The Arguments in Paradise Lost accustomed to poems of length, Dr.
Samuel Johnson famously
by Jon L Jensen
THE GIST OF IT.
THIS ESSAY PROPOSES FIRST IN BRIEF THE WHOLE TOPIC,
MILTON’S ARGUMENTS AS ADDED TO HIS EPIC JUSTIFICATION OF
THE WAYS OF GOD TO MEN; THEN TOUCHES ON THE HISTORY OF
THESE ARGUMENTS, OR RATHER SUMMARIES CALLED BY THE
BLIND POET ARGUMENTS, WHICH ADDED ONLY AFTER THE FIRST
PRINTING OF THE POEM SEEK TO CLARIFY TO READERS WHAT
MIGHT OTHERWISE BE HARD TO GET AT, NAMELY WHAT THIS LONG
POEM IS ALL ABOUT, AND IF NOT ENCOURAGE ITS READING,
ENCOURAGE THE READER MERELY TO PERUSE SAID ARGUMENTS
AND THEN PRETEND TO HAVE READ THE THING. WHICH HISTORY
AND JUSTIFICATIONS PASSED QUICKLY OVER, THE ESSAY WILL
ATTEMPT IN ITS BRIEF PAGE LENGTH TO FULFILL THE ASSIGNMENT,
THAT IS, PRESENT AN ANALYSIS OF CONVENTION, LANGUAGE AND
THEME. TO ASCERTAIN AS BEST A PROCRASTINATING WRITER OR
RATHER WRITER IN SHAPE OF GRADUATE STUDENT, CAN WITHOUT
WAXING INTO RESEARCH PAPER, A FORM DESPISED BY STUDENT
AND TEACHER ALIKE. HOW THE ARGUMENTS STAND THEMSELVES
AS A KIND OF POEM, DISTINCT IN THEIR STYLE, REFLECTIVE OF
MOST OF THE MAJOR THEMES OF THE VERSE, BUT CONFOUNDING
IN THEIR INABILITY TO ACHIEVE, WHAT MOST SUMMARIES MUST, IN
SHORT, ACHIEVE, NAMELY, CONCISION. HOW THIS SHALL BE
ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT DEFINITE PLAN OR THESIS IS YET TO BE
KNOWN: SOME EXAMPLES SHALL BE GIVEN, MOST IGNORED. THE
SERPENT—THAT IS—THE POET/GRADUATE STUDENT PROCEEDS.
The man who agreed to print the thing didn’t think it
would sell. Even though 343 years later Paradise Lost is in no
danger of being forgotten, it’s not hard to understand the
printer’s concerns. A few decades after its publication, in the
18th Century when the reading public was far more
said of Milton’s masterpiece: “None ever wished it longer than
it is." His complaint feels even more justified with more
context. He writes, “The want of human interest is always felt.
Paradise Lost is one of the books which the reader admires
and lays down, and forgets to take up again. None ever
wished it longer than it is. Its perusal is a duty rather than a
pleasure. We read Milton for instruction, retire harassed and
overburdened, and look elsewhere for recreation; we desert
our master, and seek for companions” (Johnson).
This kind overburdening was clearly on Samuel
Simmons’ mind when for the fourth issue of the first edition he
finally convinced Milton to explain himself. Two problems
apparently presented themselves to the earliest readers of the
epic: the lack of rhyme and a need for a summary. Simmons
added new opening pages including Milton’s inestimably
important explanation to the world of why English must not be
forced to rhyme. Before the poem’s opening an argument was
added. In the issue Simmons attached a note explaining that
while “there was no argument at first intended to the book” he
had “procured it” for “the satisfaction of many that have
desired it” (qtd. in Fowler 37).
The arguments would appear as they do now only in
the second edition, interspersed through the text before each
book. I am certain it would not be too presumptuous of me to
say that anyone who has read Paradise Lost owes Simmons
the printer, thanks. Although Milton may not have intended
them for the poem initially, it is hard to imagine wading through
the work without them. Yet most critics pass over the
arguments as if they were not written by Milton at all and were
superfluous to the text. Distinct in their voice and character,
organization and language, the arguments to Paradise Lost
are not only integral to an understanding of the poem, they
subvert a reader intent on having things made plain.
Jensen 1

When Milton added the arguments to Paradise Lost, it
wasn’t the first time that he had seen fit to explain his work to
his readers by way of summary preface. A short description of
Lydidas was, like PL, added to the text after an initial printing.
So important was the summary, that the table of contents for
“The English Poems” listed it as a part of the title. “Lycidas. In
this Monody the Author bewails a learned Friend, unfortunately
drown'd in his Passage from Chester on the Irish Seas, 1637.
And by occasion foretels the ruine of our corrupted Clergy then
in their height.” (Milton 422) One year later with the publication
of the Latin Epitaphium Damonis, a poem that calls on the life
of Virgil in memory of Milton’s friend Charles Diodati, Milton
includes an “Argumentum.” Though in Latin, (the language
which arguably taught Milton his convoluted syntax), the prose
here is straightforward; its sentences remarkably simple:
Argumentum.
THYRSIS et DAMON, ejusdem viciniae pastores,
eadem studia sequuti, a pueritia amici erant, ut qui
plurimum. THYRSIS, auimi causa profectus, peregre
de obitu DAMONIS nuncium accepit. Doraum postea
reversus, et rem ita esse comperto, se suamque
solitudinem hoc carmine deplorat… (Milton 522).
In it, Milton explains that Thyrsis and Damon, shepherd
neighbors, had studied together and were friends from
childhood. While traveling to improve himself, Thyrsis learns of
the the death of Damon. When he returns and finds that it was
true, he deplores himself and his solitude with this poem.
Seeing this simple summary, one is reminded that the
Latin argumentum has a range of meanings far greater than its
English equivalent implies, especially to contemporary
speakers. Argumentum’s primary definition is “subject, story,
representation, statement; theme, matter, contents; plot,
drama, tale,” only in the secondary definition do the closer
connections we have with the word occur (Handford, 44). In
fact, looking at “Epitaphium Damonis” without knowledge of
Milton’s later use of the English word “argument,” one would
easily translate the word as summary, plot or contents. Even
within the realm of rhetoric, argumentum is translated as
“appeal” as in argumentum ad hominem. Milton’s word choice
and the associations it implies in an English speaker’s mind
cannot be accidental. Stanley Fish claims that “Milton’s
programme of reader harassment begins in the opening lines”
(Fish 4) but I would argue that it begins with the arguments, in
his very selection of the word.
Which leads us to the convention that Milton invents for
these summaries. They are distinct enough that one could
easily identify them from one sentence or phrase. (I’d bet the
GRE English Subject Exam has done exactly that). Book I’s
argument is the most distinctive. It begins with a statement of
the whole poem’s purpose, as well with a miniature description
of the plot of the entire epic. It also establishes the poem as
Epic, within the Homeric tradition by claiming that the action
“hasts into the midst of things,” a pretty direct translation of in
media res (Milton 1). By establishing the epic nature of the
work, Milton’s mind game with the reader continues by the
argument establishing (well prior to Satan’s first speech on line
84) the Prince of Darkness as the poem’s Achilles/Aeneas.
“Man” is mentioned first, but only in the general, not specific
terms that might refer to Adam. Man is not the chief player,
Satan is the “prime cause.”
After Book I, the arguments follow a very similar
format. A chief player or speaker is identified in connection
with a primary action. “…Satan Debates” (II), “God sitting on
his Throne sees Satan Flying…” (III), “Satan now in
prospect…” (IV), “Morning approach’t, Eve relates…” (V),
“Raphael continues…” (VI), “Raphael at the request of Adam
Jensen 2
relates…” (VII), “Adam inquires…”(VIII), “Satan having
compast…”(IX), “Man’s transgression known, the Guardian
Angels forsake…”(X), “The Son of God presents…”(XI), “The
Angel Michael continues…(XII). Satan’s predominance over
the epic is apparent even at first glance through the opening
words of each argument. Satan’s Achillean presence, even as
a victor, continues until late in the argument to Book 10. When
upon his return to his palace his full transformation to snake,
undone like Achilles, by a heel, in this case the heel of man.
Even in the argument beginning with God, Satan is the
lead. A sitting God observes Satan’s flight, predicts the
success that Satan will have and then begins to answer
arguments against His character by “clear[ing] his own justice
and Wisdom from all imputation.” No one but the Son of God is
present to impute God’s justice, but even in the summary the
reader is reminded that God needs defending.
Probably the most distinctive feature of the arguments
is the length of their sentences, relying on extremely long
“cola” and “semicola” especially in the opening sentences.
Where we might expect succinctness, we have complication,
often seemingly for complication’s sake alone. Instead of
simply stating Satan or the Serpent, Milton employs “the
Serpent, or rather Satan in the Serpent.” God’s plan for the
world’s creation is “an ancient Prophesie or report in Heaven,”
“for Heaven and Earth may be supposed as yet not made,
certainly not yet accurst” (I). If we didn’t get this the first time,
later he reminds us of the “Prophesie or Tradition in Heaven
Concerning another world…”(II).
Concision in the arguments is illusory. Longer
sentences will rely on one stated subject and the compounded
phrases relying on one subject give us the illusion that the
writer is being brief. Milton uses question words “how,” “what”
and “who” especially to refer to information that the reader will
have to find within the book. But much of these are extremely
minor details, such as who guards Hell’s gates. While full
speeches are eliminated, the main features of certain
utterances remain, as in Book IX: “Eve wondring to hear the
Serpent speak, asks how he attain’d to human speech and
such understanding not till now; the Serpent answers, that by
tasting of a certain Tree in the Garden he attain’d both to
Speech and Reason...” This amount of detail, though
important to the logic of Satan’s temptation of Eve in the poem
proper seems excessive for a summarizing passage.
Although Raphael reprimands Adam when he “inquires
concerning celestial Motions,” and told to “search rather things
more worthy of knowledge” (A8), the arguments take a great
deal of time describing Milton’s distinctive cosmology. Most of
the arguments end with comments on these specifics of place.
Shorter statements of action that a reader might expect
through each summary occur most often only at the end of
each as with Book IV, “by whom question’d, he scornfully
answers, prepares resistance, but hinder’d by a Sign from
Heaven, flies out of Paradise.”
Milton chose complicated language over the possibility
of the direct. When he could have written simply about the
main events of each book, he fashioned instead an elaboration
in miniature of his subjects. One need only compare the
arguments to the précis added to the 1611 King James
Version of the Bible to realize just how complicated they are.
In KJV Genesis 3, the chapter concerning the Fall, we read: “1
The serpent deceiveth Eve. 6 Man's shameful fall, 9 God
arraigneth them. 14 The serpent is cursed. 15 The promised
seed. 16 The punishment of mankind. 21 Their first
clothing. 22 Their casting out of paradise.” That’s it. They
couldn’t be more unlike Milton’s. Then again short arguments
would not be true to the poem itself. (It’s as though Milton in a
spirit of “Prophesie” thought, if they’re just going to read the
Jensen 3
Cliffs Notes, I’ll at least make those come with some “sweat of
the brow.”)
Wittreich in his Why Milton Matters, claims that the
arguments are “among the earliest critical commentaries” on
the poem. He details ways they do not match the books to
which they act as “headpieces.” They “often exist in tension
with the poetry they would elucidate even as they shy away
from the controversies lurking within it. Never a polemic, the
Arguments are crafted by a wily poet as headpieces to books,
which are an active complication of their claims and, on
occasion, a subtle subversion of them” (73).
One of the complications is a multiplication. Reading
Paradise Lost is to experience the Fall not just once but
multiple times. These Falls, plural, in the poem are doubled by
the Arguments. We experience Satan’s fall, the Fall as
predicted by God, the Fall as planned by Satan, as warned of
by Raphael, as finally experienced by Eve, then Adam, then
the fall from the Paradise and finally Satan’s ultimate fall to the
status of serpent. But where the Arguments multiply this
curious feature of the narrative, at the same time they seem to
diminish the role that Adam and Eve play in the poem proper.
Read separately, Satan and the angels are the primary actors
with two guest appearances by God or his Son, (whom Milton
sometimes confuses). Yet in the poem, our “First Parents” are
second only to Satan as leading “actors.”
The Arguments, according to Wittreich, “simplify what
the poetry presents complexly and, in their tendency to
simplify, especially concerning matters of religion, lead us into
theological traps and metaphysical bramble bushes” (79). But
these theological traps are not entirely missing from them.
Wittreich points out that the possible heresy presented in
depicting God and Son as separate is clearly apparent in the
arguments. But other controversies are not. The political
subtext of PL—so apparent in its language around rebellion
and revolt against a Heavenly King—is nearly invisible in the
Arguments. Not so for the poem, where the fact of Milton
writing under a Restored Monarch is evident in almost every
book. But simplification and passing over are not the
impression left a reader by Milton’s summaries.
Wittreich calls PL a “compendium of contradictory
interpretations” (xviii), that seems to mirror the contradictions
of life. If then the Arguments are compendia to the
compendium, the complications of their language, convention
and theme are aptly fit. When PL first appeared Milton’s name
was not on them. Only the initials JM were attached. As
subsequent issues made Milton’s name known, the
importance of the printer, Simmons, was also diminished. By
the time the second edition was released, Milton had cut the
note from Simmons claiming that the arguments were his idea.
Far from being afterthoughts, by the second edition, they are a
part of the main text. Milton has become a “crucial player in
the drama of its reception” (Wittreich 30). The Arguments,
Milton’s odd literary creatures originally foisted on him by his
printer and readers had become vital parts of an epic
responsive and critically aware of its readers.
Jensen 4
Works Cited

Fish, Stanley. Surprised by Sin. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press. 1967.
Fowler, Alastair. “Introduction to Paradise Lost”. Paradise Lost.
London: Longman. 1968.
Handford, S.A. Langenscheidt’s Pocket Latin Dictionary.
Berlin: Langescheidt. 1955.

Johnson, Dr. Samuel. "Johnson, "Life of Milton"". Palomar.

5/11/10
<http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/milton.htm
l>.

Milton, John. Poems. New York: The Co-operative Publication

Society. 1902.
Milton, John. The Manuscript of Milton’s Paradise Lost Book 1,
Ed. Helen Darbishire. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1931
Wittreich, Joseph. Why Milton Matters: a New Preface to his
Writings. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 2006

Jensen 5