Who Is Naming The Animals?

The story of Adam naming the animals is a prominent image in both the Bible and in John Milton’s Paradise Lost, although what it means to name something, and, conversely, to have one’s name taken away from oneself, is not always clear. It seems that if one can name someone or thing, it shows that one has authority over the named, with authority being defined herein as the right to command and give orders, as in the case of Adam naming the animals. Paradoxically, naming as the way to confer authority is supported by two different ideologies, which are in tension with one another throughout Paradise Lost. In other words, God, as creator of the universe, has the right to name his creations because he is the one who gave the life, and he also
can delegate some of his naming power to Adam. In essence, God’s use of naming by way to establish authority exemplifies the idea of divine right to rule. On the other hand, once the fallen angels lose their original names, they are renamed by mankind as their pagan gods, hinting that now man has authority over them, and that the fallen angels only have authority over man as their gods because man gave them that power. This mode aligns with Milton’s view on the source of authority, as demonstrated in his prose work The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, which says that it is in people “whom the power yet remains fundamentally and cannot be taken from them” (Milton 1030). I am arguing that, because naming gives one authority over the named yet the two ways naming confers authority, these two modes are in tension with one another, yet God has to grant mankind the ability to name things in order for their free will to remain intact.
To begin with, how naming works within the structure of Paradise Lost must be examined, particularly in light of how God uses naming to establish his supremacy.
For example, God tells Adam, “ Possess it [the Earth], and all things that therein live, or live in the sea, or air, beast, fish, and fowl. / In sign whereof each bird and beast behold / After their kinds; I bring them to receive /From thee their names” (8.338-344). First, note the imperative of the form “possess,” suggesting that God is not so much as giving Adam the Earth as a gift but rather commanding him to own it; Adam has no choice in this and must obey. Secondly, the inverted syntax of “I bring them to receive / From thee their names,” or placing “thee” in front of “their,” indicates that God is using language to imply that Adam is now superior to all the animals. Also, the use of “thee” is telling in that “thee” is the accusative form of “thou,” which was considered the familiar form of the more formal “you,” suggesting a close personal relationship between Adam and God. Adam was, after all, created in God’s image, and now he is like God in that he is ruler over his own dominion, namely, the Earth and the animals. Adam’s newfound power is first exercised in his ability to name the animals, suggesting that if one is able to name something, one has power or authority over that thing. However, Adam cannot do this without God also displaying his power, implying that even though naming allows Adam to have
authority over the animals, there is still a hierarchy of power with God at the top. Consider how God says, “ I bring them to receive /From thee their names,” and the imperative “bring” again communicates how God is still superior over everyone and everything, and that he too has dominion over the animals. But by bringing the animals to Adam, he is delegating some of his power to Adam so that Adam may name them. Thus it seems that God is creator of the world and all of its inhabitants, and thus he has ultimate authority over them, yet in allowing Adam to name the animals establishes that he is giving Adam, and accordingly all of his descendants, power over them.
Likewise, Adam seems to understand the hierarchical structure of power between himself and God, and that ‘God’ is not a name, but a title. For one thing, Adam asks God for God’s own name when Adam says, “‘O by what name, for thou are above all these, /Above mankind, or aught than mankind higher, / Surpassest far my naming, how may I /Adore thee, Author of this universe’” (8. 357-360). In saying that God “surpassest far my naming,” Adam acknowledges that there is power in naming, and that naming confers authority over someone or something else, especially since Adam does not deign to name God but asks God for his name instead.
In addition, Adam is not only recognizing God’s supreme authority, he is also acknowledging that ‘God’ is a title, or office. In saying that God “Surpassest far my naming, how may I /Adore thee, Author of this universe,” Adam is asking for a personal link to God by asking his personal name. “Adore thee” connotes a sense of familiarity, especially with the use of “thee,” and similarly, “adore” implies a strong emotional bond. Yet “adore” also is akin to worship in that “adore” seems more fervent than simply “love,” signifying that Adam is asking for God’s personal name to worship, which perhaps suggests that Adam is recognizing the person of God as God, or that he sees that God is a title, but he wants to know God’s personal name. God nonetheless remains silent on this issue, and does not answer Adam within the text. The fact that God does not reveal his name to Adam here poses a difficult question to answer, but it is likely because God is not required to give out his name because he is the only true authority figure. Despite the personal relationship God and Adam share, it seems that God wants his title to be still at the forefront of Adam’s mind, perhaps to reassert God’s highest authority in that only he may be called God and to reinforce the hierarchy of power. The phrase “Author of this universe,” however, casts God’s role as God into two. That is, “author” can be taken to mean one that writes or creates something, such as the author of a book, which aptly characterizes God’s role as the creator of “this universe.” In addition, “author” could mean one who has authority over something, which makes it seem possible that God has his authority because he is the author of the universe. In other words, God is God, or the one who rules the universe, because he is the one who created it and all the lives within it, and therefore his word is law and cannot be contested; he has divine right to rule, and no one can overthrow him, signifying his enduring supremacy.
God maintains his divine right even after he expels Satan and his minions from Heaven into Hell. Consider how, even after Satan’s minions fell and they lost their names, they were renamed by mankind, and as pagan gods no less, even if God retained his power:
“ Though of their names in Heav’nly records now Be no memorial, blotted out and razed By their rebellion, from the Books of Life. Nor had they yet among the sons of Eve Got them new names…
With gay religions full of pomp and gold,
And devils to adore for deities” (.361-373).
If naming something confers authority upon the namer, it appears taking the name away from someone does not take away authority from the namer, but it rather takes away the identity of the unnamed.
First of all, the lines “though of their names in Heav’nly records now / Be no memorial, blotted out and razed / By their rebellion, from the Books of Life” creates an image of two acts of their names being stripped from the “Books of Life.” At first, their names are merely “blotted out” from the “Books of Life,” meaning that their names are still in the “Books of Life,” but now they are marked or covered so that they can no longer be read. Then the names are “razed,” meaning their names are cut out completely from the “Books of Life,” negating any hope to undo the damage the blotting had done. The effect of the blotting out, then, is that if anyone were to find the scraps of paper razed, no one would still be able to know the names of the fallen angels, meaning that there is no way their old names could exist. The “Books of Life,” then, seem to depict a record of all names that God has bestowed upon others, for if he is the one doing the blotting and the razing, it stands to reason the he originally named them. Yet even if he takes their names away, he still has power over them, for he is still able to cast them out of heaven and into hell, although now their former identities as angels are completely destroyed. In a sense, then, he created them anew as devils, which still fits
his mold as a creator-author, meaning God still has authority. In summation, God retains his divine right to rule through his authorship, and hence naming, over all living beings. Yet despite God’s retention of power, Adam’s descendants seem to gain authority over the fallen angels once they rename the fallen angels, yet in doing so, man renames the devils as pagan gods. Ironically, however, this does fit a the mode of derivation of authority described in The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, which states in no uncertain terms that “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….in whom the power yet remains fundamentally and cannot be taken from them” (Milton 1030). In other words, kings and magistrates, or, as used in the context of Paradise Lost, any kind of ruler, such as a god, must derive their power from the people. Although God’s divine right to rule dominates the majority of Paradise Lost,it is this one moment in which the reader learns that the devils are renamed demonstrates the principle laid out in The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates. Consider how the narrator says “ Nor had they yet among the sons of Eve / Got them new names...With gay religions full of pomp and gold, /And devils to adore for deities,” with the “sons of Eve” denoting the descendants of Adam and Eve, or all of mankind. The phrase “pomp and gold” refers to pagan religions, as “pomp” connotes frivolity and “gold” symbolizes worldly matters rather than piety. But that the “sons of Eve” have “devils to adore for deities” suggests that once man names a devil as a pagan god and worships that devil, that man does ultimately have authority over the devils, inasmuch as man is able to name them and give them identities as a pagan god. Moreover, the word “adore” here is used in the same sense as it was in the earlier exchange between Adam and God. That is, the devils as pagan gods are fulfilling the same role and title as God in that they too are afforded a type of relationship as well as worship. But the difference is that, while God will not tell Adam his name, mankind gives the pagan gods their names. Ultimately, granting the devils new names shows how “the power of kings and magistrates is nothing else but what is only derivative, transferred and committed to them in trust from the people,” and this “trust” is manifested in mankind’s willingness to “adore” them as god, showing that indeed it is the people “in whom the power yet remains fundamentally and cannot be taken from them.”