Many ways to read this epic poem. Besides flat text versions from Wikisource and Project Gutenberg, here's a PDF, typeset with 17th century inspiration: http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/arts/lit/paradiselost.pdf
I do a lot with 18th-century music and living history, where long esses are prevalent, and it's been a common point of confusion for students/the public that turns into a gag. I released a book of original music a few years ago[1] and people still call me a "compofer"
When I first read it I thought about how hell experienced all the forms of government in the Republic with democracy leading to tyranny. Then a few years ago I started to reread it and couldn't find the pattern as though I made it up all those years ago. It was just that I was so sure something was some way and in the end it was just a hallucination.
I most enjoyed the part where Satan, Moloc, Beelzebub and the rest of his fellowship discuss whether to retake Heaven and by what strategy, and they end up deciding that Satan alone shall sneak into Eden. I half expected him to say he'd throw his ring into the fire there :-)
Blake was right though – the parts not about devils are quite forgettable.
I had never read it, but just read the summary and couldn't believe the similarity to Mormonism's creation/fall story. Which led me to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlrPpbalG-g
It is a much different read if you approach it with some prior knowledge of what it was intended to be. The preface plainly states that Milton wants to "justify the ways of god to men."
The plot and structure are a direct knock-off of Homer's epic poems. Milton followed a regimen of writing that was old before he was born, in that first people would write lyrics and sonnets and then eventually hone their skills toward writing an epic. So there's not a whole lot of meat, for lack of a better word, in the structure of the poem itself. It is assumed that the reader knows their classics and identifies the references themselves.
The clever parts are in the details. Milton's angels and demons have philosophical/political debates and conversations which invite the reader to consider hard questions and make conclusions of their own. Milton even considers the mathematical and philosophical questions of being in the poem, for example. Satan asks permission of the "throne of Chaos" to travel through his domain from Hell to Earth. Satan's plea to Chaos is that by creating his universe, god stole from him and he should help anyone who opposes that creation. So it is implied that Chaos is a force perhaps not comparable in status to the one god, but certainly above immortal beings like angels and demons, so perhaps Chaos and God are naturally opposed, entropy vs order, etc. And even this is ideologically and theologically consistent down to the detail. Satan doesn't really know how powerful Chaos is, but should he? Chaos is older and greater than any angel or demon, so it follows that angels and demons would not know exactly how powerful Chaos is, but would know that Chaos is greater than they are. Similarly, the battle scene in heaven between Satan's rebelling army and the angels loyal to God begins with all of them not really knowing whether they can be killed or not. They consider whether all of their fighting is for nothing, because they're immortal. This is another thing that, logically and philosophically, they would not know on their own because they didn't create themselves, after all. They were created, and thus are necessarily lesser than the creator who does know.
"Justify the ways of god to men" to Milton was an attempt to "fix" Christian doctrine, to fill in the blanks and missing parts and make it all fit together without any contradictions or failures of reason.
But here lie conclusions that are difficult to reason away: if Satan rebelled against God and God is all-knowing, why didn't God stop him? Is all of creation an experiment in free will (which makes everyone a pawn), or can God himself not kill one of his immortal angels? If the latter, is he not really God if there's something he cannot do? Was Jesus/The Son just a ruse to root out disloyalty among angels?
And really all of these things get to "does the universe even matter or does whatever created it not care about it?"
The whole thing is not just a religious text, although it is about a religious doctrine. It's a text meant to teach people how to think, so that they would overthrow their kings and noble rulers and rule themselves, just as Milton portrayed in his last writing (a rewrite of the story of Samson Agonistes).
Paradise Lost was the highlight of my undergrad literature degree, by far.
You won't get 10% of it reading it alone on the first time. There are so many little nuances and considerations and philosophical grey areas that someone could spend a lifetime on it and still have things left to do.
I took this course to understand what the whole fuss around 'Paradise Lost' meant. I was utterly mind-blown, learning its snide references to free will, tyranny, slavery, civil liberty, etc. in the poem. What I once thought was a retelling of the Bible, surprised me with its political nuances.
I thought I hated literature and philosophy until I took a philosophy 101 course that I procrastinated until my final semester at UT.
It was basically two professors (one was Dutch that was co-teaching the course until he would transition to be a stand-alone professor) and a class of 12 students at a university where I was used to intro courses in 200-student lecture halls.
The enthusiasm of the professors was contagious. And they turned text that would have been boring / misunderstood if read on my own into lines that were couched in all sorts of humor and greater commentary about the world, and I was hooked. They taught me how to enjoy literature that otherwise would have seemed totally dull and dry and it was a real gift.
Over a decade later, I was at a bar and somehow Plato's Gorgias came up with a stranger and we both half-jokingly agreed that Callicles was right about the world. And I thought about how thankful I was for that philosophy class once again.
A recommendation to the Dutch "precursor" to Paradise Lost: Vondel's "Lucifer" is a tight five-act play along the same lines. It's about a century older than Paradise Lost, with a contemporary energy that's quite fun and punchy, and a quick read.
Noel Clark's translation gives it a modern air of office politics as Lucifer and Beelzebub quarrel with Gabriel on how to behave in their shared workplace.
There's a bit of OT apocrypha that's a likely source of inspiration for Paradise Regained, Milton's sequel to Paradise Lost. I believe it was the Book of Adam (or something similarly titled). A quick Google search doesn't turn up anything likely and the I lent the volume I had which included this apocryphon to my brother who subsequently lost it at some point later, so I only have 20+ year old memories of the book.
There's a long tradition of retellings and expansions of Biblical stories in both Christianity and Judaism that also contributed a great deal to Paradise Lost.
Forgotten Books of Eden. Apparently it's less obscure than I thought, which gave me a Wikipedia article with the contents. The text was the First and Second Book of Adam and Eve aka Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan. Wikipedia article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_Adam_and_Eve_with_...
Blake's illustrations for Paradise Lost can be found on Wikipedia [0]. They're incredibly fine works of illustration that a web browser can't do justice to.
Paradise Lost is extremely poorly written religious fan-fiction. The first 4 chapters which describe how Lucifer became lucifer are actually sort of interesting, and then the most boring, wordy, and repetitive of narratives are told for the next 15? Chapters
I'd rather reread such (by comparison) brief works like "A tale of two cities" because literally any other work was far less wordy and far more interesting.
Paradise Lost is the only book I've ever just put down and refused to finish for a "honors" English class in senior year. If you are forced to read this crap for a class - just find the sparknotes and read something more comprehensible in the mean time.
Good to have a counaussseur around here. Fuck these other dogs dog. Dog shit up. Upvoted. Mr Fucking Reality. Fuck these 'literary' critics. It's all a scam anyway. Vote shit up. Vote this fucker up cocksucers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
36 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 72.5 ms ] threadTIL that ſ (long s) is an archaic form of the lower case letter s.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s
The latter-day Futurama episode "All the Presidents' Heads" uses it as joke a couple times when they time-warp during the American Revolution.
[1] - https://github.com/tsmacdonald/first-collection/blob/master/...
https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/john-milton/paradise-lost
Blake was right though – the parts not about devils are quite forgettable.
The plot and structure are a direct knock-off of Homer's epic poems. Milton followed a regimen of writing that was old before he was born, in that first people would write lyrics and sonnets and then eventually hone their skills toward writing an epic. So there's not a whole lot of meat, for lack of a better word, in the structure of the poem itself. It is assumed that the reader knows their classics and identifies the references themselves.
The clever parts are in the details. Milton's angels and demons have philosophical/political debates and conversations which invite the reader to consider hard questions and make conclusions of their own. Milton even considers the mathematical and philosophical questions of being in the poem, for example. Satan asks permission of the "throne of Chaos" to travel through his domain from Hell to Earth. Satan's plea to Chaos is that by creating his universe, god stole from him and he should help anyone who opposes that creation. So it is implied that Chaos is a force perhaps not comparable in status to the one god, but certainly above immortal beings like angels and demons, so perhaps Chaos and God are naturally opposed, entropy vs order, etc. And even this is ideologically and theologically consistent down to the detail. Satan doesn't really know how powerful Chaos is, but should he? Chaos is older and greater than any angel or demon, so it follows that angels and demons would not know exactly how powerful Chaos is, but would know that Chaos is greater than they are. Similarly, the battle scene in heaven between Satan's rebelling army and the angels loyal to God begins with all of them not really knowing whether they can be killed or not. They consider whether all of their fighting is for nothing, because they're immortal. This is another thing that, logically and philosophically, they would not know on their own because they didn't create themselves, after all. They were created, and thus are necessarily lesser than the creator who does know.
"Justify the ways of god to men" to Milton was an attempt to "fix" Christian doctrine, to fill in the blanks and missing parts and make it all fit together without any contradictions or failures of reason.
But here lie conclusions that are difficult to reason away: if Satan rebelled against God and God is all-knowing, why didn't God stop him? Is all of creation an experiment in free will (which makes everyone a pawn), or can God himself not kill one of his immortal angels? If the latter, is he not really God if there's something he cannot do? Was Jesus/The Son just a ruse to root out disloyalty among angels?
And really all of these things get to "does the universe even matter or does whatever created it not care about it?"
The whole thing is not just a religious text, although it is about a religious doctrine. It's a text meant to teach people how to think, so that they would overthrow their kings and noble rulers and rule themselves, just as Milton portrayed in his last writing (a rewrite of the story of Samson Agonistes).
You won't get 10% of it reading it alone on the first time. There are so many little nuances and considerations and philosophical grey areas that someone could spend a lifetime on it and still have things left to do.
https://courses.edx.org/courses/course-v1:DartmouthX+DART.EN...
I took this course to understand what the whole fuss around 'Paradise Lost' meant. I was utterly mind-blown, learning its snide references to free will, tyranny, slavery, civil liberty, etc. in the poem. What I once thought was a retelling of the Bible, surprised me with its political nuances.
I thought I hated literature and philosophy until I took a philosophy 101 course that I procrastinated until my final semester at UT.
It was basically two professors (one was Dutch that was co-teaching the course until he would transition to be a stand-alone professor) and a class of 12 students at a university where I was used to intro courses in 200-student lecture halls.
The enthusiasm of the professors was contagious. And they turned text that would have been boring / misunderstood if read on my own into lines that were couched in all sorts of humor and greater commentary about the world, and I was hooked. They taught me how to enjoy literature that otherwise would have seemed totally dull and dry and it was a real gift.
Over a decade later, I was at a bar and somehow Plato's Gorgias came up with a stranger and we both half-jokingly agreed that Callicles was right about the world. And I thought about how thankful I was for that philosophy class once again.
They're the only disciplines that make it fun to go to class.
The Bible has surprising political nuances as well.
All holy books have _unsurprising_ political nuances because their whole purpose was providing guidance towards stable societies during lawless times.
Noel Clark's translation gives it a modern air of office politics as Lucifer and Beelzebub quarrel with Gabriel on how to behave in their shared workplace.
There's a long tradition of retellings and expansions of Biblical stories in both Christianity and Judaism that also contributed a great deal to Paradise Lost.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blake%27s_illustration...
I'd rather reread such (by comparison) brief works like "A tale of two cities" because literally any other work was far less wordy and far more interesting.
Paradise Lost is the only book I've ever just put down and refused to finish for a "honors" English class in senior year. If you are forced to read this crap for a class - just find the sparknotes and read something more comprehensible in the mean time.
Calling it "crap" and "extremely poorly written religious fan-fiction" is pretty bold (but also shallow).
Serious question: "why do you suppose it is that 'crap' like this manages to survive on for a couple of hundred years?