Surprised by Syntax: Reading the Latinity of Paradise Lost

Stanley Fish in his monumental study argued that the reader of Paradise Lost is “surprised by sin” as he or she in the course of engaging with the text falls, like Adam and Eve, into sin and error and is brought up short. Through a “programme of reader harassment” the experience of the fall is re-enacted in the process of reading, wherein lies the poem’s meaning. And reader response criticism was born. But if for Fish the twentieth-century reader is “surprised by sin,” might not the twenty-first century reader, an all too frequently Latinless reader, be surprised by syntax, a syntax which despite of (or maybe because of) its inherent Latinity and associated linguistic alterity functions as a seductively attractive other? The reader, like Eve, is indeed surprised: enchanted, bemused, seduced by the abundant classicism, by the formal Latinate rhetoric achieved by a Miltonic unison of “Voice and Verse” and also by the language of a Satanic tempter who is—in the pejorative sense of the Latin adjective bilinguis—“double-tongued, deceitful, treacherous.” It is hardly an accident that this adjective (with which Milton qualifies hellish betrayal in his Latin gunpowder epic) was typically applied to the forked tongue of a serpent. This study argues that key to the success of the double-tongued Miltonic serpens bilinguis, is his use and abuse of Latinate language and rhetoric. It posits the possible case that this is mirrored in the linguistic methodology of the poeta bilinguis, the geminus Miltonus? For if, like Eve, the twenty-first century reader of Paradise Lost is surprised by syntax, by the Miltonic use and the Satanic abuse of a Latinate voice, might not he or she also be surprised by the text’s bilingual speaking voice?