No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
I.—The Conclusion of Paradise Lost
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
Extract
The original objection urged against the conclusion of Paradise Lost was its failure to conform strictly to the neo-classic requirement that “an Heroick Poem . . . ought to end happily, and leave the mind of the reader, after having conducted it through many doubts and fears, sorrows and disquietudes, in a state of tranquility and satisfaction.” Milton's subject, according to Dryden, “is not that of an heroick poem, properly so called. His design is the losing of our happiness; his event is not prosperous, like that of all other epic works.” Addison concurred in this opinion; but he considered that the poet's “exquisite judgment” in raising Adam to a state of great happiness through the vision of future events had virtually overcome “the natural defect in his subject.” The author, he says, “leaves the Adversary of Mankind . . . under the lowest state of mortification and disappointment. We see him chewing ashes, grovelling in the dust, and loaden with supernumerary pains and torments. On the contrary, our two first parents are comforted by dreams and visions, cheared with promises of salvation, and, in a manner, raised to a greater happiness than that which they had forfeited. In short, Satan is represented miserable in the height of his triumphs, and Adam triumphant in the height of misery.” With one detail of the conclusion, however, Addison found fault. It would have been better, he declared, to omit entirely the last two lines of the poem (misquoted) :
- They hand in hand with wandering steps and slow,
- Through Eden took their solitary way.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1921
References
1 Spectator 369.
2 Original and Progress of Satire.
3 Op. cit.
4 Francis Peck, New Memoirs of . . . Mr. John Milton, 1740, p. 201.
5 H. J. Todd, The Poetical Works of John Milton, 2d. ed., 1809, vol. iv, pp. 351 ff. See also J. W. Good, Studies in the Milton Tradition, 1915, oh. vi.
6 John Erskine, “The Theme of Death in Paradise Lost,” P.M.L.A., vol. xxxii, pp. 573-582.
7 Elmer Edgar Stoll, “Was Paradise Well Lost?” P. M. L. A., vol. xxxiii, pp. 429-435.
8 William Hazlitt, Lectures on the English Poets: “On Shakespeare and Milton.”
9 A. W. Verity, Paradise Lost, 1892, note on Bk. xii, 648, 649.
10 Cited by H. J. Todd, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 379.
11 La Religion de Milton, 1909, Ch. xi. See also Margaret L. Bailey, Milton and Jakob Boehme, 1914, p. 164.
12 The Epic of the Fall of Man, 1896, pp. 131-2. See also S. von Gajsek, Milton und Caedmon, 1911.
13 See A. W. Verity, op. cit., pp. xxxvi ff.
14 Marianna Woodhull, The Epic of Paradise Lost, 1907, p. 123.
15 Ibid., p. 16.
16 The italics are mine.
17 Op. cit., pp. 211, 219.
18 Op, cit., p. 140.
19 E. N. S. Thompson, Essays on Milton, 1914, p. 194.
20 Op. cit., p. 218. See also Emily Hickey, “Is Satan the Hero of Paradise Lost?” Catholic World, vol. xcvi, pp. 58-71.
21 Op. cit., p. 178.
22 Life of Milton.
23 London Quarterly Review, xxxvi, pp. 54-5.
24 For a full discussion, see C. C. Everett, “The Devil,” The New World, vol. iv, pp. 1-22.
25 Note Homily xix.
25aI have availed myself of a translation of Vondel's poem by Professor Gustave L. van Roosbroeck, which may shortly be expected to appear in print.
26 Bk. ii, 862 ff.
27 Bk. iv, 426 ff.; vii, 544 ff.; viii, 328-30; ix, 762-3; x, 49; xii, 397-8.
28 Bk. x, 229-272, 354-409.
29 Bk. xi, 57 ff.
30 See P. T. Forsyth, “Milton's God and Milton's Satan,” Contemporary Review, vol. xcv, pp. 450-65 ; A. F. Agard, “Poetic Personifications of Evil,” Poet-Lore, vol. ix, pp. 206-16.
31 Op. cit.
32 See P. T. Forsyth and A. F. Agard, op. cit.
33 Bk. ii, 850 ff.
34 Bk. iii, 97 ff.
35 Bk. iii, 131-4.
36 Bk. x, 771-5.
37 The italics are mine.
38 See, however, Christian Doctrine, Bk. i, Ch. v, vii.
39 The Devine Weekes and Workes, tr. by Joshua Sylvester, ed. 1611, p. 246.
40 See Bk. x, 85 ff. For an explanation of the apparent identification of God and Christ, see Christian Doctrine, Bk. i, Ch. v.
41 Bk. vii, 613-6.
42 I cannot agree with R. E. Neil Dodge that the poem provides no definite task for God and the Son. See “Theology in Paradise Lost,” University of Wisconsin Studies in Language and Literature, No. 2, p. 17.
43 Spectator 273.
44 Bk. x, 585-7.
45 For the tradition followed by Milton's allegory, see J. S. P. Tatlock, “Milton's Sin and Death,” Mod. Lang. Notes, vol. xxi, pp. 239-40; Herbert E. Cory, “Spenser, the School of the Fletchers, and Milton,” University of California Publications in Mod. Philology, vol. ii, No. 5, pp. 311-73.
46 Bk. xii, 425-6. “Now the call to repentance and the gift of grace are from the Deity; their acceptance is the result of faith; if therefore the efficacy of Christ's satisfaction he lost through want of faith, this does not prove that an effectual satisfaction has not been made, but that the offer has not been accepted,” Christian Doctrine, Bk. i, Ch. xvi.
47 Bk. i, Ch. xiii.
48 Bk. xi, 40-1.
49 Bk. xi, 43, 44.
50 Bk. xii, 434-5.
51 Bk. xii, 571.
52 Bk. xii, 459.
53 Bk. xii, 463-5.
54 Bk. xii, 469-76.
55 See Christian, Doctrine, Bk. I, Ch. xxxiii.
56 Op. cit., pp. 249-50.
57 “Christ's Triumph over Death.”
58 Religio Medici, 1643, pp. 86-7, 100.
59 Bk. xii, 603-5.
60 Bk. XI, 251-62. C. A. Moore.
61 Tr. by F. Barham, 1839.
62 Bk. xi, 118.
63 Op. cit., pp. 219-20.
64 This article necessarily leaves out of account some recent important studies of Milton; it was accepted for publication in March, 1920.