From Oblivion To Influence: Rediscovering Milton’s Eikonoklastes In Political Thought – OpEd
“Eikonoklastes” is a polemical work written by John Milton in 1649, directly responding to “Eikon Basilike,” a work attributed to Charles I that presented the executed king as a pious martyr. Commissioned by the Commonwealth government, Milton’s “Eikonoklastes” aimed to counteract this royalist narrative, defending the actions of the Parliamentarians and justifying the regicide. The book is a substantial treatise, characteristic of 17th-century political and religious discourse, spanning several hundred pages of dense, scholarly prose.
Belonging to the genre of polemical literature, “Eikonoklastes” is a piece of political and religious advocacy. It falls within the broader category of pamphlet literature, a common medium for public debate during the English Civil War and Interregnum. Milton’s polemic is intended to persuade and influence public opinion through rigorous argumentation and rhetorical strategies, showcasing his engagement with Puritanism and republicanism.
Milton wrote “Eikonoklastes” in English, making it accessible to a wide audience in England. The language of the text is sophisticated and erudite, reflecting Milton’s extensive education and mastery of classical rhetoric. His complex and forceful use of English aims to convince readers through the power of his arguments and the clarity of his prose.
Religion played a crucial role in shaping Milton’s arguments in “Eikonoklastes.” As a staunch Puritan, Milton was deeply influenced by the tenets of personal piety, moral rigor, and opposition to religious corruption. These beliefs permeate “Eikonoklastes,” where Milton critiques the religious hypocrisy of Charles I and argues for a more authentic Christian leadership. His Puritan convictions are evident throughout the text, reflecting his deep-seated belief that true Christian governance must align with scriptural teachings and moral integrity.
Milton criticizes the portrayal of Charles I in “Eikon Basilike” as a saintly martyr, arguing that the king’s actions were inconsistent with true Christian values. He writes, “He who would have thought himself most wronged, and counted it half no less than treason to have been so cited, if this were a question, whether he loved God or no; and yet being able to bring witness of his not loving him, should lose by the verdict.” This critique of Charles’s religious hypocrisy is central to Milton’s argument, as it undermines the royalist portrayal of the king as a pious and just ruler. Milton exposes the disparity between Charles’s public persona and his actual deeds, emphasizing the king’s failure to embody the virtues he purportedly espoused.
Furthermore, Milton challenges the notion of divine right, asserting that political legitimacy must be based on reason and justice rather than hereditary privilege. He........
© Eurasia Review
visit website