Evil: Shakespeare Vs. Milton

Shakespeare and Milton had very different views on evil. While Milton was rather explicit about his views on the subject (in Paradise Lost, at least), Shakespeare's perspective seems to be an implicit one hidden underneath the surface of his works. Milton follows the Judeo-Christian tradition of good and evil and moral absolutes. Conversely, Shakespeare applies a very modern concept of good and evil in which evil is not defined by an absolute moral law, but by our understandings of and interactions with each other.

Milton takes the traditional, Christian perspective on evil-namely, that there is an absolute form of evil as opposed to good. God, obviously, is seen as the ultimate form of good, and Satan, though once good, is no longer good (but evil) since he rebelled against the ultimate good. Although it is common knowledge that Satan is supposed to be evil, it is quite common for most people, as they begin to read Paradise Lost, to sympathize with Satan, the ultimate evil, in the beginning of the poem. This has even led some to say that Satan is, in a sense, the protagonist of the story. If that is so, then perhaps Milton was trying to say that true evil, as those of the Judeo-Christian tradition have always thought, does not exist-after identifying with and trying to understand characters' true motivations, however skewed they are, it becomes difficult to blame them. However, in my opinion, it would seem a bit too sympathetic for someone to sympathize with Satan after he tempts poor, innocent Adam and Eve-that was terribly evil. More likely, Milton was using that to help his readership understand the danger of evil by helping them understand the origin of evil in relation to Satan. Satan started out good in heaven, and, even after his fall, it seems easy for us to sympathize with him. After this, though, Milton shows us the danger of any such sympathy with such a thoroughly evil figure by showing how evil Satan really is and how easy it is for that evil is to spread (to innocent humans like us).

Shakespeare takes a totally different approach to evil. The first thing to note is that the supernatural is usually absent (aside from a few things like Hamlet's father's ghost); essentially, his plays often deal with the reality of the real problems of real people. Even in comedies like Twelfth Night, there are characters (albeit imperfect) with real desires. The conflict of these desires (not necessarily good or bad) is what causes problems. If anything can be called evil in such comedies, it is these problems-and, even then, only maybe. In Shakespeare's other, more serious plays, this is amplified. In plays like Hamlet, this is still the essential problem. There is no external, supreme form of evil exerting itself on the characters; there are only the problems that characters cause for themselves and each other. Therefore the only evil that exists, in Shakespeare's mind, is the evil that people create for themselves. Also, if everybody has these desires, then nobody is essentially evil, which means that everybody is essentially good.

Shakespeare and Milton both had very different ideas about evil. Shakespeare's more modern take on the subject may be one of the reasons that he is so much more admired and remembered by modern readers as opposed to writers like Spencer, Marlowe, and Milton. Though at the same time, Milton's interesting yet outright take on the traditional view might also be why his epic poem has survived to be enjoyed by the tastes of modern readers.

Sources:
Book - The Complete Pelican Shakespeare
Book - The Norton Anthology of English Literature, eighth edition, volume 1
Book - Paradise Lost & Paradise Regained, by John Milton, Signet Classics version with introduction by Dr. Susanne Woods