too simplistic a take.

What a silly critique. I wrote two lines about Milton-- not sure how much nuance you expected to find there. But your claim is way off base anyway-- Milton was a political pampleteer during and before the Interregnum and PL is full of his condemnations of absolute monarchy ("But he who reigns | Monarch in Heav’n, till then as one secure | Sat on his throne, upheld by old repute, | Consent or custom, and his regal state | Put forth at full, but still his strength concealed, | Which tempted our attempt, and wrought our fall" (I, 637-42)). The entire narrative drives toward upending God's tyranny as expressed through Satan's passion for free expression-- virtues he wrote about extensively in Areopagitica-- so to claim Milton regarded rebellion against monarchs as a "highly negative quality" suggests a complete misunderstanding of the entire Milton canon. Book II in particular features a passionate call to arms against God, and given the ensuing debate in Pandemonium it doesn't make much sense to claim Satan's rebellion is meant to suggest any "negative" in this context. To collapse Milton's worldview into mere "puritanism" is about as simplistic as you can get. Try reading Literature and Dissent in Milton's England by Achinstein for more context.