Milton, John: Paradise Lost (1674). v2. w/ J. Martin ill. v1. 21 Jan 2020
 

What it says in the thread title: This is the second, 1674 edition of Milton's Paradise Lost.

Update, 21 Jan 2020

I have upgraded the text by adding line numbers and correcting an error.

Attachment 176415

I have also produced an illustrated edition with the 16 breathtaking mezzotint engravings by John Martin from 1827.
Because 14 of the 16 illustrations are in landscape format, this illustrated ed. comes in two different versions:
One, marked "nr" in the file name, has all the landscape illustrations rotated by 90° in order to make the most of them on readers without auto-rotate.
The other, marked "ar", should be used for readers with an auto-rotate function.

Attachment 176581

There is also a V2 of the text-only version. The formatting error that made the two illustrations in that one spill over the page in ADE has been fixed.

Attachment 176582 Attachment 176583

Thank you very much, doubleshuffle.
It looks a lot better.
I was prompted to read it (ideally this should be done out loud, apparently), by this essay of Philip Pullman's in the Public Domain Review.

I've never managed to get through Paradise Lost, though I've tried several times. That "English Heroic Verse" tends to go round and round in my head and make me dizzy after a few pages. I will try Pullman's method of reading it aloud.

Thank you SO much for pointing to Pullman's essay. It's brilliant. Some fascinating illustrations too. I only knew Blake's and Doré's. I see A Project coming up...

I'm really grateful for this work, too! As I was taken by the devil of ambition, I tried (!) to translate to me the introduction in latin, and I immediately stumbled across the header: In paradisum amissam. Shouldn't it be "amissum", as paradisus is masculinum? Unluckily, the original is not at my disposition.
Sorry, it may appear impertinent, but I can't get rid of the thought!

The "amissam" is correct, but please don't ask me why. There is next to nothing left of my Latin.

https://archive.org/details/Paradise...4CopyB/page/n1

It may be a consolation that it confuses even the editors of the Latin Wikipedia:

https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disput...annes_Miltonus

It took long to find a translation, but here is one:

https://www.bookscool.com/en/Paradise-Lost-603039/8

Oh, thank you. doubleshuffle! It's quite amusing that such a detail question has already caused such a discussion. My dictionary is quite bad, so I had to count that "paradisus", despite of the -us ending, could be feminine. But it would have contradicted to my feel for the language.
Nevertheless, in the following text I found some constructions that seem somewhat dubious to me.

My Latin has largely evaporated too, but some later editions "correct" this 1674 spelling to "in Paradisum Amissum" in both the title and the first line: try a Google search on that phrase. Perhaps it was originally simply a typo (twice)?

And although the Latin Wikipedia accepts that the word can also be feminine, all the translations of Paradise Lost into Latin treat it as masculine. It's worth bearing in mind that this Latin introduction was new in the 1674 edition. And 1674 was the year Milton died: he had been blind for twenty years before that. Although his own knowledge of Latin was excellent, he probably wasn't all that concerned about it when this short Latin poem appeared in the new edition.

Oh yes please, please!

The Tate Gallery in London has a special exhibition of Blake's work at the moment, ending 2nd February, which includes his twelve illustrations for Paradise Lost.

But John Martin's marvellous illustrations must have a claim too: they too have been the subject of a short essay - with all the engravings attached - in the Public Domain Review.

What a pity that I won't make it to London in the next two weeks...

And yes, I was mainly thinking of using the John Martin illustrations. But of course Blake shouldn't be neglected, nor Dore. Perhaps the way to go would be separate ebooks for each set of illustrations, one for every taste...
The illustrations from the first ill. edition 1688 are also impressive in their way.

@doubleshuffle two of the graphics need fixing. They run off the bottom of the window for ADE. The code needs editing to make sure it fits in the space allotted.

Thanks for the pointing that out. The style classes in the html and the css don't match. :o

Along with an illustrated edition using the John Martin mezzotint engravings, a corrected and improved version (with line numbering) of this text-only edition will be up soon.

Update 21 Jan 2020

Fixed text-only edition plus illustrated (John Martin) edition uploaded.