hand-Holding and Monist Marriage in Paradise Lost.” Journal for early modern cultural studies 18.1 (2018): 66–97. Web.
Hart, D. Bentley. “Matter, Monism, and Narrative: An Essay on the Metaphysics of ‘Paradise Lost.’” Milton Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 1, 1996, pp. 16–27. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24465026. Accessed 3 June 2021.