Milton's Grand Style in Paradise Lost Book-1

            John Milton’s Paradise Lost is one of the greatest epic poems in English literature. It is famous not only for its story and ideas but also for its special style of writing. Milton’s style is generally called the “grand style.” The term means a lofty, majestic, powerful, and highly elevated way of writing. Milton uses impressive words, long and complex sentences, grand similes, metaphors, biblical and classical references, and deep philosophical ideas. All these features give Paradise Lost a majestic and epic character.

            The grand style is a style suitable for a great and serious subject. An epic poem deals with matters of great importance, and therefore its language is also expected to be powerful and dignified. Milton’s subject in Paradise Lost is enormous. He deals with God, Satan, Heaven, Hell, the creation of the world, the fall of Adam and Eve, sin, punishment, free will, and the future of humanity. For such a subject, ordinary language would not be enough. Milton therefore develops a style that is serious, majestic, and powerful. His grand style is not created by one particular device. It is the result of the combination of several qualities such as rich vocabulary, unusual sentence structure, blank verse, epic similes, metaphors, allusions, vivid descriptions, and philosophical thought.

            One of the most important features of Milton’s grand style is his rich and elevated vocabulary. Milton was a highly educated poet and had a deep knowledge of the Bible, classical literature, mythology, history, philosophy, and many other subjects. His wide learning can be clearly seen in Paradise Lost. He often uses words of Latin, Greek, and biblical origin. His language sounds formal and dignified rather than simple and conversational. This helps him create the atmosphere of an epic. For a modern reader, some of Milton’s words and expressions may appear difficult. Sometimes the reader needs the help of a dictionary or explanatory notes. However, this richness of language is one of the main reasons why Milton’s poetry sounds so grand and impressive.

            Milton’s sentence structure is another important part of his grand style. His sentences are often long and complicated. He does not always arrange words in the normal English order. He frequently uses inversion, placing words in an unusual position. This style is influenced partly by Latin and classical literature. Milton may place the verb before the subject, separate words that normally belong together, or delay the completion of a sentence for several lines. Because of this, readers sometimes have to read his sentences more than once. At first, this may seem difficult, but it gives the poem a formal and majestic quality. Milton’s unusual syntax allows him to create variety in rhythm and emphasis. It would therefore be incorrect to say that Milton did not know English grammar. His unusual grammar and sentence structure are mainly deliberate artistic techniques used to produce a special poetic effect. Another major feature of Milton’s style is his use of blank verse. Blank verse means unrhymed verse written mainly in iambic pentameter. Milton made this form extremely powerful and suitable for epic poetry. The absence of rhyme gives him greater freedom. He does not have to choose words merely because they rhyme. He can use the words that best express his ideas. His blank verse is flexible, musical, and powerful. It can express anger, sorrow, heroism, beauty, fear, and philosophical thought. Milton’s use of blank verse became one of his most important contributions to English poetry.

            Milton is especially famous for his epic similes. A simile compares one thing with another by using “like” or “as.” Milton often develops his comparisons at great length. Such comparisons are called epic or extended similes. For example, when Milton describes Satan, he compares him to Leviathan, the huge sea creature mentioned in the Bible. This comparison helps the reader understand Satan’s enormous size. Milton also compares Satan’s spear with a huge object such as a tall tree or mast of a large ship. These comparisons make the poem more vivid and imaginative. At the same time, they show Milton’s vast knowledge because his similes are taken from many areas such as mythology, history, geography, nature, warfare, and astronomy.

            Milton’s poetry is full of allusions. An allusion is an indirect reference to a famous person, event, story, book, myth, or tradition. The Bible is the most important source of Milton’s allusions because Paradise Lost is based on the biblical story of the Fall of Man. However, Milton also refers to Greek and Roman mythology, ancient history, Jewish tradition, and classical literature. For example, the reference to Leviathan comes from biblical tradition. Milton also mentions many ancient gods, heroes, warriors, places, and historical events. These allusions make the poem intellectually rich. But they may be difficult for an ordinary reader who does not know these stories. A reader must often learn the background before fully understanding Milton’s comparisons.

            Milton’s grand style is also visible in his imagery. He creates strong pictures in the minds of his readers. His descriptions of Heaven, Hell, Satan, angels, Paradise, and the universe are full of colour, movement, size, and power. Hell, for instance, is not described as an ordinary place. Milton presents it as a vast and terrible world. Similarly, Satan is shown as an enormous and powerful figure. These descriptions help readers imagine the supernatural world of the poem. Milton’s images often come from nature, war, architecture, the sea, and the heavenly bodies. This wide range of imagery adds greatness and variety to the poem.

            Milton’s grand style is not limited to language and poetic devices. It is also connected with the deep ideas of the poem. Paradise Lost asks serious questions about human life. Why did Adam and Eve disobey God? Do human beings have free will? Why does evil exist? What is sin? What is the meaning of punishment and redemption? What is the relationship between God and humanity? Milton explores these questions through long speeches, arguments, and reflections. Thus, the poem is not merely a story about Satan and Adam and Eve. It is also a serious study of human nature, morality, religion, and free will.

            The overall tone of Paradise Lost is majestic and serious. Milton’s purpose is to write about the greatest possible subjects, and his style matches that purpose. His long sentences, rich vocabulary, powerful images, epic similes, and serious ideas create a feeling of greatness. Even when he describes a simple action, his language often gives it an extraordinary importance. This is what makes Milton different from many other poets. His poetry does not sound casual or ordinary. It has a sense of dignity, power, and authority.

            Milton’s grand style is one of the most remarkable features of Paradise Lost. It is created through elevated language, unusual sentence structure, blank verse, extended similes, metaphors, biblical and classical allusions, vivid imagery, and deep philosophical thought. The poem can certainly be difficult for modern readers, but its difficulty comes largely from Milton’s deliberate and highly learned style. He wanted his language to match the greatness of his subject. Since Paradise Lost deals with God, Satan, Heaven, Hell, the Fall of Man, and the destiny of humanity, Milton uses a style that is equally vast and majestic. Therefore, Milton’s grand style is not merely a collection of difficult words or complicated sentences. It is a complete artistic method through which he gives greatness, dignity, and power to his epic. This grand style remains one of the chief reasons why Paradise Lost continues to hold such an important place in English literature.

God Sees the Truth but Waits (Question-Answers)

 

Questions and Answers

1. Answer the following questions in a sentence or two each, based on your understanding of the story.

a) Why did Aksionov’s wife stop him from going to the fair?

Ans: Aksionov’s wife had a bad dream. It was a premonition of some impending harm coming to him. So, she dissuaded him from going to the fair.

b) Why was Aksionov’s wife disturbed to see the dream?

Ans: In the dream, Aksionov’s wife saw him returning from the town with grey hair in place of his normal hair. This unusual sight made her perplexed.  

c) What made Aksionov leave the inn before dawn?

Ans: Aksionov wanted to reach the town before the sun got hot. So, he decided to leave the in rather early. 

d) What were the circumstances that led to Aksionov’s imprisonment?

Ans: The merchant with whom Aksionov spent the previous night had been found with his throat slit. Aksionov was the prime suspect for the crime because circumstantial evidence went against him. He had left the inn unusually early, and more importantly, the blood-stained knife allegedly used in the murder was found hidden in his bag. With these two, the police assumed Aksionov to be the perpetrator of the crime.    

e) Why did Aksionov give up sending petitions?

Ans: After a few of his fervent appeals proved to be futile, Aksionov gave up writing any more applications. 

f) Why didn’t Makar disclose that he had killed the merchant?

Ans: Makar was secretive about his past deeds as he was immoral and timid by nature. So he did not disclose that he had killed the merchant.

g) Did Makar feel guilty when he heard Aksionov’s story?

Ans: Yes, Makar felt guilty when he heard Askionov’s story.

h) What made Aksionov think that Makar was the real murderer?

Ans: After hearing Aksionov’s account, Makkar began to be evasive and aloof. When Aksionov asked whether he knew the murderer, he replied rather emphatically that the person from whose bag the weapon was retrieved must be the culprit. He even argued that the innocence of the accused could only be upheld if the placing of the knife in the baggage by the real murderer could be conclusively established. Makkar was speaking like the prosecutor rather than an ordinary listener of the story.  Such stridency of Makkaer made Aksionov think that Makar was the real murderer.

i) What was Aksionov’s realization by the end of the story?

Ans: Aksinov’s faith in God was bolstered many times after the story ended with the change of heart of Makar. He concluded that ‘God sees the truth, but waits.’ 

j) Why did Aksionov’s wife suspect him of involvement in the murder?

Ans: Aksionov’s wife discovered that the police had built a strong case against her husband. In exasperation, and overtaken by anguish, she confronted her husband with the awkward question about him being the murderer.

2. Answer the following questions in three or four sentences each.

a) Did the police officer have sufficient evidence to convict Aksionov?

Ans: Yes, the police officer had sufficient evidence to convict Aksionov. The fact that Aksionov left the inn too early, and the murder weapon was found to be in his possession pinned him to the crime.

b) What impact did the book “The Lives of Saints” have on Aksionov?

Ans: The book “The Lives of Saints” made him calm and sagacious. His fellow prisoners respected him, and adoringly called him “Grandfather,” and “The Saint.” When they found themselves mired in rancor, they came to the ‘Saint’ for the resolution of their differences.

c) How did Aksionov react when his wife suspected him?

Ans: When his wife confronted him with the question about his committing the murder, Aksinov was overwhelmed with grief, shame, and bewilderment. He had never expected that his dear and loving wife would ever suspect him of committing such a grievous offense. His wife’s question broke his heart and hurt him badly. He asserted his innocence fervently.

 

3. Answer the following questions in a paragraph of about 150 words each.

a) Compare and contrast the main characters, Aksionov and Makar Semeyonich’

Ans: Ivan Dmitrich Aksionov, the character around whom the story revolves, was an embodiment of simplicity, honesty, equanimity, and forgiveness. He bore his misfortune with grace and forbearance. He put his trust in God, and that enabled him to stay clear of bitterness and vengeance. Long years of his life were spent in jail, and his family was ravaged due to no fault of his. When the time came to exact revenge on the man who had caused him so much suffering, he became passive and demonstrated rare forgiveness towards Semeyonich, his tormentor. In a nutshell, Aksinov was a saintly person of outstanding moral character.

Makar Semeyonich, the devil of this story, was truly a hideous character. He was wicked in both mind and body. Although he had committed a murder and sent an innocent person to jail, he suffered no remorse or regret. Towards Aksinov, he was both mischievous and arrogant. He planned to dig his way out of the jail and was caught. Aksinov could have told the guards about it, and seen him beaten to a pulp by them. But, Aksinov pardoned him. Markar escaped a calamity but had no way to pay Aksinov back for his compassion.

b) Describe the life of Aksionov in prison.

Aksionov was imprisoned, since he was suspected of killing a merchant. But the actual murderer of the merchant was Semeyonich. Even his wife suspected him of the murder. This thought made him even sadder. He gave up all hope and told himself that God only knew the truth. For twenty-six years as a convict in Siberia, he grew old. In prison, Aksionov learned to make boots, and earned a little money with which he bought the book ‘The Lives of the Saints’. He used to read this book. On Sundays, in the prison church, he read the lessons and sang in the choir. The prison authorities liked him for his meekness. His fellow prisoners respected and called him “Grandfather” and “The Saint.” He was the spokesman among the prisoners. After 26 years, Semeyonich was imprisoned for his sin. Even if Aksionov realized Semeyonich was the real murderer, he saved Semeyonich from the governor in an incident. Semeyonich realized his mistake and confessed his guilt. But when the order of his release came, Aksionov was already dead.

c) Why did Aksionov decide not to reveal the truth about Makar Semeyonich?

Ans: Aksionov was imprisoned because he was suspected of killing a merchant. For twenty-six years as a convict in Siberia, he grew old. He felt that he had suffered twenty-six years in prison without committing any murder. Most of his life was spent in the prison. He had lost all his hope and his family. His wife was dead and his children had forgotten him. He thought about where he could go and he had nowhere to go. He no longer had any desire to leave the prison. But he only hoped for his last hours to come. He believed in God alone. His wife misunderstood and suspected him. In the prison, a new prisoner introduced himself and he was Makar Semeyonich. Besides, Makar Semeyonich confessed his guilt. He forgave him for revealing the truth. He did not want to take revenge on the murderer. He thought that forgiveness was the best form of revenge.

e) Discuss the meaning and importance of the title “God sees the truth but waits”.

Ans: This story was all about Aksionov who lost hope and just trusted God. Though he didn’t commit any crime, he was imprisoned for 26 years in the prison. Makar revealed the truth that he was the real murderer. Aksionov forgave him for accepting the truth and attained self-realization. But when the order of his release came, Aksionov was already dead. Our weakness can only make the problem stronger. Being hopeful can make all things possible. The title means that every decision of God needs enough time. This story is for all the people who lose hope and don’t believe in God. We should wait for the truth to win with faith in God gives us the answer to all our problems, as the title says GOD SEES THE TRUTH BUT WAITS. At the end of the story, there is a shift from materialism to spiritualism.

f) Forgiveness is the best form of revenge. Justify the story.

Ans: Aksionov lived with his wife and children in Vladimir. He decided to make a trip to the fair. His wife tried to stop him because she had a bad dream. On his way, Aksionov met a merchant. But the merchant was killed. So the local police officer was arrested and charged against Aksionov. He was sent to work in the mines of Siberia. He grew old there. Aksionov frequently prayed to God. Aksionov was respected by all the inmates due to his gentle behaviour. One day he met Makar Semeyonich. Aksionov found out the truth that Makar was the real killer. He saved Makar from the officials when he tried to escape. Eventually, Makar admitted his crime. Aksionov forgave Makar. Thus forgiving Makar, Aksionov accepted the truth, attained self-realization, and died in peace. Really Forgiveness is the best form of revenge.

Character sketch of Satan (Paradise Lost Book-1)

         In Book I of Paradise Lost, John Milton presents Satan as a powerful, courageous, determined, and intelligent leader. Although Satan is a villain and rebels against God, Milton gives him many qualities that are normally associated with a great leader. Satan has lost the war against God and has been thrown into Hell, but he does not lose hope. Instead, he encourages his followers and prepares them for another struggle. His speeches show his confidence, courage, ambition, and ability to influence others.

From the beginning of Book I, Satan speaks with great confidence. He has been defeated, but he does not behave like a defeated person. He does not cry or surrender. Instead, he tells his followers that their situation can still be changed. He says: “What though the field be lost? / All is not lost; the unconquerable will…” Satan means that although they have lost the battle, everything is not lost. They still have their will, courage, and determination.  This shows that Satan is a leader who does not give up easily.

One of Satan's most important qualities is his strong determination. He has lost Heaven, his position, and his comfort, but he refuses to accept defeat. He believes that as long as he has the courage to fight, he can continue his struggle against God. This quality is expressed in the famous line: “All is not lost; the unconquerable will…” This makes him appear strong and courageous, even though his purpose is evil.

Satan is a powerful speaker. He knows how to encourage his followers when they are frightened and disappointed. The fallen angels are lying helplessly in Hell after their defeat. They have lost their former glory. Satan speaks to them and gives them new courage. He makes them believe that they can still do something against God. He does not allow his followers to remain sad or hopeless. He gives them a reason to continue fighting. This is one of his strongest leadership qualities.

Satan behaves like a military commander. He understands that his army has been defeated, but he does not simply sit and complain. He begins to think about what they should do next. He gathers the fallen angels and discusses their future plans. He wants to know: What should they do now? How can they fight against God? How can they recover their lost position? How can they take revenge? This makes him look like a strong military leader.

Satan is extremely ambitious. He does not want to accept a lower position after losing Heaven. He wants power and independence. His famous statement expresses his attitude: “Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.” This shows his enormous pride and desire for power. His ambition is one of the main reasons for his rebellion against God. Satan is also presented as a courageous and fearless character. He knows that God is more powerful than he is, yet he refuses to surrender. He is willing to face difficulties and continue his struggle. His courage is particularly visible when he stands up after his defeat and addresses his followers. His courage itself is not necessarily a good quality because he uses it for an evil purpose. Milton shows that a person can possess courage but still use it wrongly.

A great leader needs the ability to influence people, and Satan possesses this quality. He understands the feelings of his followers. He knows that they are disappointed after their defeat, so he speaks to them in a way that gives them confidence. He makes them believe that they are still powerful. He also uses flattery, persuasion, and propaganda to influence others. Satan knows how to control people's minds through his words. This quality later becomes important when he deceives Eve.

Satan presents himself as one of the fallen angels rather than simply as their superior. He speaks about their common suffering. He has suffered the same defeat as his followers, so he uses this common experience to create unity among them. “We have suffered together, and we will fight together.” This helps him maintain his position as their leader.

            He is a clever politician. He always seems to have an answer to difficult situations. When his followers are discouraged, he gives them reasons to remain hopeful. He knows how to persuade people, give convincing speeches, hide weakness, increase confidence, encourage his followers, present himself as strong, and manipulate others. Therefore, Satan possesses many qualities of a successful political leader, although he uses these qualities for evil purposes.

 Satan can appear heroic from a literary point of view, even though he is morally evil. William Blake makes an important observation about Milton. Blake says: “Milton was of the Devil's party without knowing it.” Blake believes that Milton unintentionally made Satan appear attractive and powerful. Satan's courage, energy, speeches, and determination can make readers admire him, even though he is the villain. This is why Satan became one of the most controversial characters in English literature. Is Satan really a hero? We should be careful here. Satan has heroic qualities, but he is not a moral hero. He has courage, determination, leadership, and intelligence, but he uses these qualities for evil purposes. Satan has the qualities of a hero but the purpose of a villain. This is one of the reasons why his character is so fascinating.

In Book I of Paradise Lost, Milton gives Satan a heroic and impressive appearance. He is a courageous leader, a powerful speaker, a brave general, an ambitious rebel, and a determined commander. Even after suffering a terrible defeat, he refuses to surrender. However, his qualities are used for an evil purpose. His courage becomes rebellion, his confidence becomes pride, and his leadership becomes a means of spreading evil. Thus, Satan can be called a heroic-looking villain rather than a true moral hero. Milton's skill lies in creating a character whom readers may admire for his courage and determination while simultaneously recognizing the evil of his actions.

Question-Answers of Story "The Child"

 

1)      How does Gangu convince the narrator that it is not wrong to marry Gomti? Is the narrator convinced?

Ans. Gangu tells the writer that he knows everything about Gomti and wants to marry her. He says she left her previous husbands because they did not love her. They loved only her body and not her heart. According to him, a woman wants only love. He says that he will love Gomti from the core of his heart. But the narrator is not convinced.

2)      What is the impression the narrator has of Gangu's married life with Gomti?

Ans. The narrator thinks that Gangu's married life with Gomti will not be happy. He thinks that Gomti will run away from Gangu's house too. After his marriage with Gomti, Gangu starts living in a thatched house. To earn his living, he started to sell snacks from a cart. He earns enough to meet all his needs. Now he always looked cheerful. He seemed to have no worry at all. He looks full of energy. The dignity and joy on his face is a proof of his inner peace. One day he comes across Gangu in the market. He is surprised to see that Gangu is cheerful.

3)      Is Gangu the hero of the story? If so, how does the story make him one?

Ans. Yes, Gangu is the hero of the story. In this story, he acts like a reformer. He knows that Gomti has run away from the houses of her three previous husbands. Even now she is leading a life of illreputation. But Gangu believes that one should love one's heart, not body. So, despite the protest of his master, he marries Gomti. He even adopts Gomti's child which is born to her by her previous husband. Gangu does not believe in outdated conventions.

4)      What is the role of the child in the story?

Ans. The story is appropriately named 'The Child.' The child in the title appears at the end of the story. But it plays an important role. This is the child of Gangu's wife, Gomti. But it is Gomti's child from a previous husband. Despite knowing this fact, Gangu adopts the child. This incident moves the narrator to tears. He realizes that he has been following old and useless conventions. He takes the child from Gangu. He holds the child to his breast.

5)      What did the narrator think about Gangu as a servant?

Ans. Gangu was different from other servants. The other servants bowed to him, but Gangu never greeted him like that. Being a Brahmin, he probably expected the narrator to bow to him. The narrator had not the courage to ask him to fan him in the hot weather. If ever Gangu did it, he behaved as if he were doing the narrator a great favour. Gangu never touched any of the used utensils.

6)      How did the narrator feel when Gangu said that he wanted to leave his job?

Ans. The narrator was shocked when Gangu said that he wanted to leave his job. He was considered an ideal employer. Servants considered it their good fortune to stay on with him. No servant had ever come to him with a request to leave. Naturally, the narrator felt hurt when Gangu came with such a request.

7)      Why did Gangu want to leave his job?

Ans. Gangu had decided to marry a widow named Gomti Devi. She was a woman of a bad reputation. If Gangu married her, people could raise their fingers at his master also. Gangu didn't want his master to get a bad name on his account. So, he decided to leave his job.

8)      How did Gangu feel after Gomti had left him?

Ans. Gangu was very sad after Gomti had left him. He looked completely shattered. He felt sure that he was not good enough for her. While she was educated, he was an absolute illiterate. "I must have been at fault somewhere that she decided to leave," said Gangu very sadly.

9)      Describe Gangu's life after he had married Gomti.

Ans. Gangu had left his job with the narrator. After marrying Gomti, he started living in a thatched hut. He was now always happy. His face had a glow which showed that he had no worry at all. He earned a living as a hawker. He earned about a rupee daily. After buying the stock, he was left with about ten annas. Thus, he lived a life of complete contentment.

10)  Draw a character sketch of Gangu.

Ans. Gangu is completely illiterate, but he towers far above the so-called literates. He may have been old-fashioned but in matters of humanism, no one could be more enlightened. He may not deserve respect as a Brahmin, but as a man, he is the embodiment of goodness. Whatever shortcomings he might have as a servant, he would do proud to any wife as a husband. Gangu is an old-fashioned, illiterate Brahmin. But he shows a better understanding of human character than the narrator. The narrator calls him short-tempered. But nowhere in the story do we see him reacting in that manner. The narrator blames Gomti for leaving her husbands. He never tries to analyse the reasons behind it. But Gangu puts it so rightly when he says, "Where there is no love, we cannot expect a woman to stay on. We cannot win a woman with mere board and lodging." To conclude, we can say that Gangu is an angel of love and compassion.

11)  Narrate briefly the story, 'The Child', in your own words.

Ans. Gangu was one of the narrator's servants. He was completely illiterate. One day, he told the narrator that he wanted to leave his job. He wanted to marry a woman named Gomti Devi. She was a widow and had already married three times. But Gangu found no fault in her. He said, "Where there is no love, you can't expect a woman to stay on." When the narrator saw that Gangu was determined to marry Gomti Devi, he let him go. But he was certain that the marriage wouldn't last more than a few days. And he was proved right. One day he heard that Gomti had run away. Gangu looked completely shattered. He said that he must have been at fault somewhere that Gomti had left him. He called her a goddess. The narrator called Gangu a fool who still had his eyes closed. He asked him to go and find her out if he was so much attached to her. Gangu found Gomti in the Women's Hospital in Lucknow. She had given birth to a male child. That was why she had run away. Gangu brought her back. The narrator knew that Gangu had been married for only six months. He was surprised at Gangu's shamelessness. But Gangu said that he would love the child as his own. The important thing for him was that Gomti should love him. The narrator was deeply impressed by Gangu's sentiments. He took the child from Gangu and kissed it. Then he went with Gangu to meet Gomti at their house.

Paradise Lost Book-1 Introduction

 John Milton's Paradise Lost is one of the greatest epic poems in English literature. It deals mainly with the fall of Adam and Eve and the loss of Paradise. Milton explains how human beings disobeyed God and how sin, suffering and death entered the world. Book I contains 798 lines and is written in blank verse. It is mainly concerned with Satan, his fall from Heaven, his arrival in Hell, his meeting with the other fallen angels, and his plan to take revenge against God.

Book I has six sections.

1          1–26    Invocation and purpose of the poem

2          27–83  Fall of Satan and description of Hell

3          84–282 Conversation between Satan and Beelzebub

4          283–621 Gathering and description of fallen angels

5          622–669 Satan's speech to the fallen angels

6          670–798 Construction of Pandemonium

Section 1: Invocation and Purpose of the Poem Lines 1–26

The poem begins with the famous words: “Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit/ Of that forbidden tree…” Milton immediately tells us what the poem is about. His subject is man's first disobedience to God. God had given Adam and Eve everything they needed. They lived happily in the Garden of Eden. However, God had forbidden them to eat the fruit of one particular tree—the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam and Eve later disobey God and eat the forbidden fruit. As a result, they lose Paradise. Sin, suffering and death enter human life. Milton also looks beyond the Fall. He knows that, according to Christian belief, Christ will later provide salvation for humanity. Like a traditional epic poet, Milton begins by asking for divine inspiration. He calls upon the Heavenly Muse. For Milton, the true source of inspiration is not an ordinary Greek or Roman Muse. His Muse is connected with God and the Holy Spirit. He asks the divine Spirit to give him wisdom and understanding: “What in me is dark /Illumine, what is low raise and support.” In simple words, Milton says: “Remove the darkness from my mind and give me the wisdom and strength to write this great poem.” Milton clearly explains why he is writing the poem: “And justify the ways of God to men.” This means that Milton wants to explain God's justice and wisdom to human beings. He wants readers to understand why God allowed human beings to have free will, why the Fall happened, and how God's larger plan eventually brings salvation. In Simple Words, the first section tells us the poem is about the Fall of Man. Adam and Eve disobey God. Their disobedience brings sin and death. Milton asks God for inspiration. Milton wants to explain God's justice to human beings.

Section 2: The Fall of Satan and Hell Lines 27–83

After introducing the Fall of Man, Milton goes back to an event that happened before Adam and Eve sinned. This event is the rebellion of Satan against God. Satan was originally a beautiful and powerful angel. He was known as Lucifer. But he became extremely proud. He wanted to become equal to God. Satan and his followers rebelled against God. A great war took place in Heaven. Satan and his followers were defeated by God and thrown out of Heaven. They fell into Hell. Milton describes Hell as a terrible place filled with fire, darkness, pain, suffering, loneliness, and despair. Satan and his followers remain in the fiery lake for nine days before Satan recovers consciousness. Milton calls Hell a “dungeon horrible”.  He also describes the “fiery Gulfe” The description creates a frightening picture of Hell. An important point is that Satan does not feel sorry for his rebellion. He has lost Heaven, but he has not lost his pride. Instead of saying, “I was wrong,” he thinks about how he can continue his fight against God. This is important because it shows Satan's character from the beginning. Satan has lost the battle, but he has not accepted defeat in his mind. He wants to continue his struggle against God.

Section 3: Satan and Beelzebub Lines 84–282

Satan sees his close companion Beelzebub lying near him in Hell. Beelzebub was once a powerful angel. Satan remembers his former beauty and glory. He says: “O how fall'n! how chang'd…” Satan is shocked by how much they have changed after their fall from Heaven. However, Satan does not repent. Instead, he says that although they have lost Heaven, they have not lost their courage and determination. One of the most important lines is: “What though the field be lost?/ All is not lost…” Satan believes that his mind and will are still free. He says: “The mind is its own place, and in itself/ Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n.” This means that a person's mental attitude can change how he experiences his situation. Satan believes that if he remains mentally strong, even Hell cannot completely defeat him. “Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven” This is probably the most famous quotation from Book I. Beelzebub is more pessimistic than Satan. He understands that they are suffering and that God has defeated them. But Satan remains determined. He tells Beelzebub that they should find another way to fight God. He says: “To do ought good never will be our task,/ But ever to do ill…” This reveals Satan's determination to oppose God at every stage. The conversation between Satan and Beelzebub shows that Satan is proud. Beelzebub is more fearful and hopeless. Satan refuses to surrender. Satan wants revenge. He begins thinking of a new way to fight God.

Section 4: The Fallen Angels Gather Lines 283–621

After speaking with Beelzebub, Satan looks at the other fallen angels. They are lying exhausted in Hell. Satan becomes angry and calls them to rise: “Awake, arise, or be forever fall'n.” The fallen angels immediately respond to Satan's command. They gather around their leader. Milton then gives a long description of the important fallen angels. Some of the names mentioned are Moloch, Chemos, Astarte, Thammuz, Dagon, Rimmon, Osiris, Isis, Orus, and Belial. These figures are associated with the false gods worshipped by different ancient peoples. Milton wants us to see that the fallen angels are not ordinary creatures. They are powerful supernatural beings. However, despite their power, they have already been defeated by God. Satan wakes his followers and gathers them together. Milton then describes the large army of fallen angels and gives the names of their important leaders.

Section 5: Satan's Speech to the Fallen Angels Lines 622–669

Now all the fallen angels are gathered around Satan. Satan addresses them and tries to increase their confidence. He calls them: “Myriads of immortal Spirits” This means countless immortal spirits. Satan tells them that they should not lose hope. He reminds them that they are still powerful and that they can continue their struggle against God. But Satan understands one important thing: they cannot defeat God through direct war. Therefore, they must use a different method. He decides to use “fraud” and “guile” In simple words, this means deception and trickery. Satan's New Plan: Satan hears that God is going to create a new creature called Man. This gives Satan a new idea. He decides: “If we cannot defeat God directly, we can attack His new creation.” Therefore, Satan plans to corrupt human beings. This plan eventually leads him to Adam and Eve.

Section 6: Construction of Pandemonium Lines 670–798

After Satan's speech, the fallen angels begin to prepare a meeting place. They are led by Mammon, who represents a strong desire for material wealth. The demons dig into the earth and discover valuable materials such as gold, precious metals, and other treasures. Using their supernatural powers, they construct a magnificent palace. This palace is called Pandemonium. The word Pandemonium means approximately “the place of all demons.” It becomes the capital or meeting place of the fallen angels. Milton describes the building in grand and magnificent language. Thousands of demons enter the palace. Because they are supernatural beings, they can change their size and become small enough to enter the enormous building. Finally, all the demons gather inside. Milton ends Book I by saying: “The great consult began.” This means that the great council or meeting of the demons begins. They are now ready to discuss their plans against God.

Oedipus Complex in Sons and Lovers

 

It was Freud the modern psychologist who built up the theory of the Oedipus Complex based on the ancient myth of Oedipus Rex of Thebes. To explain his theory he says that a mother’s love for her son and a son’s love for his mother are fundamentally based upon the attraction between opposite sexes. D. H. Lawrence is a great novelist of human psychology. He has drawn many distinguishing characters in his novels. The relationship between Paul and his mother is an “Oedipus Complex” case in Sons and Lovers. 

William had been Mrs Morel’s favourite son. She had been lavishing all her love and affection upon him. She had been cherishing high ambitions about his future. Especially she had felt proud when he got a job in London on a decent salary. She felt a little disappointed when he fell in love with a superficial girl, Lily Western. William had loved his mother deeply too. That is why he kept writing loving letters to his mother when he went to London. Now, the love between William and Mrs Morel was not a case of ordinary love between a mother and her son.

After the death of her oldest son, Paul becomes the focus of her life. But Paul has a love relationship with Miriam. Mrs Morel does not tolerate the absorbing nature of Miriam. Mrs Morel thinks that she is becoming neglected by her son Paul because of his relationship with Miriam. She again and again tells that she cannot bear it at any cost. At that time, Paul tries to console his mother by telling her that he loves his mother, not Miriam. His home with his mother is the real centre of attraction. But his mother cannot understand it. Even she says that she can let another woman for her son but not Miriam because she leaves no room, but a bit of room for

Mrs Morel's love for Paul had an element of anguish in it because she always felt uneasy over the thought that Paul was wasting his time and energy over the wrong girl. Later, Mrs Morel wanted Paul to give up his friendship even with Clara because Clara was married. Paul had developed a sexual relationship with Miriam, but he could not discuss this matter with his mother. At the same time, he had developed a sexual relationship with Clara; he could not discuss the subject with his mother. It was another part of the "Oedipus Complex”.

There is another  "Oedipus Complex" touch in Paul's love relationship with his mother. His love for her even proved an obstacle in the way of his loving any other woman in a normal manner. When she felt ill, he again showed extraordinary devotion to her. During her illness, he had no peace of mind at all. Tears would flow from his eyes when he saw her suffering. He spoke to Clara about his mother's lingering illness. All day long he was very worried about his mother. It was a long pain which made him feel feverish. He often addressed his mother as "Pigeon" and "my little", as if she were his sweetheart and sweet lover.

Thus the days passed, the weeks, and the months. When his mother died, Paul felt that his life is empty and meaningless. It was with great effort that he was able to persuade himself that his mother was still alive. It was this feeling which saved him from despair and from suicide.

To sum up, we can say that the "Oedipus Complex" is a leading theme of this novel. Actually, the novelist has not invented this relationship; he has only described his own experience with his mother. Paul is D H. Lawrence himself; and Paul's mother is Lawrence's own mother. So we may say that the central theme of Sons and Lovers may best be described as the "Oedipus Complex”.

Robert Browning as an Optimistic Poet

 

Browning is a moralist and a religious teacher. His optimism is based on life's realities. Life is full of imperfection but in this very imperfection lies hope, according to Browning's philosophical views. Actually, the philosophy of Browning is the philosophy of a man looking at the world with more than a glimmer of hope in his eyes. He holds a very distinct place among the writers of the Victorian Age. He is an uncompromising foe of "Scientific Materialism". He preaches God and universality as the central truth of his philosophy of life.

As an optimist, he portrayed almost all kinds of people from different stages of society in his poems. He had gone so far as to study the relationship between Man and the entire world. His poems are full of courage and inspiration for those people of the world. We can prove Browning as an optimist more clearly from the following analysis.

Browning is a man with hope for the fate of humans. Actually, his hope is not for this world, but for the next world too. He believes that the soul of a human being is immortal. After death, there will be an action for Man by God named salvation in which he will be rewarded or punished for his deeds from his birth to his death. As, in his “The Last Ride Together”, he said-

We fall to rise, are baffled to fight better

Sleep to wake”

As we have already known that Browning has a strong belief in the immortality of the soul. According to him, only the human body dies, but the soul lives on in the infinite, the place of God. Again in “The Last Ride Together”, the speaker of the poem says that after death his and his beloved’s soul will enter and meet into eternity and will stay there eternally.

“The instant made eternity,

And Heaven just prove that I and she

Ride, ride together, forever ride?”

There is no doubt that Browning has firm faith in the divinity of God. His characters, especially the speakers are compressed with the belief in God. He addressed God and immortality as the central truth of his philosophy of life.

Besides, he does not mean that there is no suffering or evil in the world at all. Evil is actually a moral condition in the way of man’s improvement. It is a man who cannot be successful without an enemy. It is only awareness and failure that will help man in his advance toward perfection.

In his poems, Browning asks man to keep himself drowned in an imperishable struggle. Because success will come only through hard work. He puts stress on continuous human effort. He also believes that hard work with a definite goal is much better than a struggle that has no aim. Once a man has learned to struggle, there will be no goal that he cannot achieve.

“Andrea Del Sarto” is the kind of poem in which Browning lays emphasis on the role of human struggle. No man can achieve the peak of a hundred per cent perfection, but he should keep his struggle go on so that he may reach somewhere near perfection. As Andres says-

“Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp,

Or what’s a heaven for?”

So, after the above discussion, we can conclude that Browning’s strong optimistic faith is very notable in the Victorian age. If we scan all the English poets, we may not find as many complete, conscious, magnificent men with a sense of optimism as Robert Browning.

Robert Browning as a writer of dramatic monologue

 

The poem which has a speaker and silent listener or listeners may be called Dramatic Monologue. The speaker reveals his thoughts in front of silent listeners. The listener remains silent all through the poem but infers his presence from what the speaker says. The speaker’s utterance is a response to an occasion or event of crucial importance in his life.

In Browning’s dramatic monologues, generally, we find there is a single speaker.  In the poem “My Last Duchess”, the Duke who is a sixteenth-century nobleman of Italy, is the speaker and the only silent listener is the emissary who has come to him to negotiate for his second marriage with a count’s daughter. Each of the dramatic monologues of Browning has an abrupt and arresting. The poem “My Last Duchess”, starts with a dramatic suddenness:

“That’s my last Duchess painted on the wall

                                              Looking as if she were alive:”

Browning’s dramatic monologues provide an understanding of the character of the speaker. For instance in “Porphyria’s Lover”, we find the psychological makeup of the speaker. He is afraid that the blissful moment of love will pass away. So he kills his beloved. Yet he suffers no sense of guilt, as he says in this poem:

“And all night long we have not stirred

And yet God has not said a word!”

The murder reminds us of the murder of the Duchess by the Duke in Browning’s “My Last Duchess”. The Duke says:

“This grew, I gave command

Then all the smiles stopped together”

Porphyria’s lover is not as cruel as Duke. He just wants to get his beloved permanently. In “Andrea Del Sarto”, we can see an uxorious husband whose love for his wife destroys his career as an artist. Similarly in “Fra Lippo Lippi”, we find a monk who is morally loose. Thus all those dramatic monologues successfully concentrate on the personality of the speaker.

Regarding Browning’s exceptionally brilliant use of blank verse, Arthur Symons rightly says that “He is perhaps the greatest master in our language” in heroic couplets. He maintains a balance between his style and content. The language and tone of “Porphyria’s  Lover”, are equally remarkable for their simplicity and naturalness. Porphyria has murdered his beloved. But he narrates the event so naturally that reader does not hate the crime, as he says in this poem:

“No pain felt she

I am quite sure she felt no pain”

Realistic and beautiful nature-picture is another striking feature of Browning’s dramatic monologues. These two are not taken from a single country. As he took his character from various ages and various countries. Similarly, he picked up his nature scenes and landscapes as background for human thought and emotion. For example, the description of the lace where the Grammarian is to buried heightens. The speaker says in the following ways in the poem:

“Here’s the top peak…..

Bury this man there?”

In light of our discussion, we can easily say that Robert Browing is very successful in handling the form of dramatic monologue in his poems. Almost all the elements of a successful dramatic monologue are presented in his poems. Robert Browning’s dramatic monologues are thoughtful, confessional, and self-revealing.

 

Arms and the Man: As a Anti-romantic Comedy

 

Arms and the Man is a famous play written by George Barnard Shaw that was first performed on April 21, 1984. This play uncovers the falseness of the war and deals with the two facades of human nature. It is regarded as an anti-romantic play because through this play Shaw has criticized the dreamlike worship of life. The play is also a comedy because in it Shaw has openly ridiculed the futility of romantic love and the idea of war. We can also call Shaw’s play a didactic play because the dramatist aims to show his readers the reality of love and war. 

Shaw brings up anti-romantic aspects in  Arms and the Man through situational irony. Raina, in the beginning, accepts the romantic idea of war and in her dreams manifests this idea in the character of Sergius, with whom she is in love. Her ideas of war and love both rests on physical appearance and fantasies. But Bluntschli enlightens her of this romantic concept of soldierly bravery, expressing it as merely an unprincipled form of stupidity. Eventually, Raina abandons her romantic ideas and is assured that a more practical perception is superior and changing her romantic feelings for Segius with a more profound love for Bluntschli. 

Shaw’s argument of romantic love is more complicated than it appears primarily. Love is not what Raina was thinking in the First Act, which is the uniting of her soul to Sergius’s and the concept that they could possibly live merrily together. Their association appears perfect, with her flawless virtuosity and his valour and glory. Shaw says this kind of love is based on misrepresenting how an individual acts besides fairy tales. 

In Arms and the Man, the characters and their conversations are either guided by romantic love or lack of it. During the early twentieth century, the societal traditions of love incorporated social courting, parental consent, and giving importance to the prestige and money of each partner. But the characters in the play go against the general standard and end up with a character that is well-suited to them. 

Characters gradually disillusion themselves with the characteristics of romantic love they have greatly admired throughout their lives and find that it is much more complicated. For example, At the beginning of the play, it seems that Raina is in love with Sergius, but when she became infatuated with Blunstshcli, she understands that her love for Sergius was shallow and not profound. Raina may also have fallen in love with Sergius because he was applauded as a hero and also because her mother Catherine and her father Petkoff encouraged the relationship to preserve the family’s prestige. 

On the other hand, Louka, even though she is engaged to Nicola, doesn’t seem to have ever been in love with him and exhibits that she is eager to make an effort to tie the knot into an upper rank. Romantic love doesn’t appear to be a concern in her judgments. The preliminaries of Louka’s relationship with Sergius are adulterous and go against the norms of courtship. The first meeting of Bluntschli and Raina is also unusual, as they meet covertly in her bedroom. And eventually, when they got engaged, Bluntschli, the practical and crafty soldier, astonished everyone by disclosing himself to be a lifelong romance.

Shaw does not completely reject the concept of romantic love. Rather, he only allows it when characters discard their preconceptions about romantic love. Blunstshcli casts aside much of his soldierly courageous behaviour before Raina when he first meets her in her bedroom. And Raina also confesses that she is not altogether a perfect individual, as she often does and utters things that oppose righteous and decent behaviour.

We cannot call the relationship of Louka and Sergius a proper romantic relationship. Their relationship is based on lust and ambitions together with the advancement of one’s social status. This is possibly not romantic love in the way Blunstshcli and Raina exhibit, and it is certainly not the kind of romantic love Raina manifests at the beginning of the play. Shaw appears to place a lot more importance on the way individuals behave, instead of their romanticized ideas about behaviour and conduct. 

Arms and the Man also talks about how war is fought. Shaw has taken the title of the play from Virgil’s “Aeneid” which extols war. Shaw used this title ironically to show how war should not be judged as romantic. 

Bluntschli is a Swiss mercenary who has employed himself for the Serbians together with other soldiers. Sergius is expected to exhibit the 'heart' of the Bulgarians' mission, with his courageous charge at the beginning of the play illustrating how firmly he wants to preserve his nation’s glory. But as the story of the play progresses it becomes clear that war is merely a piece of work for soldiers. Sergius whom we thought to be a brave hero was actually marshalling a foolish charge against the opponent. He does this only so that he gets promoted to a higher rank. Bluntschli also breaks up Raina’s fairy-tale idea of war and bravery when he manifests that the great soldiers are generally not recognized as such on the outside. 

To conclude, we can say that Shaw’s play Arms and the Man is an anti-romantic comedy because, with his creative intellect and humour, Shaw dismisses the idealistic concept of love and war and reveals what they really are.

 

Themes in the play Arms and the Man

The play discusses how war is made, how it is fought, and how parties sue for peace at the close of it. Indeed, the play’s title is a direct quote from Virgil’s Aeneid, the Roman epic that glorifies war. Shaw used this quote ironically, drawing attention to how war should not be seen as romantic.

The Serbo-Bulgarian War is not addressed directly in the text, although that is the historical template on which Shaw bases his production. Bluntschli is a Swiss mercenary who has hired himself to the Serb cause, along with soldiers from other nations. Sergius is supposed to represent the “heart” of the Bulgarian enterprise, with his gutsy charge at the start of the work demonstrating just how powerfully he wishes to defend his nation’s honour. What becomes clear as the play progresses, however, is that war is simply a job for soldiers, and nothing more. Sergius is not the hero he is initially thought to be. He romanticizes war to such an extent that he leads a foolish charge against the enemy and only does so to climb the ranks for recognition. Bluntschli also destroys Raina’s romantic idea of war and heroism when he proves that the best soldiers are often not identified as such on the outside.

For Shaw, war is simply a way for men to occupy themselves, perhaps in redrawing small parts of the national borders, while others on the domestic front, who are predominantly women, shape many more aspects of life. Though Catherine and Raina are ostensibly dependent upon the outcome of the war, in dealing with Bluntshli they are also active participants in some of its intrigues. In harbouring an enemy and ultimately marrying him, they add to the argument that war and its divisiveness can be meaningless.

The characters' interactions are primarily driven by romantic love or lack thereof. Social conventions of love during Shaw’s period included public and formal courting, parental approval, and consideration of each partner's social status and wealth. However, the characters in this play defy the norms and each end up with a person that is best suited to them.

Characters slowly disabuse themselves of the features of romantic love they have most cherished all their lives, and realize that it is far more complex. For example, Raina does appear to love Sergius at the beginning of the play, but when she falls in love with Blunstshcli, she realizes her love for Sergius was superficial. Perhaps Raina only felt this way because Sergius was lauded as a hero and because Catherine and Petkoff supported the union to maintain the family’s social status.

By contrast, Louka, though engaged to her fellow servant Nicola, does not appear to have ever been in love with him, and demonstrates that she is willing to work hard to marry into a higher rank. Romantic love does not seem to be a factor in her decisions. The beginnings of Louka’s relationship with Sergius are illicit and defy the social norms of courtship. Bluntschli’s introduction to Raina is also unconventional, as they meet secretly in her bedroom. And when they finally become engaged, Bluntschli, the pragmatic and calculating soldier, surprises everyone by revealing himself to be a lifelong romantic.

The social station of the characters in the play is one of the dynamics that becomes most pronounced by its end. Louka wants to be more than a servant, whereas Nicola seems content to remain one. Bluntschli appears to be middle class but reveals later that he is far wealthier than the noble Petkoffs. Petkoff and Catherine want Raina to reinforce the family’s position however she can, either by marrying the ostensibly bravest man in Bulgaria, Sergius or by adding greatly to the family’s coffers by joining with Bluntschli.

As in any marriage narrative of the nineteenth century, romantic love might be a part of the marriage calculation, as it certainly didn’t hurt to love one’s partner. But that is far from the point of marriage in this period. Characters want to unite noble families and improve financial situations. What romantic love tends to do in these situations, then, is cut across and destabilize what might be the otherwise orderly transfer of money between families.

Throughout the play, Shaw demonstrates that concepts like good versus bad, or courage versus cowardliness, have at least as much to do with the situations in which one finds oneself as they do with the innate qualities of that person. Bluntschli is innately a person for whom innate qualities don’t seem to matter. He is a man who makes his decisions based on the circumstances in which he finds himself. This view on life might be bewildering to an outsider, but it allows him to survive the war as a soldier, and eventually win Raina’s hand in marriage.

It would be tempting to say that Bluntschli achieves these successes because he is simply a better man, soldier, and lover than Sergius. But what makes Bluntschli better is his willingness to cast aside those categories in favour of a more fluid morality that allows for lying and misrepresentation to protect his life. Bluntschli is willing not just to overlook the mistakes Raina makes. He believes that that is a natural part of loving anyone, just as it’s natural for a soldier to want to survive a conflict rather than die in it.

In this sense, Bluntschli most strongly embodies Shaw’s understanding of circumstantial ethical decision-making. Raina does, too, in her admission to Bluntschli that she is not always perfectly honest. On the other side is Sergius, a man who purports to be good all the way to his core, but then admits to Louka that he contains “many persons” inside him, some of who behave admirably, and others who will do whatever it takes to satisfy their basest urges, as in philandering while his fiancée is off-stage.

Shaw’s discussion of romantic love is more complex than it seems initially. Love is most certainly not what Raina imagines in Act One, which is joining her soul to Sergius’s, and the idea that they might live happily together. Their union seems perfect, with her perfect virtuosity, and his bravery and nobleness. Shaw depicts that kind of love as being built on misrepresentation of how humans actually behave apart from fairy tales.

But Shaw does not abandon the idea of romantic love entirely. Instead, he seems to allow for it only when characters get rid of most of their presuppositions about what love could, or should, be. Bluntschli abandons much of the pretence of soldierly bravery in front of Raina when he hides in her room and is fearful and sleepy. And Raina admits that she is not a perfectly pure individual, as she occasionally does and says things that go against classically good and upright behaviour.

It’s slightly more difficult to place Sergius and Louka on this spectrum of romantic love. For them, a relationship is a network of lust and desire coupled with the improvement of one’s social standing. This is perhaps not romantic love in the way Bluntschli and Raina demonstrate, and it is surely not romantic love according to Raina’s conception at the start of the play. But it is nonetheless a foundation for a relationship in practice. Shaw seems to place far more emphasis on the way people really behave, rather than on their idealized notions about “correct” attitudes and conduct.

Arms and the Man satirizes Bulgarian and European attitudes toward modernization, technological development, and the centres of cultivation like Paris, London, and Moscow. Catherine brags that the family has installed an electric bell for the servants, even though Petkoff is much more comfortable continuing to yell for them at the top of his lungs. Raina, Catherine, and Petkoff brag that the family has a library in the estate, which is the only one in the region. Yet as the scene description finally notes in Act Three, this library is just a room with a few old volumes. Despite this reality, the Petkoffs truly believe they are at the vanguard of artistic and cultural life at the time.