Report Template - Jubilee Centre

ROYALISTS, REPUBLICANS, FIFTH MONARCHISTS AND LEVELLERS
The second edition of The readie and easie way (1660)
contains Milton’s most extensive treatment of
“gentilism.” He notes on the title page that this edition
is both revised and augmented, and in the text,
“especially that part which argues for a perpetual
Senat.” 187 That augmentation includes a use of
Matthew 20 not found in the first edition.
Gentilism of Monarchy and House of
Lords versus Servant Leadership in a
Perpetual Senate
Milton’s first instance of civil “gentilism” is found
without any changes in both editions, juxtaposed with
England’s impending return to kingship, and a
reminder of God’s displeasure over Israel’s rejection of
its divine commonwealth. He reminds his readers that
the “wisest men in all ages” have perceived “a free
Commonwealth” as “the noblest, the manliest, the
equallest, the justest government, the most agreeable to
all due libertie and proportiond equalitie, both human,
civil, and Christian, most cherishing to vertue and true
religion.” He qualifies these descriptives by claiming
that a commonwealth, “with greatest probabilitie,” was
“planely commended, or rather enjoind by our Saviour
himself, to all Christians,” and “not without remarkable
disallowance, and the brand of gentilism upon kingship.”
Milton reiterates that “God in much displeasure gave a
king to the Israelites, and imputed it a sin to them that
they sought one: but Christ apparently forbids his
disciples to admitt of any such heathenish
government.” 188 Milton then alters the AV translation
of the Matthew text to match his admonition against
kingship:
The kings of the gentiles, saith he, exercise
lordship over them; and they that exercise
authoritie upon them, are call’d benefactors:
but ye shall not be so; but he that is greatest
among you, let him be as the younger; and he
that is chief, as he that serveth.” 189
It is only here that Milton inserts “kings” instead of
rulers or princes of the gentiles. He continues to use his
preferred reading of “lordship” as opposed to the AV’s
rendering of dominion, though he also adds
“authoritie.” He even alters the AV’s minister, not with
the noun servant, but with the verb “serveth.” Milton
was probably motivated to translate the Greek terms
these ways to impress upon his readers the impending
dangers inherent in a return to monarchy, and it is only
here that he explains how he reasoned his civil-servant
theme.
That Christ is speaking “of civil government,” states
Milton, “is manifest by the former part of the
comparison, which infers the other part to be alwaies in
the same kinde.” Milton seems to mean that “the kings
of the gentiles,” which “exercise lordship,” represent the
former civil part of the comparison, which directs the
character of the latter part, and implies that “greatest”
and “chief” are also civil roles, but whose function it is to
serve. Christ then delivered a civil maxim; that
“government” which “comes neerer to this precept of
Christ,” is a “free Commonwealth.” Milton poignantly
contrasts the nature of a commonwealth with a
monarchy by highlighting the characteristics of servant
leadership found in the Matthew text, which only a
commonwealth embraces, and which a monarchy, by its
nature, rejects. “They who are greatest, are perpetual
servants and drudges to the public at thir own cost and
charges, neglect thir own affairs; yet are not elevated
above their brethren.” These are qualities far removed
from kings, who “must be ador’d like a Demigod.”
Milton augments the nature of their service as
“perpetual,” used only here, to endorse his standing
senate, to counter the common pleas for successive
Parliaments. He amplifies such qualities further as
selfless and sacrificial in contrast with the idolatrous
demands of self-absorbed kings. 190
Such service harmonises well with the injunction
against kings in Deuteronomy 17 to not exalt
themselves above the ruled, but which these sons of
Zebedee were attempting in Christ’s kingdom. 191 Milton
employs a clipped version of the Deuteronomy passage
to enforce his comparison of God’s displeasure over
Israel’s desire for a king, or “heathenish government,”
with Christ’s proscription of such. He also refers to a
commonwealth as a “self-governing democracie”
embodying “the joint providence and counsel of many
industrious equals,” 192 and in support of a senate body.
Milton’s combined assessment of the prohibitions
against this status of civil exaltation, which he read from
Deuteronomy 17 and Matthew 20, coupled with his
sense of their normative force, since both find their
authority as divine commands, seems to illumine his
preference for a commonwealth without human
lordship, and a perpetual senate of civil servants.
Milton’s second and third references to the Matthew
text are found in both editions, clipped, and related
again to the Deuteronomy 17 text in regards to
kingship. Milton stands amazed as to “how any man
187
Milton, The readie and easie way to establish a free commonwealth,
Second Edition (London, 1660), 5.
188
Ibid., 25-26
189
Ibid., 26-27.
190
Ibid., 27-28.
191
Ibid., 27-28.
192
Ibid., 35.
35