I know that people spend a lot of time fixating on how to write a good opening line for their books ("It was a dark and stormy night", etc.), but Paradise Lost has I think the most beautiful closing passage of any book (spoilers for The Bible):
They looking back, all th' Eastern side beheld
Of Paradise, so late thir happie seat,
Wav'd over by that flaming Brand, the Gate
With dreadful Faces throng'd and fierie Armes:
Som natural tears they drop'd, but wip'd them soon;
The book being reviewed by TFA is not itself a review of Paradise Lost, but a study of how people have interpreted Paradise Lost since it was published in 1667. TFA says 'The biggest story that Reade is telling is that of slavery.'
YMMV, but I don't think that this was Milton's main message - IIRC from reading PL years ago at school, the main story was Satan's rebellion against God. Satan was presented as a sort of heroic anti-hero, who has some great lines, although he eventually (of course) loses. So, I guess I'm saying please don't let this review of a book that highlights lots of peoples' reactions to PL influence your judgement of the underlying source text.
More like the rebellion of a subject against their king, which isn't quite the same as slavery used in TFA (which is mainly the slavery of the blacks under the whites).
I found the first 20% of this book a bit tedious as I got used to the style of English, but I'm glad I stuck it out. Eventually it became very natural to read and the beauty of the language is something I'm not sure I've encountered anywhere else.
At least through a contemporary lens I didn't get the impression it was political whatsoever. What it did seem to do was fill in the (many) blanks present in the corresponding biblical narratives.
> At least through a contemporary lens I didn't get the impression it was political whatsoever.
The poem has a strong republican sentiment (lowercase 'r') throughout. During Cromwell's control, he argued for republicanism; he likely composed much of the early elements of the poem while in hiding after Restoration, fearing very correctly for his life; and he remained a republican for all his life. Milton's characterization of Satan in the poem is incredible because of the way he chooses this unlikely figure to channel so much of his misgivings and criticisms of absolute and monarchical power.
In a modern context, it's fascinating to see how much sympathy Milton can make for Satan (a figure who, in most modern secular contexts, is far more commonly simplistically presented as pure evil incarnate) and how the poem poses evergreen questions about the role and nature of grievance, revolution, vengeance, power, and the masses in governance.
One of the fascinating consequences of PL's incredible storytelling and poetry is to humanize Satan. Unlike the Son of God, or God themselves, Satan seems far more multifaceted. He has hopes, dreams, ambitions, and ruminates and obsesses over his own failings as well whether freedom from tyranny, as he sees it, is worth getting cast out of heaven for. To him, he lost paradise. These things make him feel alive in the poem, like a real person, a creation entirely Milton's own.
Yeah, the political or otherwise ideological nature is read into the work. It doesn't come out of the work. But, I think, precisely because PL is one of the greatest masterpieces of the English language, it becomes a focus for that kind of attention, where people want to construe it for their own objectives. See also the centuries-long debate running through the likes of William Blake, C.S. Lewis, and Philip Pullman on whether or not we should see Satan as the sympathetic and virtuous hero. That debate is a touchstone of religious ideological conversation.
As an aside, I find that PL fills the blanks in the biblical narrative almost too well! There are some aspects of our modern cultural understanding of what angels, demons, and Satan are like that come straight out of PL and have no foundation in the biblical narrative. It leads to a lot of confusion among religious persons because they end up believing in these details that don't come from the avowed authoritative source.
You may have heard a Christian try to claim that Adam ate the fruit after Eve did, with the express purpose of not being separated from her---that he knew she'd be exiled, so he intended to stay with her by being exiled himself. In that way, Adam acquires a sympathetic and heroic tint in his role in the Fall. But this is completely fabricated by Milton! It's straight from PL and nowhere to be found in the biblical narrative.
In case anyone is interested, the full text of Paradise Lost with helpful annotations is available online at Dartmouth:
https://milton.host.dartmouth.edu/reading_room/pl/intro/text...
I know that people spend a lot of time fixating on how to write a good opening line for their books ("It was a dark and stormy night", etc.), but Paradise Lost has I think the most beautiful closing passage of any book (spoilers for The Bible):
They looking back, all th' Eastern side beheld
Of Paradise, so late thir happie seat,
Wav'd over by that flaming Brand, the Gate
With dreadful Faces throng'd and fierie Armes:
Som natural tears they drop'd, but wip'd them soon;
The World was all before them, where to choose
Thir place of rest, and Providence thir guide:
They hand in hand with wandring steps and slow,
Through Eden took thir solitarie way.
A Tale of Two Cities also has a beautiful (and famous) closing passage.
HN discussing this link in old thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38876560
It's also on Standard Ebooks, in case one considers the annotations distracting: https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/john-milton/paradise-lost
The book being reviewed by TFA is not itself a review of Paradise Lost, but a study of how people have interpreted Paradise Lost since it was published in 1667. TFA says 'The biggest story that Reade is telling is that of slavery.'
YMMV, but I don't think that this was Milton's main message - IIRC from reading PL years ago at school, the main story was Satan's rebellion against God. Satan was presented as a sort of heroic anti-hero, who has some great lines, although he eventually (of course) loses. So, I guess I'm saying please don't let this review of a book that highlights lots of peoples' reactions to PL influence your judgement of the underlying source text.
"the main story was Satan's rebellion against God"
so Satan rebelling against being enslaved?
More like the rebellion of a subject against their king, which isn't quite the same as slavery used in TFA (which is mainly the slavery of the blacks under the whites).
Wrong and not even close.
I found the first 20% of this book a bit tedious as I got used to the style of English, but I'm glad I stuck it out. Eventually it became very natural to read and the beauty of the language is something I'm not sure I've encountered anywhere else.
At least through a contemporary lens I didn't get the impression it was political whatsoever. What it did seem to do was fill in the (many) blanks present in the corresponding biblical narratives.
> At least through a contemporary lens I didn't get the impression it was political whatsoever.
The poem has a strong republican sentiment (lowercase 'r') throughout. During Cromwell's control, he argued for republicanism; he likely composed much of the early elements of the poem while in hiding after Restoration, fearing very correctly for his life; and he remained a republican for all his life. Milton's characterization of Satan in the poem is incredible because of the way he chooses this unlikely figure to channel so much of his misgivings and criticisms of absolute and monarchical power.
In a modern context, it's fascinating to see how much sympathy Milton can make for Satan (a figure who, in most modern secular contexts, is far more commonly simplistically presented as pure evil incarnate) and how the poem poses evergreen questions about the role and nature of grievance, revolution, vengeance, power, and the masses in governance.
> it's fascinating to see how much sympathy Milton can make for Satan
When I read PL at school, Satan came across as a really cool dude who could fly! Admittedly I was (much) younger then.
One of the fascinating consequences of PL's incredible storytelling and poetry is to humanize Satan. Unlike the Son of God, or God themselves, Satan seems far more multifaceted. He has hopes, dreams, ambitions, and ruminates and obsesses over his own failings as well whether freedom from tyranny, as he sees it, is worth getting cast out of heaven for. To him, he lost paradise. These things make him feel alive in the poem, like a real person, a creation entirely Milton's own.
Yeah, the political or otherwise ideological nature is read into the work. It doesn't come out of the work. But, I think, precisely because PL is one of the greatest masterpieces of the English language, it becomes a focus for that kind of attention, where people want to construe it for their own objectives. See also the centuries-long debate running through the likes of William Blake, C.S. Lewis, and Philip Pullman on whether or not we should see Satan as the sympathetic and virtuous hero. That debate is a touchstone of religious ideological conversation.
As an aside, I find that PL fills the blanks in the biblical narrative almost too well! There are some aspects of our modern cultural understanding of what angels, demons, and Satan are like that come straight out of PL and have no foundation in the biblical narrative. It leads to a lot of confusion among religious persons because they end up believing in these details that don't come from the avowed authoritative source.
You may have heard a Christian try to claim that Adam ate the fruit after Eve did, with the express purpose of not being separated from her---that he knew she'd be exiled, so he intended to stay with her by being exiled himself. In that way, Adam acquires a sympathetic and heroic tint in his role in the Fall. But this is completely fabricated by Milton! It's straight from PL and nowhere to be found in the biblical narrative.
Using religion as a basis for political ideology is nothing new.
[flagged]