Ian McDiarmid has to be one of the greatest classical actors in all of history. I've been reading Milton since I was 19 and its insane to think that one of the greatest pieces of work ever written had to wait several hundred years for a man to be born to execute the right tone and timbre and bring to life this masterpiece of literature. I've listened to this more times than I can remember. It's perfect, I cannot imagine anyone else doing better. Marvelous.
@Nathan Longacre great I will have to look and clean up, but mayhaps perhaps in one of these two. Thank you Nathan. ua-cam.com/play/PLu9HHcfF5komu6Rk8rdqm2n70GaIY9xIx.html - ua-cam.com/play/PL53CE7FE347699541.html
1:51:30 Line 560: Then the Senate, named Sheev, added: "Do it!" Line 561: To whom thus Jesus: "Also it is written, Line 562: 'Tempt not the Lord thy God.'" He said, and stood. Just a few corrections since Milton wrote it wrong ;) For anyone who doesn't understand this... So uncivilized.
Paradise Regained was supposed to be A greater work -- to complement and, most Importantly, to extend the limits Of Paradise Lost; but, instead it turned Out to be much shorter and more subdued.
Dear Tactiopa Express youtube channel, Under this video, titled “Paradise Regained”, the caption states: “The entire poem”. Of what poem this claims to be in its entirety, I am not entirely sure. John Milton’s Paradise Regained has a crucial difference compared to the poem read in your youtube video. In Paradise Regained, Book 4, line 583, the seventh word, as Milton wrote it, is “him”, yet seven seconds into the 113th minute of your youtube video, the word read is “Jesus”. I would typically consider such an oversight to be accidental. However, this specific oversight appears intentional. The inclusion of this foreign word neuters Milton’s unique depiction of Christ’s temptation in an ostensible effort to regain the poem’s orthodoxical alignment. I’d like to address the problems with your alteration. For starters, to replace Milton's monosyllabic word with a disyllabic one is to destroy the poetic integrity of the line; it turns the clean, precise, iambic pentameter line into a grotesque hendecasyllabic string of words. More importantly however, to insert “Jesus” is to blatantly disregard the pedagogical value in the nominative ambiguity of “him” and effectively rob the listener of the semantic disorientation that Milton intended. You see, although the “him” refers to Jesus, the reader is supposed to initially think the word refers to Satan. Then, upon realizing that the “him” does, in fact, refer to Jesus, the reader, after being forced to consider why Milton is so careless with this pronoun, discovers that Milton does not need to indicate which “him” he refers to because Jesus is the only embodied individual present. This revelation includes the implication that Satan, or the embodiment of temptation, is not embodied at all, but instead a character in Jesus’ psychomachic role-play. Thus, the entire poem can and should be read as a psychodramatic account of the first temptation instead of a literal account of Jesus and Satan’s interaction. The elusivity of Satan as an embodied character reflects the deceptive nature of temptation; it is merely the internal that disguises itself as the external. This nuanced Miltonic argument is deserving of more words, or perhaps even a youtube video since there is much evidence that supports this point. However, I hope I made my point clear enough in this comment. I was hesitant to write this, but I am afraid that if you were so liberal with this drastic addition, then there are likely flaws elsewhere in the poem. I strongly encourage you to consider re-recording. Kindly, Bryce Wallace
'The entire poem' just means that it isn't cut short, or in parts. The broadcast tells you right at the start that it's abridged. And is it possible you don't realise that the UA-cam channel were obviously not responsible for the recording? It has to be a BBC recording - no-one else does this stuff to this standard - and most likely 2 or 3 decades old. But - not to go on at the length you did - I think it's unbelievable to cavil at this. It's a classy production with some great actors. Bottom line, what do you want for nothing? If you can find better you're welcome to it.
Ian McDiarmid has to be one of the greatest classical actors in all of history. I've been reading Milton since I was 19 and its insane to think that one of the greatest pieces of work ever written had to wait several hundred years for a man to be born to execute the right tone and timbre and bring to life this masterpiece of literature. I've listened to this more times than I can remember. It's perfect, I cannot imagine anyone else doing better. Marvelous.
Satan sounds like Emperor Palpatine
Its the same actor
26:30 is the start of the second book,
Who else but Palpatine should voice Satan? I can feel your anger...
Is this really Palpatines voice? I swear I was thinking the same thing the whole time I was listening
@@luiscortes2480 yeah it's Ian Mcdiarmid
I do so love this poem. John Milton is a prophet and he did have a muse.
52:38 is the start of the third book,
Much thanks for sharing this eternal classic, in easily digestible(abridged) form. Cheers
[Milton]
He now sings the recovered paradise.
This is a great reading, thank you
Thank you, this has been added to a playlist...
@Nathan Longacre great I will have to look and clean up, but mayhaps perhaps in one of these two. Thank you Nathan. ua-cam.com/play/PLu9HHcfF5komu6Rk8rdqm2n70GaIY9xIx.html - ua-cam.com/play/PL53CE7FE347699541.html
My our lord join my father with my mom for eternity
Thank you so much.
THANK YOU!
1:51:30
Line 560: Then the Senate, named Sheev, added: "Do it!"
Line 561: To whom thus Jesus: "Also it is written,
Line 562: 'Tempt not the Lord thy God.'" He said, and stood.
Just a few corrections since Milton wrote it wrong ;)
For anyone who doesn't understand this... So uncivilized.
Paradise Regained was supposed to be
A greater work -- to complement and, most
Importantly, to extend the limits
Of Paradise Lost; but, instead it turned
Out to be much shorter and more subdued.
Beautiful
52:13
Dear Tactiopa Express youtube channel,
Under this video, titled “Paradise Regained”, the caption states: “The entire poem”. Of what poem this claims to be in its entirety, I am not entirely sure. John Milton’s Paradise Regained has a crucial difference compared to the poem read in your youtube video. In Paradise Regained, Book 4, line 583, the seventh word, as Milton wrote it, is “him”, yet seven seconds into the 113th minute of your youtube video, the word read is “Jesus”. I would typically consider such an oversight to be accidental. However, this specific oversight appears intentional. The inclusion of this foreign word neuters Milton’s unique depiction of Christ’s temptation in an ostensible effort to regain the poem’s orthodoxical alignment. I’d like to address the problems with your alteration. For starters, to replace Milton's monosyllabic word with a disyllabic one is to destroy the poetic integrity of the line; it turns the clean, precise, iambic pentameter line into a grotesque hendecasyllabic string of words. More importantly however, to insert “Jesus” is to blatantly disregard the pedagogical value in the nominative ambiguity of “him” and effectively rob the listener of the semantic disorientation that Milton intended. You see, although the “him” refers to Jesus, the reader is supposed to initially think the word refers to Satan. Then, upon realizing that the “him” does, in fact, refer to Jesus, the reader, after being forced to consider why Milton is so careless with this pronoun, discovers that Milton does not need to indicate which “him” he refers to because Jesus is the only embodied individual present. This revelation includes the implication that Satan, or the embodiment of temptation, is not embodied at all, but instead a character in Jesus’ psychomachic role-play. Thus, the entire poem can and should be read as a psychodramatic account of the first temptation instead of a literal account of Jesus and Satan’s interaction. The elusivity of Satan as an embodied character reflects the deceptive nature of temptation; it is merely the internal that disguises itself as the external. This nuanced Miltonic argument is deserving of more words, or perhaps even a youtube video since there is much evidence that supports this point. However, I hope I made my point clear enough in this comment. I was hesitant to write this, but I am afraid that if you were so liberal with this drastic addition, then there are likely flaws elsewhere in the poem. I strongly encourage you to consider re-recording.
Kindly,
Bryce Wallace
so true bryce i totally agree
@@kathykang1123 Thank you Yuna. So glad I'm not alone
'The entire poem' just means that it isn't cut short, or in parts. The broadcast tells you right at the start that it's abridged. And is it possible you don't realise that the UA-cam channel were obviously not responsible for the recording? It has to be a BBC recording - no-one else does this stuff to this standard - and most likely 2 or 3 decades old.
But - not to go on at the length you did - I think it's unbelievable to cavil at this. It's a classy production with some great actors. Bottom line, what do you want for nothing? If you can find better you're welcome to it.
@@paddymeboy you’re 100% right. This was a joke assignment for my class on Milton haha
Um...wut lol
18:45
43:34
59:27
1:04:27
1:47:56
16:30
2:25
1:45:09