I kept returning to the line "better to reign in Hell than serve in Heav'n" (1.263) also. In the increasingly fascistic world we live in, how can we not sympathize with Satan here? He doesn't want to serve a tyrannical being who all but engineered his fall (being omnipotent/omniscient and therefore knew Satan would rebel). At least in Hell he's with his loyal compatriots, his fellow fallen soldiers.
God also “left him at large to his own dark designs" (that with reiterated crimes he might heap on himself damnation)” (1.213-15), or schemes. By punishing Satan in this way and leaving him alive, God is ensuring Satan will live to plot against him in the future. Of course, he has plausible deniability that this is what he is doing, because Satan has free will and could choose to just accept his punishment, but both know that this will never happen. God gets to appear benevolent, even as his actions cement Satan's hatred of him, and he knows this, which begs the question: does God want Satan to be the antihero? Did he intentionally stoke Satan's hatred of him so Satan could play this part? And if that's true, does Satan really have free will?
Additionally, I'm pondering how gender is portrayed and how Satan is almost set up to be somewhat androgynous. From "his womb" (673) was "digged out ribs of gold" (690) (bringing to mind Adam and the creation of Eve), and "Spirits when they please Can either sex assume, or both" (423-4). I will be keeping an eye out for themes of gender as the epic continues.
I think you’ve identified an issue with being omnipotent: allow free will and get blamed for allowing bad things to happen, or don’t allow bad things to happen but then there’s no free will. Milton in this poem gives Satan free will so then while God does know what Satan is going to do, He has to allow it or free will is overthrown, and in allowing it He is the opposite of a tyrant. Satan however absolutely does try to turn it around to justify himself, and blames God for hiding His strength thus tempting Satan to attempt his doomed rebellion. I don’t think Milton intended us to accept Satan’s rationalizations, but to make Satan’s rationalizations seductive sounding.
Totally with you on viewing this with a gender and sexuality lens. Especially interested in this because of the historical context of Eve biting the apple being used as an argument for women being, yk, more docile and easily manipulated. And inferior to men. I think it's crucial to not read any of these figures as the binary genders apart from Adam and Eve and to not fall into the trap of viewing things like violence and manipulation as masculine traits (when speaking of Satan!!)
"I kept returning to the line "better to reign in Hell than serve in Heav'n" (1.263) also. In the increasingly fascistic world we live in, how can we not sympathize with Satan here? He doesn't want to serve a tyrannical being who all but engineered his fall (being omnipotent and therefore knew Satan would rebel). At least in Hell he's with his loyal compatriots, his fellow fallen soldiers."
It was Satan who spoke the words "the tyranny of Heaven". 1.124. Perhaps we shouldn't take everything he says on faith. That Satan would rather "reign in hell than serve in Heaven" is a tacit admission that Satan's definition of tyranny is when he's not in charge. There's little cause for sympathy there.
One might even say Satan is projecting when calling God a tyrant. Satan's quote is an allusion to a similar quote attributed to Julius Caesar, who was assassinated for being a tyrant.
"God also “left him at large to his own dark designs" (that with reiterated crimes he might heap on himself damnation)” (1.213-15), or schemes. By punishing Satan in this way and leaving him alive, God is ensuring Satan will live to plot against him in the future. Of course, he has plausible deniability that this is what he is doing, because Satan has free will and could choose to just accept his punishment, but both know that this will never happen. God gets to appear benevolent, even as his actions cement Satan's hatred of him, and he knows this, which begs the question: does God want Satan to be the antihero? Did he intentionally stoke Satan's hatred of him so Satan could play this part? And if that's true, does Satan really have free will?"
Satan doesn't lack free will because he's predictable and unwilling to change.
"...in my choice
To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven."
1.261-63
"Additionally, I'm pondering how gender is portrayed and how Satan is almost set up to be somewhat androgynous. From "his womb" (673) was "digged out ribs of gold" (690) (bringing to mind Adam and the creation of Eve), and "Spirits when they please Can either sex assume, or both" (423-4). I will be keeping an eye out for themes of gender as the epic continues."
The phrase "his womb" refers to the hill from which the gold was extracted.
"There stood a hill not far, whose grisly top
Belched fire and rolling smoke; the rest entire
Shone with a glossy scurf—undoubted sign
That in his womb was hid metallic ore"
1.670-74.
The English of our day and Milton's doesn't use grammatical gender in which nouns are masculine or feminine, but Latin does use it. Nevertheless, Milton appears to have a proclivity for using grammatical gender depending on whether the word is masculine or feminine in Latin.
"Their dread commander. He, above the rest
In shape and gesture proudly eminent,
Stood like a tower; his form had not yet lost
All her original brightness"
1.589-92
As the Hackett edition points out, "her" refers to the word "form", which is feminine in Latin. The Latin word for "hill" is masculine. Thus the hill's womb is "his womb".
Even when he vows to do only evil and even when good comes from evil, to thwart that? His complete commitment to relentless pursuit of pain and suffering due to his grievances is definitely the polestar of our present moment.
I struggle with this too... I don't necessarily agree that God allowing Satan to play out his part necessarily equals to free will... If it's pre-ordained to let free will play out but the outcome is already determined, how can there still be free will? And if Satan is so bad isn't God just really facilitating an abuser by letting Satan roam free to do his evil deeds?
The theology of it (unless you’re Calvinist) is that as God created time, He exists outside of time, and so he can see what the outcome of anything can be. That doesn’t mean someone doesn’t have free will in making a choice, it just means God knows they will make that choice, because He sees the past, present, and future.
This post really helped me gather my thoughts on book one and plan better for book two. I did a lot of reading a page then looking to the internet on what tha page meant without any self reflection or intentional rereading. Part of that is because I got my copy halfway through January so I was playing catchup (also HAD to read all of the introductory material). I’m hoping now that I’m more caught up and accustomed to Milton’s flow I’ll be able to slow down further and digest.
Hey Kelsey, I started by reading it 3 times and then thinking and trying to make sense of what I was reading, but I almost died because I also have ADHD. So now I am listening to the audiobook while reading it and then reading it out loud myself and copy-pasting any quotes that speak to me and then thinking about it and talking to my husband about it, it helps me better understand what is happening, but I am lost most of the time haha
With the Tyranny of Heaven line (1.124) I could not help but immediately think of the C.S. Lewis quote in this case: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive...but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
I was struck by the whole passage of Satan rallying his troops, especially the bit starting in line 637. "But he who reigns monarch in heaven, 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 conceal, which tempted our attempt, and wrought our fall."
There is so much packed in these lines! The word choice of consent describing the relationship between ruler and subject is very telling. At this point, we know nothing of what has driven this rebellion, but Satan seems to be almost blaming God for inciting their rebellion and subsequent fall and implying there was some trickery involved. Am I reading this right?
Throughout Book 1, he is not humbled by the fall, or at least not for long. This is just a stumble, requiring a course reset from outright rebellion to fraud and guile. Some foreshadowing as well with temptation.
Yes I think you are reading this right, Satan makes a couple comments implying that God hid the full extent of his power to trick Satan into thinking it was possible to rise up against him. And the phrase "tempted our attempt" is also really interesting there - this whole epic is building towards the moment when Satan tempts Eve to disobey, and here he is suggesting that God has tempted *him* to rebel!
I really like this interpretation, however I can't help but wonder, if Milton was a Christian, why would he cast God in such a seemingly negative light? Is Milton implying Satan is coming up with excuses, perhaps?
As I was reading Book 1, I did find myself struggling with the density of the references, but also was somewhat confused/intrigued by the amount of international/historical references. I was confused because, in the introduction to my edition it is mentioned that all this occurs before the world is properly created, humans (obviously) included, yet countries and systems of government and kingdoms were constantly alluded to, though I now see that was probably Milton acting as the narrator from his position in time (though I'd appreciate anyone's contributions to this point, because I'm still unsure about it). More imoortantly though, I found it interesting in a post-colonial way how multinational the book was, how many countries were mentioned by name. I liked the parallels between Hell and Earth, but I also find a lot of English Universal Classics to simply speak of Britain and expect their readership to extrapolate that POV and apply it in a more "universal" way, but I was interested to find that in a story about, ultimately, the creation of mankind, that there was a broader vision. I hope to struggle a little less with the language for book 2 and keep a more even pace that allows me to reread often! Thank you so much for this space!
Yes yes yes me too! I was actually in awe at the breadth of the references. I can’t help but admire it and simultaneously be terrified haha! I also have stopped to wonder about how this was read at the time of publication and if those in the circles reading this would have understood most of the references and how amazing that is.
I wondered at the conemporary reception as well! Mostly because their reading would probably not have been read in a postcolonial vein (I'm not even sure England was a colonizing power by then) and so maybe they had a "purer" and more equal relationship with the countries and stories mentioned; but I also wondered at how they reconciled the work with the religion they most likely subscribed to, considering it paints God as a harsh figure from Book 1.
Me too! I am almost the whole time a little lost, but I do think he is kind of like giving us a quick snapshot of what these fallen angels will do in the future, if that makes sense. I am just allowing myself not to understand it all, because I would go crazy.
I wondered about the references as well.but can accept that Milton as contemporary narrator existed in another time, and in possibly another dimension. PL is, after all, not contained to one time period, nor possibly to one dimension.
I'm reading Paradise Lost for the first time. I am taking the idea that poems should be read out-loud to heart. I am reading the weekly lines out-loud, then going back to re-read, slowly and carefully, with all the footnotes and looking things up when necessary. It has taken some time to get used to the cadence, but I think it is deepening my enjoyment of the book.
I know Satan says “better to reign in hell”, but all the lines to me still indicate he means ALL of them, not necessarily that he just wants power. There’s so much imagery of god forcing loyalty (like slaves forced to worship him) and lines like “for this infernal pit shall never hold celestial spirits in bondage” (1.657-58) or “here at last we shall be free” (1.258-59). To me, Satan doesn’t want to rule over the other fallen angels… there’s so many lines of empathy from Satan for them.
Right, he does show what looks like real care towards the other fallen angels! The moment when he cries while looking out over his army does so much to make him sympathetic for me.
I’m rereading book 1 again before starting book 2, and see that two lines before “better to reign in hell”, he starts by saying “here WE may reign secure…”
I'm really loving this project so far! It's like you've hacked my brain and I'm noticing so many things I hadn’t without even trying.
A few of my favorites so far:
Line 619 as an inversion to Peter denying Christ 3 times
Line 200 is a reference to Leviathan, but also name checks Saul's (later Paul, famous for persecuting Christians) home town in one of my favorite of the Classical-Greco Roman mash ups.
Line 168 potential reference to Psalm 82:1 one of the most theologically infamous verses
And that Dagon was a real deity not a Lovecraft invention like I had assumed 😅
“What are your thoughts about this line, “better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav’n?” Do you see it as more humanizing for Satan’s character, or as a sign of his villainy?”
I’m thinking now of all the people (and movements) in human history that began as fights against tyranny and that after victory became themselves the new tyrants. History is full of this. If we were to accept Satan’s framing of God’s tyranny, does Milton develop Satan as this sort of character? “Down with the old tyrant, long live the new tyrant, me”, Satan seems to be saying. His rebellion failed of course but he does get to rule in this new place. It would seem to follow a human tendency and be villainy both.
"In this book we meet one of the central characters of the epic in Satan. His decisions and motivations will continue to drive much of the action of the story. What are we learning about him so far? How is this character being presented, and what expectations are you forming about how he will develop?"
Paradise Lost is a story about temptation. Satan is Milton's way of tempting the reader.
since being mostly unwillingly retired about 15 months ago, this project is the first thing that generated a little excitement in my life.
like most of us, i assume we all had our reporter's notebook open, taking notes as we read. It's very convenient that the piece is broken up into five (numbered) line segments!
the very first impression was right at the beginning, where Milton was saying he was emulating the poets of old, not these new dipshits who need everything to rhyme. Lord Satan isn't the only one guilty of pride!
you can say a lot of things about Satan, but he understands command. i appreciate him picking himself up (first) after his nine days on his back, and putting on a brave face for his host.
Satan might be prideful in saying he's second in power to god himself, but so we are we all. Satan is compelling because he strives in spite of impossible odds. if god always wins no matter what, then god is a deadly bore. being the first entity to say, basically, to "do what i say, because i said so," is shitty lazy parenting.
heaven might have a big golden throne, pearly gates, puffy white clouds, and inescapable harp music, but Hell has all the best building contractors.
i look forward to the conclave in the second book.
...
jesus's actual spoken words are printed in red in the New Testament- so what color should Satan's actual spoken words be in Paradise Lost? *are* there editions where the spoken words of Satan are in color?
God is a bore! I'm making an effort on this read-through to try to test my feelings about Satan and God as characters, and see if I see sympathetic points in God or irredeemable points in Satan, but I don't know...so far I feel still solidly in the sympathy for the devil camp. Satan cries when he looks over his fallen companions and bolsters their spirits when they're at their lowest - I can't not root for the guy!
I'd vote for Satan's lines being in an iridescent black, so they at first look the same as the rest of the text, but then take on a bit of shimmer when they catch the light...
I’m really enjoying your analysis and appreciate you sharing your insights. This is my second time reading Paradise Lost. I’ve just read C.S. Lewis’ A Preface to Paradise Lost, and he made some wonderful points too.
My own analysis of Satan differs from that of many readers, it appears. I assume that Satan is a liar, so the most unreliable narrator is he. Nothing he says is to be trusted. Therefore, I read it with a completely different lens. But there’s no “wrong” way to interpret stories. Simply put, the discussion is varied and fascinating; engaging deeply with literature helps us find our own values and connect with personal truths we may have missed otherwise. I look forward to reading more of your thoughts. Happy reading.
I am finding that the text is dense and a little hard for me to understand at first, so now I am using the audiobook while I read, which helps me understand the cadence, then I reread it out loud, and for some reason that is perfect. It is really helping me to slow down and really try to understand what I am reading. And I love that. I am also struck because I feel like the topics discussed in the first book are really making me think about our times right now in the US. I am not sure who's on which side, but I can see a lot of parallels.
As a first time reader, I've had two questions I was hoping someone could shed light on.
1) The section regarding the list of fallen angels and their evil doings, were these evil doings being done while they were still in heaven or is this list post-fall? With the narrative beginning as Satan is standing taking in their new surroundings it doesn't seem to leave room for post-fall demonic shenanigans. Could this really be how they were acting while still a part of heaven?
2) I was very surprised at the amount of Greek mythology references (ex. 510-520). We get mentions of Zeus, Rhea, Titans, Olympus, etc. How are we supposed to view the greek mythology in Paradise Lost? Is Milton trying to combine the mythos of God/Satan with Greek mythology in the Paradise Lost cosmos? Or is this Milton aspiring to be an epic poem writer and using the Greek mythos as literary devices?
I'm greatly enjoying the slow read so far!! In the context of 2026, I find Milton's Satan to be a very compelling character. Understanding Milton's life, specifically his failed political rebellion and anti-monarchy stance, it is hard not to make parallels to America's own democracy under siege, No Kings protests, etc. I feel primed to be very sympathetic when reading from the POV of a character rebelling against a monarch.
For your first question - the list is definitely post-fall! At this point in the world of Paradise Lost the only two humans who exist are Adam and Eve, and they are brand new, and there's not much world out there other than the Garden of Eden. Once there are more humans in the world (and more world) the fallen angels are going to get up to all of those evil activities.
For your second question, I don't have an authoritative answer, but my read of the Greek references is that it's kind of what you're suggesting - that because Milton is writing an epic, he's drawing on these mythological figures to create an epic tone. That would seem to fit with what he's doing in the invocation, really drawing on epic convention to put himself in the same category as Homer and Spencer etc. But I'll have to do a little research to check on what Milton scholars say about that!
I kept returning to the line "better to reign in Hell than serve in Heav'n" (1.263) also. In the increasingly fascistic world we live in, how can we not sympathize with Satan here? He doesn't want to serve a tyrannical being who all but engineered his fall (being omnipotent/omniscient and therefore knew Satan would rebel). At least in Hell he's with his loyal compatriots, his fellow fallen soldiers.
God also “left him at large to his own dark designs" (that with reiterated crimes he might heap on himself damnation)” (1.213-15), or schemes. By punishing Satan in this way and leaving him alive, God is ensuring Satan will live to plot against him in the future. Of course, he has plausible deniability that this is what he is doing, because Satan has free will and could choose to just accept his punishment, but both know that this will never happen. God gets to appear benevolent, even as his actions cement Satan's hatred of him, and he knows this, which begs the question: does God want Satan to be the antihero? Did he intentionally stoke Satan's hatred of him so Satan could play this part? And if that's true, does Satan really have free will?
Additionally, I'm pondering how gender is portrayed and how Satan is almost set up to be somewhat androgynous. From "his womb" (673) was "digged out ribs of gold" (690) (bringing to mind Adam and the creation of Eve), and "Spirits when they please Can either sex assume, or both" (423-4). I will be keeping an eye out for themes of gender as the epic continues.
I think you’ve identified an issue with being omnipotent: allow free will and get blamed for allowing bad things to happen, or don’t allow bad things to happen but then there’s no free will. Milton in this poem gives Satan free will so then while God does know what Satan is going to do, He has to allow it or free will is overthrown, and in allowing it He is the opposite of a tyrant. Satan however absolutely does try to turn it around to justify himself, and blames God for hiding His strength thus tempting Satan to attempt his doomed rebellion. I don’t think Milton intended us to accept Satan’s rationalizations, but to make Satan’s rationalizations seductive sounding.
Totally with you on viewing this with a gender and sexuality lens. Especially interested in this because of the historical context of Eve biting the apple being used as an argument for women being, yk, more docile and easily manipulated. And inferior to men. I think it's crucial to not read any of these figures as the binary genders apart from Adam and Eve and to not fall into the trap of viewing things like violence and manipulation as masculine traits (when speaking of Satan!!)
"I kept returning to the line "better to reign in Hell than serve in Heav'n" (1.263) also. In the increasingly fascistic world we live in, how can we not sympathize with Satan here? He doesn't want to serve a tyrannical being who all but engineered his fall (being omnipotent and therefore knew Satan would rebel). At least in Hell he's with his loyal compatriots, his fellow fallen soldiers."
It was Satan who spoke the words "the tyranny of Heaven". 1.124. Perhaps we shouldn't take everything he says on faith. That Satan would rather "reign in hell than serve in Heaven" is a tacit admission that Satan's definition of tyranny is when he's not in charge. There's little cause for sympathy there.
One might even say Satan is projecting when calling God a tyrant. Satan's quote is an allusion to a similar quote attributed to Julius Caesar, who was assassinated for being a tyrant.
"God also “left him at large to his own dark designs" (that with reiterated crimes he might heap on himself damnation)” (1.213-15), or schemes. By punishing Satan in this way and leaving him alive, God is ensuring Satan will live to plot against him in the future. Of course, he has plausible deniability that this is what he is doing, because Satan has free will and could choose to just accept his punishment, but both know that this will never happen. God gets to appear benevolent, even as his actions cement Satan's hatred of him, and he knows this, which begs the question: does God want Satan to be the antihero? Did he intentionally stoke Satan's hatred of him so Satan could play this part? And if that's true, does Satan really have free will?"
Satan doesn't lack free will because he's predictable and unwilling to change.
"...in my choice
To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven."
1.261-63
"Additionally, I'm pondering how gender is portrayed and how Satan is almost set up to be somewhat androgynous. From "his womb" (673) was "digged out ribs of gold" (690) (bringing to mind Adam and the creation of Eve), and "Spirits when they please Can either sex assume, or both" (423-4). I will be keeping an eye out for themes of gender as the epic continues."
The phrase "his womb" refers to the hill from which the gold was extracted.
"There stood a hill not far, whose grisly top
Belched fire and rolling smoke; the rest entire
Shone with a glossy scurf—undoubted sign
That in his womb was hid metallic ore"
1.670-74.
The English of our day and Milton's doesn't use grammatical gender in which nouns are masculine or feminine, but Latin does use it. Nevertheless, Milton appears to have a proclivity for using grammatical gender depending on whether the word is masculine or feminine in Latin.
"Their dread commander. He, above the rest
In shape and gesture proudly eminent,
Stood like a tower; his form had not yet lost
All her original brightness"
1.589-92
As the Hackett edition points out, "her" refers to the word "form", which is feminine in Latin. The Latin word for "hill" is masculine. Thus the hill's womb is "his womb".
Satan IS the hero here.
Even when he vows to do only evil and even when good comes from evil, to thwart that? His complete commitment to relentless pursuit of pain and suffering due to his grievances is definitely the polestar of our present moment.
I agree, however I get the feeling Milton didn't see it that way.
I struggle with this too... I don't necessarily agree that God allowing Satan to play out his part necessarily equals to free will... If it's pre-ordained to let free will play out but the outcome is already determined, how can there still be free will? And if Satan is so bad isn't God just really facilitating an abuser by letting Satan roam free to do his evil deeds?
If free will exists, then the outcome isn't already determined.
But God had already foreseen what would happen, hadn't he?
The theology of it (unless you’re Calvinist) is that as God created time, He exists outside of time, and so he can see what the outcome of anything can be. That doesn’t mean someone doesn’t have free will in making a choice, it just means God knows they will make that choice, because He sees the past, present, and future.
Divine foreknowledge Vs Human free will
If God knows certain choices will always be made and the outcome is pre-determined, then that to me doesn't feel like true free will.
If He allows a person the full range of choice, how isn’t it?
This post really helped me gather my thoughts on book one and plan better for book two. I did a lot of reading a page then looking to the internet on what tha page meant without any self reflection or intentional rereading. Part of that is because I got my copy halfway through January so I was playing catchup (also HAD to read all of the introductory material). I’m hoping now that I’m more caught up and accustomed to Milton’s flow I’ll be able to slow down further and digest.
Hey Kelsey, I started by reading it 3 times and then thinking and trying to make sense of what I was reading, but I almost died because I also have ADHD. So now I am listening to the audiobook while reading it and then reading it out loud myself and copy-pasting any quotes that speak to me and then thinking about it and talking to my husband about it, it helps me better understand what is happening, but I am lost most of the time haha
I had the same issue with my copy arriving halfway through the month and playing catch up!
With the Tyranny of Heaven line (1.124) I could not help but immediately think of the C.S. Lewis quote in this case: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive...but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
I was struck by the whole passage of Satan rallying his troops, especially the bit starting in line 637. "But he who reigns monarch in heaven, 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 conceal, which tempted our attempt, and wrought our fall."
There is so much packed in these lines! The word choice of consent describing the relationship between ruler and subject is very telling. At this point, we know nothing of what has driven this rebellion, but Satan seems to be almost blaming God for inciting their rebellion and subsequent fall and implying there was some trickery involved. Am I reading this right?
Throughout Book 1, he is not humbled by the fall, or at least not for long. This is just a stumble, requiring a course reset from outright rebellion to fraud and guile. Some foreshadowing as well with temptation.
Yes I think you are reading this right, Satan makes a couple comments implying that God hid the full extent of his power to trick Satan into thinking it was possible to rise up against him. And the phrase "tempted our attempt" is also really interesting there - this whole epic is building towards the moment when Satan tempts Eve to disobey, and here he is suggesting that God has tempted *him* to rebel!
I really like this interpretation, however I can't help but wonder, if Milton was a Christian, why would he cast God in such a seemingly negative light? Is Milton implying Satan is coming up with excuses, perhaps?
And now that I've found the weekly chats, I see this has already been covered. Thank you for steering me to these!
As I was reading Book 1, I did find myself struggling with the density of the references, but also was somewhat confused/intrigued by the amount of international/historical references. I was confused because, in the introduction to my edition it is mentioned that all this occurs before the world is properly created, humans (obviously) included, yet countries and systems of government and kingdoms were constantly alluded to, though I now see that was probably Milton acting as the narrator from his position in time (though I'd appreciate anyone's contributions to this point, because I'm still unsure about it). More imoortantly though, I found it interesting in a post-colonial way how multinational the book was, how many countries were mentioned by name. I liked the parallels between Hell and Earth, but I also find a lot of English Universal Classics to simply speak of Britain and expect their readership to extrapolate that POV and apply it in a more "universal" way, but I was interested to find that in a story about, ultimately, the creation of mankind, that there was a broader vision. I hope to struggle a little less with the language for book 2 and keep a more even pace that allows me to reread often! Thank you so much for this space!
Yes yes yes me too! I was actually in awe at the breadth of the references. I can’t help but admire it and simultaneously be terrified haha! I also have stopped to wonder about how this was read at the time of publication and if those in the circles reading this would have understood most of the references and how amazing that is.
I wondered at the conemporary reception as well! Mostly because their reading would probably not have been read in a postcolonial vein (I'm not even sure England was a colonizing power by then) and so maybe they had a "purer" and more equal relationship with the countries and stories mentioned; but I also wondered at how they reconciled the work with the religion they most likely subscribed to, considering it paints God as a harsh figure from Book 1.
Me too! I am almost the whole time a little lost, but I do think he is kind of like giving us a quick snapshot of what these fallen angels will do in the future, if that makes sense. I am just allowing myself not to understand it all, because I would go crazy.
I wondered about the references as well.but can accept that Milton as contemporary narrator existed in another time, and in possibly another dimension. PL is, after all, not contained to one time period, nor possibly to one dimension.
Um, get out of my head! My exact note on that passage of the book was “Honey, I Shrunk Satan’s Horde” 😂
I'm reading Paradise Lost for the first time. I am taking the idea that poems should be read out-loud to heart. I am reading the weekly lines out-loud, then going back to re-read, slowly and carefully, with all the footnotes and looking things up when necessary. It has taken some time to get used to the cadence, but I think it is deepening my enjoyment of the book.
This is exactly how I am reading it and agree it works really well!
I’m also reading it out loud :)
I know Satan says “better to reign in hell”, but all the lines to me still indicate he means ALL of them, not necessarily that he just wants power. There’s so much imagery of god forcing loyalty (like slaves forced to worship him) and lines like “for this infernal pit shall never hold celestial spirits in bondage” (1.657-58) or “here at last we shall be free” (1.258-59). To me, Satan doesn’t want to rule over the other fallen angels… there’s so many lines of empathy from Satan for them.
Right, he does show what looks like real care towards the other fallen angels! The moment when he cries while looking out over his army does so much to make him sympathetic for me.
I’m rereading book 1 again before starting book 2, and see that two lines before “better to reign in hell”, he starts by saying “here WE may reign secure…”
I'm really loving this project so far! It's like you've hacked my brain and I'm noticing so many things I hadn’t without even trying.
A few of my favorites so far:
Line 619 as an inversion to Peter denying Christ 3 times
Line 200 is a reference to Leviathan, but also name checks Saul's (later Paul, famous for persecuting Christians) home town in one of my favorite of the Classical-Greco Roman mash ups.
Line 168 potential reference to Psalm 82:1 one of the most theologically infamous verses
And that Dagon was a real deity not a Lovecraft invention like I had assumed 😅
“What are your thoughts about this line, “better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav’n?” Do you see it as more humanizing for Satan’s character, or as a sign of his villainy?”
I’m thinking now of all the people (and movements) in human history that began as fights against tyranny and that after victory became themselves the new tyrants. History is full of this. If we were to accept Satan’s framing of God’s tyranny, does Milton develop Satan as this sort of character? “Down with the old tyrant, long live the new tyrant, me”, Satan seems to be saying. His rebellion failed of course but he does get to rule in this new place. It would seem to follow a human tendency and be villainy both.
"In this book we meet one of the central characters of the epic in Satan. His decisions and motivations will continue to drive much of the action of the story. What are we learning about him so far? How is this character being presented, and what expectations are you forming about how he will develop?"
Paradise Lost is a story about temptation. Satan is Milton's way of tempting the reader.
since being mostly unwillingly retired about 15 months ago, this project is the first thing that generated a little excitement in my life.
like most of us, i assume we all had our reporter's notebook open, taking notes as we read. It's very convenient that the piece is broken up into five (numbered) line segments!
the very first impression was right at the beginning, where Milton was saying he was emulating the poets of old, not these new dipshits who need everything to rhyme. Lord Satan isn't the only one guilty of pride!
you can say a lot of things about Satan, but he understands command. i appreciate him picking himself up (first) after his nine days on his back, and putting on a brave face for his host.
Satan might be prideful in saying he's second in power to god himself, but so we are we all. Satan is compelling because he strives in spite of impossible odds. if god always wins no matter what, then god is a deadly bore. being the first entity to say, basically, to "do what i say, because i said so," is shitty lazy parenting.
heaven might have a big golden throne, pearly gates, puffy white clouds, and inescapable harp music, but Hell has all the best building contractors.
i look forward to the conclave in the second book.
...
jesus's actual spoken words are printed in red in the New Testament- so what color should Satan's actual spoken words be in Paradise Lost? *are* there editions where the spoken words of Satan are in color?
God is a bore! I'm making an effort on this read-through to try to test my feelings about Satan and God as characters, and see if I see sympathetic points in God or irredeemable points in Satan, but I don't know...so far I feel still solidly in the sympathy for the devil camp. Satan cries when he looks over his fallen companions and bolsters their spirits when they're at their lowest - I can't not root for the guy!
I'd vote for Satan's lines being in an iridescent black, so they at first look the same as the rest of the text, but then take on a bit of shimmer when they catch the light...
woo hoo, sensei noticed me. thank god for shelf whiskey!
I’m really enjoying your analysis and appreciate you sharing your insights. This is my second time reading Paradise Lost. I’ve just read C.S. Lewis’ A Preface to Paradise Lost, and he made some wonderful points too.
My own analysis of Satan differs from that of many readers, it appears. I assume that Satan is a liar, so the most unreliable narrator is he. Nothing he says is to be trusted. Therefore, I read it with a completely different lens. But there’s no “wrong” way to interpret stories. Simply put, the discussion is varied and fascinating; engaging deeply with literature helps us find our own values and connect with personal truths we may have missed otherwise. I look forward to reading more of your thoughts. Happy reading.
I am finding that the text is dense and a little hard for me to understand at first, so now I am using the audiobook while I read, which helps me understand the cadence, then I reread it out loud, and for some reason that is perfect. It is really helping me to slow down and really try to understand what I am reading. And I love that. I am also struck because I feel like the topics discussed in the first book are really making me think about our times right now in the US. I am not sure who's on which side, but I can see a lot of parallels.
Satan is the narrative hero. He has the means, motives and opportunity to drive the action, just the criminal is narrative hero of a mystery.
Also, here is what people of my generation think of when they here the "reign in hell" line: https://youtu.be/lGLmwljq9dg?si=eiVhOjuMSIRRL-t2&t=76 (Milton discussion continues at 2:30).
As a first time reader, I've had two questions I was hoping someone could shed light on.
1) The section regarding the list of fallen angels and their evil doings, were these evil doings being done while they were still in heaven or is this list post-fall? With the narrative beginning as Satan is standing taking in their new surroundings it doesn't seem to leave room for post-fall demonic shenanigans. Could this really be how they were acting while still a part of heaven?
2) I was very surprised at the amount of Greek mythology references (ex. 510-520). We get mentions of Zeus, Rhea, Titans, Olympus, etc. How are we supposed to view the greek mythology in Paradise Lost? Is Milton trying to combine the mythos of God/Satan with Greek mythology in the Paradise Lost cosmos? Or is this Milton aspiring to be an epic poem writer and using the Greek mythos as literary devices?
I'm greatly enjoying the slow read so far!! In the context of 2026, I find Milton's Satan to be a very compelling character. Understanding Milton's life, specifically his failed political rebellion and anti-monarchy stance, it is hard not to make parallels to America's own democracy under siege, No Kings protests, etc. I feel primed to be very sympathetic when reading from the POV of a character rebelling against a monarch.
For your first question - the list is definitely post-fall! At this point in the world of Paradise Lost the only two humans who exist are Adam and Eve, and they are brand new, and there's not much world out there other than the Garden of Eden. Once there are more humans in the world (and more world) the fallen angels are going to get up to all of those evil activities.
For your second question, I don't have an authoritative answer, but my read of the Greek references is that it's kind of what you're suggesting - that because Milton is writing an epic, he's drawing on these mythological figures to create an epic tone. That would seem to fit with what he's doing in the invocation, really drawing on epic convention to put himself in the same category as Homer and Spencer etc. But I'll have to do a little research to check on what Milton scholars say about that!
Yes! I have the same questions as well ..