"Less Filling" or "Tastes Great"

John Milton's epic Paradise Lost has often been criticized as being both "boldly original" and "deeply traditional". Various traits of the epic can be categorized within each statement and lend to it an affirming credence. While utilizing several traditional written vehicles, Milton conjoins them into attributes that were quite original during his lifetime and often unseen in literary tracts. Yet it is this combination that makes Paradise Lost so appealing to many scholars, both past and present. Milton, it seems, was able to take the best of antiquity, the tried and true methods of the old bards, and combine it with the nuances of contemporary thought through a form of brilliant literary alchemy.

Of that within Paradise Lost which is considered to be "deeply traditional", many examples come to mind. From the first verses comes an invocation to a muse, a device that had been used since the days of ancient Greece (and possibly before). While the muse goes nameless, readers may choose to confer the invocation to either Urania, traditionally the muse of astronomy or, as was more likely the case for Milton's projected audience, the 'Holy Spirit'. Milton also bases his epic around a theme and plot that is rooted in tradition and had been told and retold for generation, the story of man's fall form grace and subsequent redemption. Although told through various mediums and in various ways, the concept of a fall from grace and a redemption after trials and tests can be found in some form (be it literary, oral or illustrative) in almost every culture. One of the more specific traditional attributes of Paradise Lost is the use of an epic catalog to name all of the fallen angels (or devils if preferred to be noted as such) that reside in Hell after the descent of Lucifer. Such a catalog of rather minor characters lends a scope to the work that clearly depicts the vastness of the universe in Paradise Lost. The concept of 'hero' is also examined and realized within Milton's epic. Although it is not in the true traditional sense, Milton's hero closely follows all the precepts of the requiem for a classical hero.

That which is called "boldly original" in Paradise Lost was quite so during Milton's lifetime. The use of blank verse iambic pentameter forces the reader to not only browse the text differently but also to assess the information of the epic through a lens that somewhat diffuses contemporary literary convention. Milton's invocation to the muse also is changed somewhat, in that it is specified as a "Heavenly Muse" instead of one of the more classical names or simply left at 'muse'. This seems to lend credence to the theories mentioned above regarding the identity of Milton's muse. Paradise Lost also introduces the concept of 'Paradise within/Hell within) through the various major characters of the epic. In Adam we see that one may carry Paradise within themselves even through times of trouble and tribulation whereas in Satan we can see that one can also carry their own personal Hell within themselves wherever they may travel. Another idea of 'bold originality' that is used in Milton's Paradise Lost is his inversion of the classical concept of 'hero'. While still adhering to all classical devices, Milton manages to create and aura of heroism around the most unlikely of characters, Lucifer/Satan. Milton paints the canvas that is Lucifer, to depict a brilliant orator, a dynamic leader, a fierce warrior, and even an intelligent thinker. Even as Lucifer bends under that which is "good perverted", he still manages to catch the readers attention as the most easily discernable 'hero' of Paradise Lost. Perhaps the title of anti-hero would serve to better describe his role, but again it seems that the requiem for a classic hero is accomplished.

So which was John Milton's epic Paradise Lost? Was it "boldly original", "deeply traditional", or was it perhaps both? It is possible that what Milton created was neither, but rather some new combination spawned from the intermeshing of the two? Alas, only Milton knew for sure. So in a sense we are left with a conundrum, and it is up to the individual readers to decide for themselves what their personal view on the matter is. It is such views that are correct. For it is not widely accredited postulation, but rather personal beliefs that shape the quality of a work of literature.