• Daniel Ethan Finneran

John Milton - Paradise Lost - Preface To Podcast

Updated: Sep 4, 2021

"Three poets, in three distant ages born,

Greece, Italy, and England did adorn.

The first in loftiness of thought surpassed;

The next in majesty; in both, the last.

The force of nature could no further go;

To make a third, She joined the former two".

- John Dryden

If one were to attempt to identify the three poets of whom Dryden speaks, he would encounter no real difficulty. The Greek, of course, is Homer; the Italian, Virgil; the Englishman, Milton.

With the sightless bard of Greece, by whom the fall of Ilium was recounted, and the adventures of Odysseus sung, Milton shared the dark affliction of blindness. It’s hard, almost impossible, to believe that two of humanity’s greatest minds were deprived of this most vital sense—the unveiling faculty of sight. The one eyeless in Ionia, the other in London, neither Homer nor Milton allowed his gloomy blight to interrupt his life’s mission, or to cloud the dazzling brilliance, the inner, radiant light, with which his fiery soul was at all times aglow.

Between the Roman pagan, Virgil, and the English Puritan, Milton, fewer similarities, at first glance, suggest themselves. The former enjoyed the patronage of a newly-minted monarch, an adopted heir to whom a nascent empire had only just been bequeathed. He suffered no disquiet over the recent fall of the Republic, and, in its wake, the lifetime appointments of Julius Caesar and his grand-nephew, Augustus. Of the former’s brazen coup, he was an enthusiastic supporter, while he basked in the profits of the latter’s royal boon.

Milton, on the contrary, watched not the ascent, but the bloody dethronement of a wayward king. As a vocal champion of the Parliamentarian cause, he played an active role in the establishment of the first, albeit short-lived republic in England—a daring interregnum in which he was honored to have participated. Unlike Virgil, Milton was no royalist; he’d rather leap into his own grave than live beneath a monarch’s yoke. And so, with the Restoration of Charles II, he fled society and lived as an outcast, as a man only partially alive in the eyes of the state.

In the opinion of Dryden, to which the exuberant cry of man unanimously consents, these are the poets par excellence: Homer, Virgil, and Milton. Dante laments his exclusion, as do Wordsworth and Keats. Indeed, the Florentine occupies an elevated place, but at a slightly lower stratum. The Brits suffer no embarrassment, as they know themselves to reside at a somewhat lower ledge. Of the three greats, however, one is to be deemed the best of all. John Milton, in the judgment of the same poet by whom Virgil was carefully translated and Homer fiercely loved, is primus inter pares—first among immortal equals.

In choosing Milton as the best, one might accuse Dryden of having been motivated by feelings of national prejudice or local affection, when, in deciding upon such literary matters, purely aesthetic standards ought to have been applied. It should be noted that, while they were countrymen living at the same time, and working in the same profession, they were far from friends. Dryden was a ring-kissing, High Church loyalist; Milton, a Puritan supporter of Cromwell. The one applauded the papacy and eagerly awaited the return of the king; the other spurned the Vatican and cursed the very thought of Restoration. That’s to say, politically, the two were antipodal.

This leads one to conclude that Dryden’s measure of Milton was less partial than originally thought. Indeed, we might confidently trust in the objectivity of his daring pronouncement.

Milton, in whom, according to Dryden, both Virgil and Homer were so seamlessly joined, was born in 1608. His parentage was less divine than Dryden might have you believe, but—as was soon evident to all—Nature certainly did confer upon him the gift of genius at a very young age. The poetry of his youth is marvelous; that of his adolescence and early adulthood, gripping. The polemics of his more mature years are unparalleled, and his stately arguments in favor of free speech, education, and the right to divorce are still forwarded by liberals today.

His greatest work, though, and that by which the canon of English literature is sublimely crowned, was written at the twilight of his life. The Protectorate had ended, the fiery calls for regicide had extinguished, the radicals had moderated, the state had backslid, and Charles II was, in grand and ceremonious fashion, haughtily restored. Milton suddenly found himself a criminal in his own home. His republican ardor had exhausted itself, his biting polemics had provoked too many for too long, and he was forced to abandon his station, or risk his life.

Long ago he’d set his mind upon writing a national epic, the likes to which Homer, from the heights of the Acropolis at Athens, and Virgil, from the Capitoline at Rome, might approvingly nod their heads and tip their hats. He made a list of possible subjects to which he might devote his pen. Of all the fabulous candidates before him, two stood out: the legend of King Arthur, and that of our universal father’s ignoble fall.

After long hours of deliberation, and a flutter of piety that doubtless shook his heart, he opted to pursue the second: the fall of Adam was to be his theme.

He began the daunting project in 1658, at which time he was completely deprived of his vision. For its writing, he relied on his poor daughter, an un-consenting amanuensis whom he severely maltreated. In unpredictable bursts of genius, he would shower her with forty lines in a single breath. Then, in the subsequent moments of calm, these eruptions of eloquence would be read back to him in a steady, subdued cadence. Detained by a minute’s reflection, Milton would then proceed to explode yet again, this time to edit or embellish the lines as he saw fit. Thus, the storm of brilliance raged like a hurricane at sea. He remained faithful, all the while, to the constraints of blank verse and iambic pentameter, the classicist’s beloved meter from which silly rhyming was barred.

The result, completed in 1665, was 10,558 vigorous lines streaming across the picturesque terrain of twelve mountainous books. I read to you, now, an excerpt from Book IV, my personal favorite of the dozen. It reveals to us the latent humanity in Satan, and the painful ambivalence by which his soul was daily pierced. It shows the internal sufferings by which the arch apostate was tormented, and the impossibility of his wish for things to have been different from the way they were. It also introduces to the reader, for the first time, Adam and Eve—esteemed father and mother of our sinful race. We greet them, in all their purity and loveliness, as they appear in their prelapsarian state, that spotless epoch before their fateful tasting of the prohibited tree.

I hope you enjoy.

9 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Success, ‘tis said, yet more success begets– On the prosperous rains ever more profits. So reads the adage of the Gospel’s Jew: The iron law, the Effect of Matthew. “To him who has much, more will be

The tree of government is triply branched, In three portions split, in three segments tranched: Nearest the root is where Congress is housed (Of whose brainless bugs, it should be deloused!) The branc