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?

Reframing Public Inquiries as 'Procedural Justice' for Victims of Institutional Child Abuse: Towards a Hybrid Model of Justice

As the number of high profile cases of institutional child abuse mounts internationally, and the demands of victims for justice are heard, state responses have ranged from prosecution, apology, and compensation schemes, to truth commissions or public inquiries. Drawing on the examples of Australia and Northern Ireland as two jurisdictions with a recent and ongoing history of statutory inquiries into institutional child abuse, the article utilises the restorative justice paradigm to critically evaluate the strengths and limitations of the inquiry framework in providing ‘justice’ for victims. It critically explores the normative and pragmatic implications of a hybrid model as a more effective route to procedural justice and suggests that an appropriately designed restorative pathway may augment the legitimacy and utility of the public inquiry model for victims chiefly via improving offender accountability and ‘voice’ for victims. The article concludes by offering some thoughts on the broader implications for other jurisdictions in responding to large-scale historical abuses and seeking to come to terms with the legacy of institutional child abuse.