From: John Geraghty [johnegeraghty@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 2:48 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Fletcher's (and douglas) facsimile I am no expert but here are some observations. I have both Fletcher and Douglas in front of me. Fletcher did not use the British Museum copy, he refers to it as Illinois Spencer for the text, and Illinois Gannon for the portrait and the different Title page (the title pages are almost identical except some refer to S. Pauls churchyard and some simply say Pauls Churchyard where they reference where the books are to be sold). Fletcher examined over 20 different copies of the text in his analysis. The Douglas text seems to have definitley been cleaned up, but seems to be an authentic facsimile. Both texts appear fairly clean, although much of the Fletcher text appears a lot lighter and smudgier. -I saw no dead bugs though ;-) The Douglas Text is a much easier read with Fletcher's being more authentic and his notes are invaluable. I have attached an excerpt from Comus from both fletcher and douglas for your comparison, my apologies to those who cannot receive or view them. other observations: I've seen many works as Noel Douglas facsimiles known as the Noel Douglas Replica Series (from Music Wagner's Operas to Literature Poe Manuscripts etc. etc. The publisher of my copies is listed as Percy Lund, Humphries & Co. LTD. ( a very reputable publishing house). There is also an insert in my copy which reads: "THIS BOOK IS NOW PUBLISHED IN THE UNITED STATES BY COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS FOR THE FACSIMILE TEXT SOCIETY 2960 BROADWAY, NEW YORK, N.Y.". hope this helps -john >From: "Roy Flannagan" >Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu >To: >Subject: Re: Fletcher's facsimile >Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 09:16:55 -0500 > >Dear Carl, if I may, > >I don't know of anyone is around today who might want to try to duplicate >Fletcher's effort or even try to collate ten or fifteen copies each of the >first and second editions, with various issues, of Paradise Lost. Taking >images of one copy, as has been done with the Shakespeare First Folio, and >putting those images on the Web, would be useful. I have noticed since I >first started scanning facsimiles of Milton's poems in manuscript that one >can blow up parts of the scanned images to reveal bleed-through, flyspecks, >Miltonic coffee stains (is that how he managed to write so much?), and >other bits of interest to bibliographers--or appraisers looking for forgeries. > >I have not seen the facsimile of Milton's poems that you mention as having >been done in 1926, but I might be cautious about how and what it might >reproduce, depending on photographic technology available in 1926. All >photographic or Xerographic images are apt to be very clever fakes, some of >which have been designed to white-out smudges or pieces of broken letters >so as to make the images on the page more acceptable to a modern printer or >publisher--as you said, the pages of the 1926 facsimile look as if they >represent type impressions dug into heavy rag paper (and sold at a high >price). > >It would be nice to have more practicing analytical bibliographers working >on Milton manuscripts and printed texts, but the work-load of dealing even >with The Doctrine and Diiscipline of Divorce, or the masque is daunting >even to those used to collating 17th-century texts. > >Best wishes, > >Roy Flannagan > > >>> carlb@shore.net 12/20/00 11:58AM >>> >Thanks Prof. Flannagan for your cautionary comments. > >Would you say it's time to revise the Fletcher edition? It would be nice to >see something on the Web, but I suppose the limitation of graphic >resolutions on-screen might make it even less satisfactory than a printed >text for representing original pages(?). > >I have a curious book printed in 1926: "The Noel Douglas Replicas, John >Milton, Minor Poems." It indicates that "The copy reproduced is that in the >British Museum." If you are familiar with this text, how accurate is it in >terms of flies and commas and bleed-through etc.? And how was it >reproduced --some kind of photographic process? It is printed on heavy rag >paper and almost looks like it's set in type. > >-Carl > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Roy Flannagan" >To: >Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 8:14 AM >Subject: Fletcher's facsimile > > > > Fletcher's notes and transcriptions are indeed very helpful but they are > > not always trustworthy, nor is the facsimile process (for reproducing the > > shades of paper or the ink bleed-through or the specks that might be dead > > flies on the Xerox glass, or commas) always technically > > perfect. Fletcher's transcriptions need to be verified by reference to >his > > images, then those images need to be checked against the original > > editions. Then there are the press variants that Fletcher didn't catch! > > > > Who is collating Milton editions and manuscripts, out there? > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Roy Flannagan > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From: David Norbrook [dn44@umail.umd.edu] Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2000 3:26 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton Window Project While I admire the enterprise and generosity of spirit that motivate the plans for a monument to Milton, I have of necessity been giving a lot of thought over the last few years to the problems of commemorating republican memory in monumental forms and I would like to express some surprise at choosing church-window images to commmemorate a writer who identified himself so strongly as an iconoclast. In the first instance there are questions to be asked - which don't seem to have been raised by biographers, down to Barbara Lewalski - of why he was buried in an Anglican church in the first place, at a time when so many dissenters went out of their ways to avoid what they regarded as the idolatrous rituals of prayer-book burial. Can we conclude that Milton, so sensitive in *Samson Agonistes* to the political nuances of mourning, underwent some kind of late conciliation with the Anglican church? Or did the respectable friends who are said to have attended the funeral have a say in the way things went? Only in the former case does the monument seem fully appropriate. Even so, this kind of monument arguably gives a rather distorted view of the overall, oppositional shape of his life and writings in relation to the church-and-state settlement whose basic outlines survive today. I do hope that the energy of American Miltonists will also be directed to ways of commemorating Milton that would reflect his resonance in a current revival of constitutional reform and some forms of republicanism in Britain. The new Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, has proposed replacing some statues of imperialist generals in Trafalgar Square with more worthy figures, and who could be more appropriate than Milton to offer a different model of national heroism? David Norbrook Department of English University of Maryland 3101 Susquehanna Hall College Park MD 20742 "Creamer, Kevin" wrote: > > John Milton Quadricentenary Window Project > > With the gracious support of The University Of Southern Mississippi > Foundation, the John Milton Quadricentenary Window Project Committee is > pleased to announce the formal inception of the John Milton Quadricentenary > Window Project, which will provide for the installation of a commemorative > stained glass window at the site of Milton's burial, in the parish church of > St. Giles, Cripplegate, The Barbican, London EC2, England, in honor of his > four hundredth birthday on December 9, 2008. > > As it is currently envisioned, the Milton Window will be designed by stained > glass artist John Lawson, and manufactured by Goddard and Gibbs Studios of > London, which also created the Alleyn Window on the opposite side of the > church. > > It will feature floral images on the outer panels adapted from watercolors > lovingly done by Jane Elizabeth Giraud in June of 1846, to illustrate the > many species of flora mentioned in Milton's poetry. These will border an > appropriate selection of verse from Paradise Lost in the central panel, and > there will be a thornless rose at the window's crown. Although the design is > only in the "drawing board" stage at this writing, plans are underway for a > sealed box to be embedded in or mounted beneath the window frame, containing > a parchment listing the names of all contributors, regardless of the amount > of the individual's donation. > > Given that Milton's remains spent the better part of 116 years without so > much as a marker to record the place of his burial, this tribute is long > overdue: the first monument to England's greatest epic poet was not > installed at St. Giles, Cripplegate until 1793, after a scandal involving > the possible desecration of his grave. The only other memorial to him in all > of London at that time was the Benson/Rysbrack bust at Westminster-which was > haughtily rejected when it was originally proposed as a "disgrace" to the > Abbey's hallowed walls--and there are not many more, even today. At the > present time, the site of the poet's birth and his Bunhill Row home and the > locations of the many houses he occupied in the vicinity of the Square Mile > during his lifetime are unremarked-though there is Corporation of London > blue plaque on the house at 4 Cheyne Walk to remind passersby that this is > the place where George Eliot died, and another a few blocks away identifying > the house in which Oscar Wilde lived. Shakespeare, of course, is lavishly > memorialized throughout England, and in London, and Donne and Johnson and > Dickens are well represented, too. Not so John Milton, and not so for far > too long. > > You can help us demonstrate the commitment of Miltonists the world over to > doing what we can not to "willingly let it die" by creating a lasting > affirmation of our love and respect for the rich legacy Milton left us, and > undo some of the devastation wreaked by Hitler's bombs on the little church > that has stood in its present location since the reign of William the > Conqueror as well. All donors will receive an acknowledgment letter signed > by all of the members of the Committee, and they will also be invited to > participate in a formal unveiling ceremony at St. Giles, Cripplegate church > on or about December 9, 2008, followed by a formal reception. > > That may seem a long way off, but given the time it will take to establish > sufficient funds to justify a contractual commitment with Goddard & Gibbs, > obtain the required approvals for construction from the parish and the > Crown, establish a contract with the manufacturer, and complete the > installation, it's critical that we establish a financial base as soon as > possible. Please look for the Milton Quadricentenary Window Project display > at the Milton Society of America dinner in Washington, D.C. at the end of > this month, and contribute whatever you can afford. Pre-printed postage-free > envelopes will be available for that purpose. > > If you wish, you may also mail a contribution to the attention of Ms. Janice > K. Delancey, Assistant Director of Business Services, at the following > address: > > USM Foundation (Fund 93A) > > The University of Southern Mississippi > > Box 10026 > > Hattiesburg, MS 39406 > > Make your check payable to "USM Foundation," and note "Fund 93A, Milton > Window" on the memo line. While the Foundation is not yet equipped to > process VISA or Mastercard transactions electronically, they will be pleased > to do so by telephone. You can reach USM at (601) 266-5602, or fax (601) > 266-5735 for this purpose. > > Should your response be as enthusiastic as we hope, the Milton > Quadricentenary Window Project Committee has pledged to utilize any excess > funds that may remain when the cost of the Project is paid in full to > promote, sustain, and otherwise support such related projects as the Milton > Cottage Trust; the Milton Society of America; the placement of blue plaques > at the sites of Milton's Bread Street, Bunhill Row, and Westminster > residences; and the Church at St. Giles, Cripplegate, in the latter case to > ensure that the Window is properly maintained and preserved by the donees. > Our formal charter is available for donor inspection on demand at USM. > > The history of the Church and additional details about this Project and its > origins may be viewed at http://www.stgilescripplegate.com/, along with > photographs of the Window site and Milton's gravestone-and an interesting > piece of little-known Miltonic history. > > The committee members, Carol Barton, Philip Birger, Albert C. Labriola, > Jameela Lares, John T. Shawcross, and John M. Steadman, thank you for your > generosity, and wish you the best and brightest of Happy Holidays! From: Burbery, Timothy [burbery@MARSHALL.EDU] Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 4:23 PM To: 'milton-l@richmond.edu' Subject: 1642 order? I'm looking for a succinct account of the 1642 order that closed the theaters. How expected, or not, was the order? Was there much debate among the Puritans as to whether the theaters should be closed? I know that Milton argues in RCG that the theaters could stay open, in order to show "doctrinall and exemplary" drama, but was anyone else saying this as well? And could Milton have known how long the theaters would be closed? Any articles, chapters, or books that address these questions would be appreciated. I'm just not sure where to look. Thanks, Tim Burbery -----Original Message----- From: Shore.net [mailto:carlb@shore.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 11:58 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Fletcher's facsimile Thanks Prof. Flannagan for your cautionary comments. Would you say it's time to revise the Fletcher edition? It would be nice to see something on the Web, but I suppose the limitation of graphic resolutions on-screen might make it even less satisfactory than a printed text for representing original pages(?). I have a curious book printed in 1926: "The Noel Douglas Replicas, John Milton, Minor Poems." It indicates that "The copy reproduced is that in the British Museum." If you are familiar with this text, how accurate is it in terms of flies and commas and bleed-through etc.? And how was it reproduced --some kind of photographic process? It is printed on heavy rag paper and almost looks like it's set in type. -Carl ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy Flannagan" To: Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 8:14 AM Subject: Fletcher's facsimile > Fletcher's notes and transcriptions are indeed very helpful but they are > not always trustworthy, nor is the facsimile process (for reproducing the > shades of paper or the ink bleed-through or the specks that might be dead > flies on the Xerox glass, or commas) always technically > perfect. Fletcher's transcriptions need to be verified by reference to his > images, then those images need to be checked against the original > editions. Then there are the press variants that Fletcher didn't catch! > > Who is collating Milton editions and manuscripts, out there? > > Best wishes, > > Roy Flannagan > From: Norman Burns [nburns@binghamton.edu] Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 9:37 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton Window Project I wish to offer my thanks to David Norbrook for his admirable statement on the inappropriateness of an ecclesiastical memorial for Milton. --Norm Burns At 03:26 PM 12/31/00 -0500, you wrote: >While I admire the enterprise and generosity of spirit that motivate the >plans for a monument to Milton, I have of necessity been giving a lot of >thought over the last few years to the problems of commemorating >republican memory in monumental forms and I would like to express some >surprise at choosing church-window images to commmemorate a writer who >identified himself so strongly as an iconoclast. In the first instance >there are questions to be asked - which don't seem to have been raised >by biographers, down to Barbara Lewalski - of why he was buried in an >Anglican church in the first place, at a time when so many dissenters >went out of their ways to avoid what they regarded as the idolatrous >rituals of prayer-book burial. Can we conclude that Milton, so sensitive >in *Samson Agonistes* to the political nuances of mourning, underwent >some kind of late conciliation with the Anglican church? Or did the >respectable friends who are said to have attended the funeral have a say >in the way things went? Only in the former case does the monument seem >fully appropriate. Even so, this kind of monument arguably gives a >rather distorted view of the overall, oppositional shape of his life and >writings in relation to the church-and-state settlement whose basic >outlines survive today. I do hope that the energy of American Miltonists >will also be directed to ways of commemorating Milton that would reflect >his resonance in a current revival of constitutional reform and some >forms of republicanism in Britain. The new Mayor of London, Ken >Livingstone, has proposed replacing some statues of imperialist generals >in Trafalgar Square with more worthy figures, and who could be more >appropriate than Milton to offer a different model of national heroism? > >David Norbrook > >Department of English >University of Maryland >3101 Susquehanna Hall >College Park >MD 20742 From: rwill [rwill627@camalott.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 5:57 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Announcement of the Milton Window Project There was an interesting letter this morning relative to the Milton Window Project, and, as a Milton lover who is by no means an expert on the period, I would like to ask some questions of the list. 1. Given the time and place of his life and death, if they had not buried Milton in a church or churchyard, where would they have buried him? 2. Where was the great iconoclast, Oliver Cromwell, buried? I ask these things humbly, as I do not know the answer. Now I would like the list to join me in a little speculation re the replacement of the statues of imperialistic warriors with those of men of thought: Had there been no imperialistic warriors in the land, who admittedly set out to accomplish their own materialistic ends, would the men of thought have been able to complete their accomplishments and benefit us, or would their brains have been scattered, great thoughts and all, across the landscape of their native lands by imperialistic warriors from somewhere else? Is it possible that we have been deprived of the works of many men of thought who did not happen to reside in a militarily proficient land? Does it perhaps take the talents and pursuits of many different types of people to move a society forward? Rose Williams From: John Geraghty [johnegeraghty@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 11:51 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: 1642 order? Tim, two authors that come to mind are Thompsom and, of course, EK Chambers. I'm not an expert on the subject so i can't vouch for the content, but i did find these sources interesting. It has been a long time since i read Chambers so i'm not sure which book of his to refer you to. here are the refs: -excerpt from http://www.lib.siu.edu/cni/letter-t.html): "Thompson, Elbert N. S. The Controversy between the Puritans and the Stage. New York, Holt, 1903. 275p. Reprinted in 1966 by Russell & Russell, New York. (Yale Studies in English, vol. 20) T95 A study in the conflict between morality and art reflected in the Puritan literature and sermons which resulted in the theater closure act of 1642. Includes a critical account of William Prynne's attack on the stage in his Histrio-Mastix and a section on the dramatists' replies to their critics." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- for Chambers i think it is in: -book site excerpt- Chambers, E. K. The Elizabethan Stage 4 Vols. Oxford The Claredon Press 1951. VG in VG, brodart dust jackets. This is a 1951 edition with corrections. Maroon boards and spines with gold stamp. Binding is HB. Book # 005341 Price: US$ 400.00 convert currency The Dust Jacket, Inc, 3200 Linwood Ave, Cincinnati, OH, U.S.A., 45226. Phone: 513-871-4224. Fax: 513-321-3862. Email: dj3200@aol.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- hope this helps-john >From: "Burbery, Timothy" >Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu >To: "'milton-l@richmond.edu'" >Subject: 1642 order? >Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 16:23:21 -0500 > >I'm looking for a succinct account of the 1642 order that closed the >theaters. How expected, or not, was the order? Was there much debate among >the Puritans as to whether the theaters should be closed? I know that >Milton >argues in RCG that the theaters could stay open, in order to show >"doctrinall and exemplary" drama, but was anyone else saying this as well? >And could Milton have known how long the theaters would be closed? > >Any articles, chapters, or books that address these questions would be >appreciated. I'm just not sure where to look. > >Thanks, > >Tim Burbery > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shore.net [mailto:carlb@shore.net] > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 11:58 AM > To: milton-l@richmond.edu > Subject: Re: Fletcher's facsimile > > Thanks Prof. Flannagan for your cautionary comments. > > Would you say it's time to revise the Fletcher edition? It >would be nice to > see something on the Web, but I suppose the limitation of >graphic > resolutions on-screen might make it even less satisfactory >than a printed > text for representing original pages(?). > > I have a curious book printed in 1926: "The Noel Douglas >Replicas, John > Milton, Minor Poems." It indicates that "The copy reproduced >is that in the > British Museum." If you are familiar with this text, how >accurate is it in > terms of flies and commas and bleed-through etc.? And how >was it > reproduced --some kind of photographic process? It is >printed on heavy rag > paper and almost looks like it's set in type. > > -Carl > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roy Flannagan" > To: > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 8:14 AM > Subject: Fletcher's facsimile > > > > Fletcher's notes and transcriptions are indeed very >helpful but they are > > not always trustworthy, nor is the facsimile process (for >reproducing the > > shades of paper or the ink bleed-through or the specks >that might be dead > > flies on the Xerox glass, or commas) always technically > > perfect. Fletcher's transcriptions need to be verified >by reference to > his > > images, then those images need to be checked against the >original > > editions. Then there are the press variants that >Fletcher didn't catch! > > > > Who is collating Milton editions and manuscripts, out >there? > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Roy Flannagan > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From: Seb Perry [sebperry@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 7:31 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu <3A4F9668.F148E0EC@umail.umd.edu> Subject: Re: Milton Window Project Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 00:37:19 -0000 Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu Hmm, I'm not sure that a statue in Trafalgar Square would be any less idolatrous. Perhaps we should go the whole hog and plant it round with shade of laurel ever green, etc.... Seb Perry, Merton College, Oxford. ----- Original Message ----- From: David Norbrook To: Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2000 8:26 PM Subject: Re: Milton Window Project > While I admire the enterprise and generosity of spirit that motivate the > plans for a monument to Milton, I have of necessity been giving a lot of > thought over the last few years to the problems of commemorating > republican memory in monumental forms and I would like to express some > surprise at choosing church-window images to commmemorate a writer who > identified himself so strongly as an iconoclast. In the first instance > there are questions to be asked - which don't seem to have been raised > by biographers, down to Barbara Lewalski - of why he was buried in an > Anglican church in the first place, at a time when so many dissenters > went out of their ways to avoid what they regarded as the idolatrous > rituals of prayer-book burial. Can we conclude that Milton, so sensitive > in *Samson Agonistes* to the political nuances of mourning, underwent > some kind of late conciliation with the Anglican church? Or did the > respectable friends who are said to have attended the funeral have a say > in the way things went? Only in the former case does the monument seem > fully appropriate. Even so, this kind of monument arguably gives a > rather distorted view of the overall, oppositional shape of his life and > writings in relation to the church-and-state settlement whose basic > outlines survive today. I do hope that the energy of American Miltonists > will also be directed to ways of commemorating Milton that would reflect > his resonance in a current revival of constitutional reform and some > forms of republicanism in Britain. The new Mayor of London, Ken > Livingstone, has proposed replacing some statues of imperialist generals > in Trafalgar Square with more worthy figures, and who could be more > appropriate than Milton to offer a different model of national heroism? > > David Norbrook > > Department of English > University of Maryland > 3101 Susquehanna Hall > College Park > MD 20742 > > > "Creamer, Kevin" wrote: > > > > John Milton Quadricentenary Window Project > > > > With the gracious support of The University Of Southern Mississippi > > Foundation, the John Milton Quadricentenary Window Project Committee is > > pleased to announce the formal inception of the John Milton Quadricentenary > > Window Project, which will provide for the installation of a commemorative > > stained glass window at the site of Milton's burial, in the parish church of > > St. Giles, Cripplegate, The Barbican, London EC2, England, in honor of his > > four hundredth birthday on December 9, 2008. > > > > As it is currently envisioned, the Milton Window will be designed by stained > > glass artist John Lawson, and manufactured by Goddard and Gibbs Studios of > > London, which also created the Alleyn Window on the opposite side of the > > church. > > > > It will feature floral images on the outer panels adapted from watercolors > > lovingly done by Jane Elizabeth Giraud in June of 1846, to illustrate the > > many species of flora mentioned in Milton's poetry. These will border an > > appropriate selection of verse from Paradise Lost in the central panel, and > > there will be a thornless rose at the window's crown. Although the design is > > only in the "drawing board" stage at this writing, plans are underway for a > > sealed box to be embedded in or mounted beneath the window frame, containing > > a parchment listing the names of all contributors, regardless of the amount > > of the individual's donation. > > > > Given that Milton's remains spent the better part of 116 years without so > > much as a marker to record the place of his burial, this tribute is long > > overdue: the first monument to England's greatest epic poet was not > > installed at St. Giles, Cripplegate until 1793, after a scandal involving > > the possible desecration of his grave. The only other memorial to him in all > > of London at that time was the Benson/Rysbrack bust at Westminster-which was > > haughtily rejected when it was originally proposed as a "disgrace" to the > > Abbey's hallowed walls--and there are not many more, even today. At the > > present time, the site of the poet's birth and his Bunhill Row home and the > > locations of the many houses he occupied in the vicinity of the Square Mile > > during his lifetime are unremarked-though there is Corporation of London > > blue plaque on the house at 4 Cheyne Walk to remind passersby that this is > > the place where George Eliot died, and another a few blocks away identifying > > the house in which Oscar Wilde lived. Shakespeare, of course, is lavishly > > memorialized throughout England, and in London, and Donne and Johnson and > > Dickens are well represented, too. Not so John Milton, and not so for far > > too long. > > > > You can help us demonstrate the commitment of Miltonists the world over to > > doing what we can not to "willingly let it die" by creating a lasting > > affirmation of our love and respect for the rich legacy Milton left us, and > > undo some of the devastation wreaked by Hitler's bombs on the little church > > that has stood in its present location since the reign of William the > > Conqueror as well. All donors will receive an acknowledgment letter signed > > by all of the members of the Committee, and they will also be invited to > > participate in a formal unveiling ceremony at St. Giles, Cripplegate church > > on or about December 9, 2008, followed by a formal reception. > > > > That may seem a long way off, but given the time it will take to establish > > sufficient funds to justify a contractual commitment with Goddard & Gibbs, > > obtain the required approvals for construction from the parish and the > > Crown, establish a contract with the manufacturer, and complete the > > installation, it's critical that we establish a financial base as soon as > > possible. Please look for the Milton Quadricentenary Window Project display > > at the Milton Society of America dinner in Washington, D.C. at the end of > > this month, and contribute whatever you can afford. Pre-printed postage-free > > envelopes will be available for that purpose. > > > > If you wish, you may also mail a contribution to the attention of Ms. Janice > > K. Delancey, Assistant Director of Business Services, at the following > > address: > > > > USM Foundation (Fund 93A) > > > > The University of Southern Mississippi > > > > Box 10026 > > > > Hattiesburg, MS 39406 > > > > Make your check payable to "USM Foundation," and note "Fund 93A, Milton > > Window" on the memo line. While the Foundation is not yet equipped to > > process VISA or Mastercard transactions electronically, they will be pleased > > to do so by telephone. You can reach USM at (601) 266-5602, or fax (601) > > 266-5735 for this purpose. > > > > Should your response be as enthusiastic as we hope, the Milton > > Quadricentenary Window Project Committee has pledged to utilize any excess > > funds that may remain when the cost of the Project is paid in full to > > promote, sustain, and otherwise support such related projects as the Milton > > Cottage Trust; the Milton Society of America; the placement of blue plaques > > at the sites of Milton's Bread Street, Bunhill Row, and Westminster > > residences; and the Church at St. Giles, Cripplegate, in the latter case to > > ensure that the Window is properly maintained and preserved by the donees. > > Our formal charter is available for donor inspection on demand at USM. > > > > The history of the Church and additional details about this Project and its > > origins may be viewed at http://www.stgilescripplegate.com/, along with > > photographs of the Window site and Milton's gravestone-and an interesting > > piece of little-known Miltonic history. > > > > The committee members, Carol Barton, Philip Birger, Albert C. Labriola, > > Jameela Lares, John T. Shawcross, and John M. Steadman, thank you for your > > generosity, and wish you the best and brightest of Happy Holidays! > > From: Carol Barton, PhD [cbartonphd@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 9:59 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton Window Project David, in response to the posting below, I would like to point out that I am covering Milton's burial . . . and the aftermath . . . in an in-process monograph; please see my forthcoming article, presently under consideration by _Milton Studies_ ("Ill fare the hands that heaved the stones": John Milton, A Preliminary Thanatography). Milton buried his father at St. Giles, Cripplegate, and was buried there himself, according to Anglican rites. (He may not have had a choice about the site of his own interment, but certainly, he did concerning Milton Sr.'s.) His grave went unmarked for 116 years, after they removed the initial headstone for renovation work (see Aubrey). The church was badly damaged by the Luftwaffe's bombs during World War II . . . and we think it is fitting, not only that we help by means of this window to restore the ancient place of worship where his bones lie to its former beauty, but that we pay tribute in situ to his memory. The poet who wrote (in "Il Penseroso") > > But let my due feet never fail > > To walk the studious Cloister's pale, > > And love the high embowed Roof > > With antic pillars massy proof, > > And storied Windows richly dight, > > Casting a dim religious light. would understand the gesture, certainly. I have said in an earlier debate on the subject that Milton resists our attempts to pigeon-hole him, politically, religiously, or according to any other "set" system of belief or popular opinion. He was able to transcend his anti-papist convictions and make friends in Roman Catholic Italy. He befriended Marchamont Nedham, and he did not disown Andrew Marvell for writing that Charles "nothing common did or mean" upon the "memorable" scene of his decollation, "but bowed his comely head, / Down, as upon a bed" -- despite the fact that Milton himself was one of the "architects" frighted to run by the monarch's "bleeding head." The window will consist of an excerpt from his own poetry, with a border designed of flowers mentioned throughout his works, and rendered in watercolors by a nineteenth-century artist and "fan." No icons, nothing untoward, not even any formal "religious" connotation -- as we said almost a year ago, when the significant amount of work that has now been completed was begun. Finally, you mention that "the new Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, has proposed replacing some statues of imperialist generals in Trafalgar Square with more worthy figures, and who could be more appropriate than Milton to offer a different model of national heroism?" Indeed: the same Milton whose very presence in a national place of worship was said to be a sacrilige, when a monument to him was proposed at Westminster? The Milton who has not a single blue plaque memorial devoted to him at the site of his birth, death, or burial? The regicide whose only remaining home within the City limits England razed, over the vociferous protests of David Masson, to make way for the underground? It seems highly unlikely that the Crown would so openly, politically, valorize one of the architects of its near demise (even though it has supported the maintenance of the remote and near-destitute Cottage at Chalfont, St. Giles). As John Shawcross has suggested in _Self and the World_, Milton by the time of his death seemed to have transcended the petty concerns of this world, and arrived at a more serene apprehension of things terrestrial than he had ever known before. I find it hard to believe that he would be displeased by *any* sincere attempt made 400 years after his birth not to "willingly let it die." With all due respect, David, the opinion expressed below comes somewhat belatedly. The Milton Quadricentenary Window Project is at this point well underway, and has already received very generous support, both verbal and financial, from a number of Miltonists, for which we are most grateful. We asked for comments over a year ago. Carol Barton > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "David Norbrook" > > To: > > Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2000 3:26 PM > > Subject: Re: Milton Window Project > > > > > While I admire the enterprise and generosity of spirit that motivate the > > > plans for a monument to Milton, I have of necessity been giving a lot of > > > thought over the last few years to the problems of commemorating > > > republican memory in monumental forms and I would like to express some > > > surprise at choosing church-window images to commmemorate a writer who > > > identified himself so strongly as an iconoclast. In the first instance > > > there are questions to be asked - which don't seem to have been raised > > > by biographers, down to Barbara Lewalski - of why he was buried in an > > > Anglican church in the first place, at a time when so many dissenters > > > went out of their ways to avoid what they regarded as the idolatrous > > > rituals of prayer-book burial. Can we conclude that Milton, so sensitive > > > in *Samson Agonistes* to the political nuances of mourning, underwent > > > some kind of late conciliation with the Anglican church? Or did the > > > respectable friends who are said to have attended the funeral have a say > > > in the way things went? Only in the former case does the monument seem > > > fully appropriate. Even so, this kind of monument arguably gives a > > > rather distorted view of the overall, oppositional shape of his life and > > > writings in relation to the church-and-state settlement whose basic > > > outlines survive today. I do hope that the energy of American Miltonists > > > will also be directed to ways of commemorating Milton that would reflect > > > his resonance in a current revival of constitutional reform and some > > > forms of republicanism in Britain. The new Mayor of London, Ken > > > Livingstone, has proposed replacing some statues of imperialist generals > > > in Trafalgar Square with more worthy figures, and who could be more > > > appropriate than Milton to offer a different model of national heroism? > > > > > > David Norbrook > > > > > > Department of English > > > University of Maryland > > > 3101 Susquehanna Hall > > > College Park > > > MD 20742 From: Peter C. Herman [herman2@mail.sdsu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 3:03 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Cc: carlb@shore.net Subject: Re: 1642 order? The last chapter of David Kastan's _Shakespeare After Theory_ (Routledge, 1999), addresses precisely these questions, and it begins by quoting the 1642 order. Hope this helps, Peter C. Herman At 04:23 PM 12/30/00 -0500, you wrote: >I'm looking for a succinct account of the 1642 order that closed the >theaters. How expected, or not, was the order? Was there much debate among >the Puritans as to whether the theaters should be closed? I know that Milton >argues in RCG that the theaters could stay open, in order to show >"doctrinall and exemplary" drama, but was anyone else saying this as well? >And could Milton have known how long the theaters would be closed? > >Any articles, chapters, or books that address these questions would be >appreciated. I'm just not sure where to look. > >Thanks, > >Tim Burbery > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shore.net [mailto:carlb@shore.net] > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 11:58 AM > To: milton-l@richmond.edu > Subject: Re: Fletcher's facsimile > > Thanks Prof. Flannagan for your cautionary comments. > > Would you say it's time to revise the Fletcher edition? It >would be nice to > see something on the Web, but I suppose the limitation of >graphic > resolutions on-screen might make it even less satisfactory >than a printed > text for representing original pages(?). > > I have a curious book printed in 1926: "The Noel Douglas >Replicas, John > Milton, Minor Poems." It indicates that "The copy reproduced >is that in the > British Museum." If you are familiar with this text, how >accurate is it in > terms of flies and commas and bleed-through etc.? And how >was it > reproduced --some kind of photographic process? It is >printed on heavy rag > paper and almost looks like it's set in type. > > -Carl > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roy Flannagan" > To: > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 8:14 AM > Subject: Fletcher's facsimile > > > > Fletcher's notes and transcriptions are indeed very >helpful but they are > > not always trustworthy, nor is the facsimile process (for >reproducing the > > shades of paper or the ink bleed-through or the specks >that might be dead > > flies on the Xerox glass, or commas) always technically > > perfect. Fletcher's transcriptions need to be verified >by reference to > his > > images, then those images need to be checked against the >original > > editions. Then there are the press variants that >Fletcher didn't catch! > > > > Who is collating Milton editions and manuscripts, out >there? > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Roy Flannagan > > From: Carol Barton, PhD [cbartonphd@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 10:08 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: 1642 order? Tim Burbery writes, > I'm looking for a succinct account of the 1642 order that closed the > theaters. How expected, or not, was the order? Was there much debate among > the Puritans as to whether the theaters should be closed? I know that Milton > argues in RCG that the theaters could stay open, in order to show > "doctrinall and exemplary" drama, but was anyone else saying this as well? > And could Milton have known how long the theaters would be closed? > > Any articles, chapters, or books that address these questions would be > appreciated. I'm just not sure where to look. Tim, start with William Prynne's "Histriomatrix." You can find a copy of the order closing the theatres in the Thomason Tracts, I believe. Best, Carol Barton From: whunter [whunter@mymailstation.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 6:59 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re:Re: Milton Window Project David Norbrook innocently accepts the dogma that the anti-prelatical M ilton was opposed to the church's statements of belief rather than to its governance. One can find such opposition only in the discredited In he paraphrases, for example, part of the Book of Common Prayer in Adam and Eve's prayers. Surely he preferred the burial place we know to the puritan one right across the street. But see American Miltonists have helped remember him i n the past. Besides such matters as the window in St. Margaret's the Milton Society sent funds right after the War to help rebuild the bomb-damaged St. Giles Church. W.B. Hunter -------------------------------------------------------------- While I admire the enterprise and generosity of spirit that motivate the plans for a monument to Milton, I have of necessity been giving a lot of thought over the last few years to the problems of commemorating republican memory in monumental forms and I would like to express some surprise at choosing church-window images to commmemorate a writer who identified himself so strongly as an iconoclast. In the first instance there are questions to be asked - which don't seem to have been raised by biographers, down to Barbara Lewalski - of why he was buried in an Anglican church in the first place, at a time when so many dissenters went out of their ways to avoid what they regarded as the idolatrous rituals of prayer-book burial. Can we conclude that Milton, so sensitive in *Samson Agonistes* to the political nuances of mourning, underwent some kind of late conciliation with the Anglican church? Or did the respectable friends who are said to have attended the funeral have a say in the way things went? Only in the former case does the monument seem fully appropriate. Even so, this kind of monument arguably gives a rather distorted view of the overall, oppositional shape of his life and writings in relation to the church-and-state settlement whose basic outlines survive today. I do hope that the energy of American Miltonists will also be directed to ways of commemorating Milton that would reflect his resonance in a current revival of constitutional reform and some forms of republicanism in Britain. The new Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, has proposed replacing some statues of imperialist generals in Trafalgar Square with more worthy figures, and who could be more appropriate than Milton to offer a different model From: Sherry Zivley [szivley@uh.edu] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 6:34 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: On-line version of Samson Agonistes Thank you very much for the references to on-line texts of "Samson." Sherry >Reliable editions of many of Milton's works are at the Milton Reading >Room: > >http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/index.html > >Samson Agonistes is at: > >http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/samson/part_1/index.html From: Katherine Eggert [eggert@spot.colorado.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 5:47 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu; FICINO@listserv.utoronto.ca Subject: Book of Common Prayer/Gunpowder Plot (With apologies for cross-posting.) A colleague of mine who works on the 18th century has asked me to post the following query to my learned Renaissance colleagues. Replies may be made directly to me, or to the list. Many thanks! Katherine Eggert Associate Professor of English University of Colorado, Boulder Katherine.Eggert@colorado.edu > >I have a question about an image connected to the Gunpowder Plot. In a >1745 edition of the Book of Common Prayer, there is an illustration >accompanying the Gunpowder Treason service. At the center of the image, >there is what appears to be a magic mirror on an pedestal; the mirror >shows the familiar scene of Guy Fawkes approaching Parliament. Above, we >see the (again familiar) eye of God shining into the mirror, presumably >creating the image of Fawkes by some kind of projection. To the right, >two men in Elizabethan dress recoil in horror at what they see in the >glass. My questions are these: first, what is the origin of this >image (ie, when did it first appear in the BCP)? two, much of the >iconography surrounding the Gunpowder Plot includes the eye of God and the >figure of Fawkes, but none of the other images I have looked at includes >what I am calling the magic mirror (it actually looks like a round >big-screen TV)--where does that come from? three, is there any chance >that the more prominent of the two figures at the right represents King >James, since (in the standard version of how the plot was thwarted) he is >the one who brilliantly figured out what was going on? Thanks in >advance for any and all help. > > From: Greg Benoit [gregwa@gregwa.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 6:30 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Announcement of the Milton Window Project bravo, rose!! you have the courage to challenge the politically correct non-thought of our age. -greg benoit ________________________ gregwa@gregwa.com http://www.gregwa.com From: James Dougal Fleming [jdf26@columbia.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 11:42 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton Window Project Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu Yes -- how tiresome of Milton to get himself ecclesiastically interred! JDF On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Norman Burns wrote: > I wish to offer my thanks to David Norbrook for his admirable statement on > the inappropriateness of an ecclesiastical memorial for Milton. --Norm Burns > > At 03:26 PM 12/31/00 -0500, you wrote: > >While I admire the enterprise and generosity of spirit that motivate the > >plans for a monument to Milton, I have of necessity been giving a lot of > >thought over the last few years to the problems of commemorating > >republican memory in monumental forms and I would like to express some > >surprise at choosing church-window images to commmemorate a writer who > >identified himself so strongly as an iconoclast. In the first instance > >there are questions to be asked - which don't seem to have been raised > >by biographers, down to Barbara Lewalski - of why he was buried in an > >Anglican church in the first place, at a time when so many dissenters > >went out of their ways to avoid what they regarded as the idolatrous > >rituals of prayer-book burial. Can we conclude that Milton, so sensitive > >in *Samson Agonistes* to the political nuances of mourning, underwent > >some kind of late conciliation with the Anglican church? Or did the > >respectable friends who are said to have attended the funeral have a say > >in the way things went? Only in the former case does the monument seem > >fully appropriate. Even so, this kind of monument arguably gives a > >rather distorted view of the overall, oppositional shape of his life and > >writings in relation to the church-and-state settlement whose basic > >outlines survive today. I do hope that the energy of American Miltonists > >will also be directed to ways of commemorating Milton that would reflect > >his resonance in a current revival of constitutional reform and some > >forms of republicanism in Britain. The new Mayor of London, Ken > >Livingstone, has proposed replacing some statues of imperialist generals > >in Trafalgar Square with more worthy figures, and who could be more > >appropriate than Milton to offer a different model of national heroism? > > > >David Norbrook > > > >Department of English > >University of Maryland > >3101 Susquehanna Hall > >College Park > >MD 20742 > From: David Norbrook [dn44@umail.umd.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 10:36 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton Window Project Thanks to Carol Barton for information about the history of the window project; I am a latecomer to this list, hence my surprise. My belief is that monuments have a double responsibility to past and to present, to respect as fully as possible the commemorated person's own wishes, as far as we can construct them, and to translate those wishes into terms meaningful for today. Concerning the past, I'm glad that Carol Barton has been researching the circumstances of Milton's burial, whose contexts need exploring. I'm struck by Skinner's phrasing: 'he happened to be buried in Cripplegate, where about thirty years before he had by chance also interred his father': 'happened' and 'chance' don't seem strong expressions of allegiance to a holy place. Also by Aubrey's observation that the stone was removed in 1679, a politically sensitive year, for what was no ordinary 'renovation work' but raising the steps to the communion table: I can't help wondering whether Milton might have turned in his grave at that time. His final religious views were not those of the time of L'Allegro - though it's true he did reprint it in 1673, along with his poem to Lancelot Andrewes; so he may not find it too much of an irony to be confronted with the recently-installed stained-glass image of the Bishop, which will have prepared him nicely for his own window. Concerning the present: at the end of my Writing the English Republic I speculate about the appropriate memorials for republicans and ponder the risk of a new, heritage-style idolatry that would be inappropriate for their mentality; but in balance it's far better they should be present than not. To me the proposed medium and place send the wrong signal about Milton's meaning for today - which is a bit different from the time of the Second World War - but all power to the campaign for further blue plaques. As Carol Barton observes, politics has played an important part in the absence of Milton memorials - which is why I find it harder than she does to see him as transcending politics - but fortunately the reach of her present majesty is not as far as Charles II's, and I think there might be a real chance of Ken Livingstone's trying to get hold of some public funds. It's time for London to undo the shame of the Millennium Dome. As for displacing an imperialist, David Armitage's work on Milton and empire suggests that he would have had no problems whatever with that. David Norbrook "Carol Barton, PhD" wrote: > > David, in response to the posting below, I would like to point out that I am > covering Milton's burial . . . and the aftermath . . . in an in-process > monograph; please see my forthcoming article, presently under consideration > by _Milton Studies_ ("Ill fare the hands that heaved the stones": John > Milton, A Preliminary Thanatography). > > Milton buried his father at St. Giles, Cripplegate, and was buried there > himself, according to Anglican rites. (He may not have had a choice about > the site of his own interment, but certainly, he did concerning Milton > Sr.'s.) > > His grave went unmarked for 116 years, after they removed the initial > headstone for renovation work (see Aubrey). > > The church was badly damaged by the Luftwaffe's bombs during World War II > . . . and we think it is fitting, not only that we help by means of this > window to restore the ancient place of worship where his bones lie to its > former beauty, but that we pay tribute in situ to his memory. The poet who > wrote (in "Il Penseroso") > > > > But let my due feet never fail > > > To walk the studious Cloister's pale, > > > And love the high embowed Roof > > > With antic pillars massy proof, > > > And storied Windows richly dight, > > > Casting a dim religious light. > > would understand the gesture, certainly. > > I have said in an earlier debate on the subject that Milton resists our > attempts to pigeon-hole him, politically, religiously, or according to any > other "set" system of belief or popular opinion. He was able to transcend > his anti-papist convictions and make friends in Roman Catholic Italy. He > befriended Marchamont Nedham, and he did not disown Andrew Marvell for > writing that Charles "nothing common did or mean" upon the "memorable" > scene of his decollation, "but bowed his comely head, / Down, as upon a > bed" -- > despite the fact that Milton himself was one of the "architects" frighted > to run by the monarch's "bleeding head." > > The window will consist of an excerpt from his own poetry, with a border > designed of flowers mentioned throughout his works, and rendered in > watercolors by a nineteenth-century artist and "fan." No icons, nothing > untoward, not even any formal "religious" connotation -- as we said almost > a year ago, when the significant amount of work that has now been completed > was begun. > > Finally, you mention that "the new Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, has > proposed replacing some statues of imperialist generals in Trafalgar > Square with more worthy figures, and who could be more appropriate than > Milton to offer a different model of national heroism?" Indeed: the same > Milton whose very presence in a national place of worship was said to be a > sacrilige, when a monument to him was proposed at Westminster? The Milton > who has not a single blue plaque memorial devoted to him at the site of his > birth, > death, or burial? The regicide whose only remaining home within the City > limits > England razed, over the vociferous protests of David Masson, to make way for > the underground? It seems highly unlikely that the Crown would so openly, > politically, valorize one of the architects of its near demise (even though > it has supported the maintenance of the remote and near-destitute Cottage > at Chalfont, St. Giles). > > As John Shawcross has suggested in _Self and the World_, Milton by the time > of his death seemed to have transcended the petty concerns of this world, > and > arrived at a more serene apprehension of things terrestrial than he had ever > known before. I find it hard to believe that he would be displeased by *any* > sincere attempt made 400 years after his birth not to "willingly let it > die." > > With all due respect, David, the opinion expressed below comes somewhat > belatedly. The Milton Quadricentenary Window Project is at this point well > underway, and has already received very generous support, both verbal and > financial, from a number of Miltonists, for which we are most grateful. > > We asked for comments over a year ago. > > Carol Barton > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "David Norbrook" > > > To: > > > Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2000 3:26 PM > > > Subject: Re: Milton Window Project > > > > > > > While I admire the enterprise and generosity of spirit that motivate > the > > > > plans for a monument to Milton, I have of necessity been giving a lot > of > > > > thought over the last few years to the problems of commemorating > > > > republican memory in monumental forms and I would like to express some > > > > surprise at choosing church-window images to commmemorate a writer who > > > > identified himself so strongly as an iconoclast. In the first instance > > > > there are questions to be asked - which don't seem to have been raised > > > > by biographers, down to Barbara Lewalski - of why he was buried in an > > > > Anglican church in the first place, at a time when so many dissenters > > > > went out of their ways to avoid what they regarded as the idolatrous > > > > rituals of prayer-book burial. Can we conclude that Milton, so > sensitive > > > > in *Samson Agonistes* to the political nuances of mourning, underwent > > > > some kind of late conciliation with the Anglican church? Or did the > > > > respectable friends who are said to have attended the funeral have a > say > > > > in the way things went? Only in the former case does the monument seem > > > > fully appropriate. Even so, this kind of monument arguably gives a > > > > rather distorted view of the overall, oppositional shape of his life > and > > > > writings in relation to the church-and-state settlement whose basic > > > > outlines survive today. I do hope that the energy of American > Miltonists > > > > will also be directed to ways of commemorating Milton that would > reflect > > > > his resonance in a current revival of constitutional reform and some > > > > forms of republicanism in Britain. The new Mayor of London, Ken > > > > Livingstone, has proposed replacing some statues of imperialist > generals > > > > in Trafalgar Square with more worthy figures, and who could be more > > > > appropriate than Milton to offer a different model of national > heroism? > > > > > > > > David Norbrook > > > > > > > > Department of English > > > > University of Maryland > > > > 3101 Susquehanna Hall > > > > College Park > > > > MD 20742 From: Kari McBride [kari@u.arizona.edu] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 9:55 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Book of Common Prayer/Gunpowder Plot There is a web site devoted to the gunpowder plot--http://www.bcpl.net/~cbladey/guy/html/main.html. I wasn't able to find that image among the many there, but perhaps the webmaster would know the answer to your friend's question. From: Conrad Bladey ***Peasant**** [cbladey@mail.bcpl.net] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:18 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Book of Common Prayer/Gunpowder Plot This is interesting! If you could perhaps get the name of the printer and place of printing. Lots of prayer books. The Iconography of the plot is traced on my web pages- http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/9314/fawkespic2.html (bear with the slow loading we try to get the best images up) I have seen many images but not the one described. Quite interesting I await further information.... We have just begun a study of prayer books. The trouble is that there are so many individual printers and that the gunpowder plot is not always represented. I will working on this at the LOC at next possible opportunity to get away from the desk here..... Conrad Bladey cbladey@bcpl.net Katherine Eggert wrote: > > (With apologies for cross-posting.) A colleague of mine who works on > the 18th century has asked me to post the following query to my > learned Renaissance colleagues. Replies may be made directly to me, > or to the list. Many thanks! > > Katherine Eggert > Associate Professor of English > University of Colorado, Boulder > Katherine.Eggert@colorado.edu > > > > >I have a question about an image connected to the Gunpowder Plot. In > a > >1745 edition of the Book of Common Prayer, there is an illustration > >accompanying the Gunpowder Treason service. At the center of the > image, > >there is what appears to be a magic mirror on an pedestal; the > mirror > >shows the familiar scene of Guy Fawkes approaching Parliament. > Above, we > >see the (again familiar) eye of God shining into the mirror, > presumably > >creating the image of Fawkes by some kind of projection. To the > right, > >two men in Elizabethan dress recoil in horror at what they see in the > >glass. My questions are these: first, what is the origin of this > >image (ie, when did it first appear in the BCP)? two, much of the > >iconography surrounding the Gunpowder Plot includes the eye of God > and the > >figure of Fawkes, but none of the other images I have looked at > includes > >what I am calling the magic mirror (it actually looks like a round > >big-screen TV)--where does that come from? three, is there any > chance > >that the more prominent of the two figures at the right represents > King > >James, since (in the standard version of how the plot was thwarted) > he is > >the one who brilliantly figured out what was going on? Thanks in > >advance for any and all help. > > > > -- @#@#@#@##@#@#@#@#@##@#@#@#@#@#@@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@ Looking through mhy bedroom window, out into the moonlight and the uneding smoke-colored snow, I could see the lights in the windows of all the other houses on our hill and hear the music rising from them up the long, steadily falling night. I turned the gas down, I got into bed. I said some words to the close and holy darkness, and then I slept!-Dylan Thomas #################################################################### From: rwill [rwill627@camalott.com] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:04 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Re:Re: Milton Window Project My thanks to Carol Barton for the information re Cromwell and burial places of the period. My thanks to the many list members who have sent me kind notes off-list. I thoroughly enjoy seeing all opinions. I wonder about people's great concern with "sending the wrong message for 'today'." 'Today' is a drop in the bucket. How scholars in one brief instant of time believed Milton thought, or should have thought, is not vastly important. He lies where he lies, and, unless 'today' folk want to transport him to some place they believe he should have chosen to be buried, a memorial to him where he is seems fitting. Rose Williams From: Alan Rudrum [rudrum@sfu.ca] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:12 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re:the discredited De Doctrina. Bill Hunter, in response to David Norbrook, writes of "the discredited ". When, I should like to be told, was the De Doctrina Christiana discredited? To quote myself: "Nothing I have read of late has convinced me of the impropriety of citing De Doctrina Christiana in relation to Paradise Lost. Of course the conclusions reached by Campbell et al suggest that fine tuning is in order....To [their] point("the awkward necessity of finding an English Arminian, other than Milton, who had written on divorce") one might add "the awkward necessity of finding an English Arminian, other than Milton, who had written on polygamy." Indeed section 10 of [their] report ("Consistency with Milton's Canonical Writings") might have found additional material in my essay "Polygamy in Paradise Lost," Essays in Criticism, xx (1970), 18-23. What is important is not merely the *fact* that the concept of polygamy can be found both in De Doctrina and the Hymn to Wedded Bliss (PL iv 736-62), but the close consonance of treatment to be found in the two passages" (footnote 6 in Alan Rudrum, "For then the Earth shall be all Paradise: Milton, Vaughan and the neo-Calvinists on the Ecology of the Hereafter," Scintilla 4 (2000), 39-52). See further on this subject Leo Miller's Milton among the Polygamophiles. At the Vancouver International Milton Symposium I put up my hand to ask Bill Hunter, in response to an assertion he had made about the relationship between DDC and PL, this simple question: "What do you think the line "Present, or past, as saints and patriarchs used" (PL IV 762) means?" But at that point the chair called a halt to questions. If the De Doctrina Christiana really has been discredited since I wrote the above, I should be grateful for the details. Alan Rudrum From: Katherine Eggert [eggert@spot.colorado.edu] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 2:00 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu; FICINO@listserv.utoronto.ca Subject: Book of Common Prayer/Gunpowder Plot image Regarding the query I sent yesterday: a couple of people have e-mailed to ask if I have a scanned copy of the image that I can send out. I do, and will happily e-mail it to anyone who sends me a note off-list. However, it's one of those jpeg images that's very slow to load, and I don't want to clog up everyone's mailboxes, so I'm refraining from inflicting it on all the Miltonists and Ficinians. Again, many thanks to all! Katherine Katherine Eggert Associate Professor of English University of Colorado, Boulder Katherine.Eggert@colorado.edu -----Original Message----- From: Katherine Eggert To: milton-l@richmond.edu ; FICINO@listserv.utoronto.ca Date: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 3:47 PM Subject: Book of Common Prayer/Gunpowder Plot >(With apologies for cross-posting.) A colleague of mine who works on >the 18th century has asked me to post the following query to my >learned Renaissance colleagues. Replies may be made directly to me, >or to the list. Many thanks! > >Katherine Eggert >Associate Professor of English >University of Colorado, Boulder >Katherine.Eggert@colorado.edu > > > >> >>I have a question about an image connected to the Gunpowder Plot. In >a >>1745 edition of the Book of Common Prayer, there is an illustration >>accompanying the Gunpowder Treason service. At the center of the >image, >>there is what appears to be a magic mirror on an pedestal; the >mirror >>shows the familiar scene of Guy Fawkes approaching Parliament. >Above, we >>see the (again familiar) eye of God shining into the mirror, >presumably >>creating the image of Fawkes by some kind of projection. To the >right, >>two men in Elizabethan dress recoil in horror at what they see in the >>glass. My questions are these: first, what is the origin of this >>image (ie, when did it first appear in the BCP)? two, much of the >>iconography surrounding the Gunpowder Plot includes the eye of God >and the >>figure of Fawkes, but none of the other images I have looked at >includes >>what I am calling the magic mirror (it actually looks like a round >>big-screen TV)--where does that come from? three, is there any >chance >>that the more prominent of the two figures at the right represents >King >>James, since (in the standard version of how the plot was thwarted) >he is >>the one who brilliantly figured out what was going on? Thanks in >>advance for any and all help. >> >> > > From: John Geraghty [johnegeraghty@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 1:58 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Cc: eggert@spot.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Book of Common Prayer/Gunpowder Plot I wish I could give you more direct sources but here is a start…. Without going too far on a tangent or too deeply into the iconography of the illustration, this is believed to be a reference to John Dee’s Magical Scrying Mirror and how he used it to uncover the gunpowder plot. There is a tradition which credits Dee as the one who foiled the plot. While I cannot quote direct sources for this legend I can give you this excerpt from a web site: “'There are several accounts of the manner in which the Gunpowder Plot was discovered, but among the students of Occult Science the belief is that its timely discovery was made by Dr. John Dee, by means of a magic mirror. Proof of how general this belief was at one time is given by the fact that in some editions of the Book of Common Prayer, published in the eighteenth century, is to be found an engraving inserted before the service for the Fifth of November depicting a circular mirror on a stand, in which is a reflection of the Houses of Parliament by night, and a person carrying a dark lantern. On the left side may be observed two men in the costume of the reighn of King James, looking into the mirror. On the right side, at the top, the eye of Providence throws a ray on the mirror. Beneath are legs and hoofs, as if evil spirits were making their exit.'”. -see http://www.mwsc.edu/~eng368/summer97/public/7.24.97-10.55.59.html Dee is credited with being the first to introduce this form of “crystal ball” scrying. He is also said to have used this form of divination to foreshadow and foil other monarchial crises the most famous of which was the Spanish Armada. The mirror itself was an interesting artifact allegedly a piece of concave (thus the round big-screen tv effect in the picture) polished obsidian taken from Central America and a relic of the Aztec God Tezcatlipoca. This name literally translates to Mirror that Smokes. This is why it is referenced in texts as “Dee’s Smoking Mirror”. for a more detail on the god see: http://www.northcoast.com/~spdtom/a-god6.html A concise explanation of the Eye of God: “shown is the plate depicting Guy Fawkes with a lantern in his hand stealing through the night toward the House of Lords (see opening). God’s eye, like a powerful ray of light, sees into Fawkes’s heart. The viewer is meant to understand that the spiritual light of God’s eye, which “brings to light” Fawkes’s evil intentions, is more powerful than the candle light which Fawkes uses to advance his plot.” -see http://www.gts.edu/library/butoneuse/item49.shtml While I do not know when the illustration was first introduced I believe a good place to start looking is 1606 as this was the date the Fawkes Service was first authorized and annexed into The Book of Common Prayer. It was removed during Queen Victoria’s reign. -Here is an online link to the liturgy: http://www.bcpl.net/~cbladey/guy/html/liturgy.html I won’t hazard a guess as to who the figures are. I hope this helps get you started ­john >From: "Katherine Eggert" >Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu >To: , >Subject: Book of Common Prayer/Gunpowder Plot >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:47:05 -0700 > >(With apologies for cross-posting.) A colleague of mine who works on >the 18th century has asked me to post the following query to my >learned Renaissance colleagues. Replies may be made directly to me, >or to the list. Many thanks! > >Katherine Eggert >Associate Professor of English >University of Colorado, Boulder >Katherine.Eggert@colorado.edu > > > > > > >I have a question about an image connected to the Gunpowder Plot. In >a > >1745 edition of the Book of Common Prayer, there is an illustration > >accompanying the Gunpowder Treason service. At the center of the >image, > >there is what appears to be a magic mirror on an pedestal; the >mirror > >shows the familiar scene of Guy Fawkes approaching Parliament. >Above, we > >see the (again familiar) eye of God shining into the mirror, >presumably > >creating the image of Fawkes by some kind of projection. To the >right, > >two men in Elizabethan dress recoil in horror at what they see in the > >glass. My questions are these: first, what is the origin of this > >image (ie, when did it first appear in the BCP)? two, much of the > >iconography surrounding the Gunpowder Plot includes the eye of God >and the > >figure of Fawkes, but none of the other images I have looked at >includes > >what I am calling the magic mirror (it actually looks like a round > >big-screen TV)--where does that come from? three, is there any >chance > >that the more prominent of the two figures at the right represents >King > >James, since (in the standard version of how the plot was thwarted) >he is > >the one who brilliantly figured out what was going on? Thanks in > >advance for any and all help. > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From: Burbery, Timothy [burbery@MARSHALL.EDU] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 2:08 PM To: 'milton-l@richmond.edu' Subject: RE: 1642 order? Many thanks, John! These look very helpful. Best, Tim -----Original Message----- From: John Geraghty [mailto:johnegeraghty@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 11:51 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: 1642 order? Tim, two authors that come to mind are Thompsom and, of course, EK Chambers. I'm not an expert on the subject so i can't vouch for the content, but i did find these sources interesting. It has been a long time since i read Chambers so i'm not sure which book of his to refer you to. here are the refs: -excerpt from http://www.lib.siu.edu/cni/letter-t.html): "Thompson, Elbert N. S. The Controversy between the Puritans and the Stage. New York, Holt, 1903. 275p. Reprinted in 1966 by Russell & Russell, New York. (Yale Studies in English, vol. 20) T95 A study in the conflict between morality and art reflected in the Puritan literature and sermons which resulted in the theater closure act of 1642. Includes a critical account of William Prynne's attack on the stage in his Histrio-Mastix and a section on the dramatists' replies to their critics." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- for Chambers i think it is in: -book site excerpt- Chambers, E. K. The Elizabethan Stage 4 Vols. Oxford The Claredon Press 1951. VG in VG, brodart dust jackets. This is a 1951 edition with corrections. Maroon boards and spines with gold stamp. Binding is HB. Book # 005341 Price: US$ 400.00 convert currency The Dust Jacket, Inc, 3200 Linwood Ave, Cincinnati, OH, U.S.A., 45226. Phone: 513-871-4224. Fax: 513-321-3862. Email: dj3200@aol.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- hope this helps-john >From: "Burbery, Timothy" >Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu >To: "'milton-l@richmond.edu'" >Subject: 1642 order? >Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 16:23:21 -0500 > >I'm looking for a succinct account of the 1642 order that closed the >theaters. How expected, or not, was the order? Was there much debate among >the Puritans as to whether the theaters should be closed? I know that >Milton >argues in RCG that the theaters could stay open, in order to show >"doctrinall and exemplary" drama, but was anyone else saying this as well? >And could Milton have known how long the theaters would be closed? > >Any articles, chapters, or books that address these questions would be >appreciated. I'm just not sure where to look. > >Thanks, > >Tim Burbery > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shore.net [mailto:carlb@shore.net] > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 11:58 AM > To: milton-l@richmond.edu > Subject: Re: Fletcher's facsimile > > Thanks Prof. Flannagan for your cautionary comments. > > Would you say it's time to revise the Fletcher edition? It >would be nice to > see something on the Web, but I suppose the limitation of >graphic > resolutions on-screen might make it even less satisfactory >than a printed > text for representing original pages(?). > > I have a curious book printed in 1926: "The Noel Douglas >Replicas, John > Milton, Minor Poems." It indicates that "The copy reproduced >is that in the > British Museum." If you are familiar with this text, how >accurate is it in > terms of flies and commas and bleed-through etc.? And how >was it > reproduced --some kind of photographic process? It is >printed on heavy rag > paper and almost looks like it's set in type. > > -Carl > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roy Flannagan" > To: > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 8:14 AM > Subject: Fletcher's facsimile > > > > Fletcher's notes and transcriptions are indeed very >helpful but they are > > not always trustworthy, nor is the facsimile process (for >reproducing the > > shades of paper or the ink bleed-through or the specks >that might be dead > > flies on the Xerox glass, or commas) always technically > > perfect. Fletcher's transcriptions need to be verified >by reference to > his > > images, then those images need to be checked against the >original > > editions. Then there are the press variants that >Fletcher didn't catch! > > > > Who is collating Milton editions and manuscripts, out >there? > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Roy Flannagan > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From: Burbery, Timothy [burbery@MARSHALL.EDU] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 2:09 PM To: 'milton-l@richmond.edu' Subject: RE: 1642 order? Thanks, Carol! Good tips. Best, Tim -----Original Message----- From: Carol Barton, PhD [mailto:cbartonphd@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 10:08 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: 1642 order? Tim Burbery writes, > I'm looking for a succinct account of the 1642 order that closed the > theaters. How expected, or not, was the order? Was there much debate among > the Puritans as to whether the theaters should be closed? I know that Milton > argues in RCG that the theaters could stay open, in order to show > "doctrinall and exemplary" drama, but was anyone else saying this as well? > And could Milton have known how long the theaters would be closed? > > Any articles, chapters, or books that address these questions would be > appreciated. I'm just not sure where to look. Tim, start with William Prynne's "Histriomatrix." You can find a copy of the order closing the theatres in the Thomason Tracts, I believe. Best, Carol Barton From: Chris Hair [crhair0@pop.uky.edu] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:46 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Discredited De Doctrina? I was of the opinion that De Doctrina was considered legitimate by most critics. Can someone direct me to discussion of this question in criticism or their own take on the matter (or, best, both). Chris Hair ----- Original Message ----- From: whunter To: Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 6:58 AM Subject: Re:Re: Milton Window Project > David Norbrook innocently accepts the dogma that the anti-prelatical M > ilton was opposed to the church's statements of belief rather than to its > governance. One can find such opposition only in the discredited Doctrina.> In he paraphrases, for example, part of the > Book of Common Prayer in Adam and Eve's prayers. Surely he preferred the > burial place we know to the puritan one right across the street. But see > > > American Miltonists have helped remember him i n the past. Besides such > matters as the window in St. Margaret's the Milton Society sent funds > right after the War to help rebuild the bomb-damaged St. Giles Church. > > W.B. Hunter > -------------------------------------------------------------- > While I admire the enterprise and generosity of spirit that motivate the > plans for a monument to Milton, I have of necessity been giving a lot of > thought over the last few years to the problems of commemorating republican > memory in monumental forms and I would like to express some surprise at > choosing church-window images to commmemorate a writer who identified > himself so strongly as an iconoclast. In the first instance there are > questions to be asked - which don't seem to have been raised by > biographers, down to Barbara Lewalski - of why he was buried in an Anglican > church in the first place, at a time when so many dissenters went out of > their ways to avoid what they regarded as the idolatrous rituals of > prayer-book burial. Can we conclude that Milton, so sensitive in *Samson > Agonistes* to the political nuances of mourning, underwent some kind of > late conciliation with the Anglican church? Or did the respectable friends > who are said to have attended > the funeral have a say in the way things went? Only in the former case does > the monument seem fully appropriate. Even so, this kind of monument > arguably gives a rather distorted view of the overall, oppositional shape > of his life and writings in relation to the church-and-state settlement > whose basic outlines survive today. I do hope that the energy of American > Miltonists will also be directed to ways of commemorating Milton that would > reflect his resonance in a current revival of constitutional reform and > some forms of republicanism in Britain. The new Mayor of London, Ken > Livingstone, has proposed replacing some statues of imperialist generals in > Trafalgar Square with more worthy figures, and who could be more > appropriate than Milton to offer a different model > From: John Leonard [jleonard@julian.uwo.ca] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:56 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton Window Project This is an intriguing thread but it is starting to show signs of polarizing the list. I hope this doesn't happen. David Norbrook has raised a real issue, and he has done so tactfully and rationally. It is unfair to characterize his objections as "politically correct non-thought". Political it certainly is, but it is also one of the most thoughtful posts to have appeared on Milton-l for quite some time. So far, postings on this topic have centred on the location of the monument. But that is not the only issue. A still stronger problem attends the nature of the monument itself: a stained glass window. Carol pertinently cites *Il Penseroso*, but David could just as easily reply with *Eikonoklastes*, where Milton pours scorn on "gaudy Copes, and painted Windows, Miters, Rochets, Altars, and the chanted Service-Book" (YP 3. 558). (Incidentally, that last phrase raises a problem for Bill Hunter. Yes, Milton echoes various liturgies in the morning hymn, but his point is that Adam and Eve are spontaneously eloquent. They don't chant from a book.) Returning to the topic, it seems to me that the real challenge for those who think the window a good and appropriate idea is to convince David and other doubters of one of two things: 1) Milton would have approved of the window, or at least woud not have disapproved. 2) It's a worthwhile project whatever Milton may have thought. After all, he's dead. We're not. Personally, I'd be happier with the first argument. So far, I think David is ahead on points, but I'm open to all arguments. Someone recently asked where Milton could have been buried if not in a church. I too would like to hear an answer to this. Another reference that might be relevant to the debate is PL 3.476-77: Here pilgrims roam, that strayed so far to seek In Golgotha him dead, who lives in Heav'n. That said, I am not averse to making a pilgrimage if someone can adequately answer David Norbrook's cogent objections. John Leonard From: Sharon Achinstein [sa147@umail.umd.edu] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:23 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re:Re: Milton Window Project The occasion of the plan for the window is a good opportunity to consider the meaning of MiltonÕs burial in its immediate social and historical context. I too have been struggling with the question of why Milton was buried in the church at Cripplegate, and research for my book on the Restoration culture of dissent has led me to conclude that his burial there need not have indicated his reconciliation with the Anglican Church in 1674. We do not know why Milton was buried there; his will was orally dictated to his upstanding brother Christopher, so we donÕt have it in writing that it was MiltonÕs wish to be buried there. But even if it was his will to be buried there, the church at Cripplegate during the revolution and Restoration periods was rather different than that of today. What follows is material that will appear in my book, tentatively titled _ZionÕs Ashes: poetics of dissent in Restoration England._ There is no doubt more to learn about the precise history of Cripplegate, and I hope these jottings will help us to think about MiltonÕs burial in a fuller light. The history of the parish of St. Giles Cripplegate is a fascinating one. All through the revolutionary and Restoration period it was the locus of controversies ecclesiological and political, and it fluctuated between Independent to Presbyterian, low Anglican, and higher Anglican. To me, it sheds light on the post-Restoration religious situation where things were far less clear cut than we often assume. To put it simply, the church Milton buried his father in was not fully an ÔAnglicanÕ church. Its ministerial leadership in March 1647, when Milton Senior was buried, was Cromwellian and Independent; the royalist prelate William Fuller had been ousted in 1641. In 1647, Cripplegate churchyard was used for a military marching ground. Church control in the 1640s was mainly Independent, and a number of innovations in governance were introduced, although the living remained vacant until Richard Cromwell appointed the Presbyterian Samuel Annesley in 1658. This appointment caused controversy; there was a parish petition headed by a powerful church patron, the erstwhile Elder Brother of MiltonÕs Comus, the Earl of Bridgewater, the dedicatee of his printed version of Comus. The Earl repeatedly gave large sums of money to Cripplegate church to augment its ornaments, in the early 1680s for new bells to be installed in the newly renovated tower. This was the Earl who had inscribed in the copy of MiltonÕs First Defense, ÔLiber igni, Author furca dignissimiÕ (The book is most deserving of burning, the author of the gallows) [Parker 975]. During the period 1660-1688, Cripplegate ward was known for the poverty of its inhabitants and for its lively dissenting community; it was a haven for Huguenots, and it boasted the highest number of ejected ministers in 1662 in CalamyÕs account. Cripplegate church records show that dissenting ministers, including the Independent Samuel Slater, were paid to preach at Cripplegate church even after their ejection. This is an interesting and probably not-uncommon instance of the ways that Uniformity was not uniform; in a parish as contentious as Cripplegate, this should not surprise us. The Presbyterian Annesley was ousted in the Great Ejection of 1662, but he did continue to preach and publish in the area with a great following. After 1662 Cripplegate church did move swiftly to put its service in line with the new prayer book, and records show the purchase of a surplice and money for rails around the communion table in 1662: that these elements of "the beauty of holiness" were absent until that moment tells us that the church was on the ÔlowÕ side, far from orthodoxy, before that. Succeeding the nonconformist Annesley were two royalist appointments, the second of which, Dr. Pritchett, fled the parish during the plague and removed to one of his other livings during the later part of his tenure which ended in 1681. During that period--a sort of interregnum--it looks as if the mice played whilst the cat was away. The churchÕs then curate William Smythies, who served the parish from 1673 until 1704, had, it turns out, a sideline as a lecturer at local dissenting meetings, and was accused of being an ÔOliverian,Õ attacked for his actions and views by Sir Roger LÕEstrange. This would probably have been the churchÕs leadership at the time of MiltonÕs funeral. The Presbyterian Thomas Vincent, who ministered to the City of London during the plague, was like Milton buried in the church in 1678, with a Congregational minister preaching his funeral sermon there. In 1681, Edward Fowler was appointed vicar, a man who protected seditious dissenters during his ministry, was a friend to Locke, who became an ardent supporter of the Revolution of 1688, soon elevated to a Bishopric under William. Fowler is on record for breaking a stained glass window at Gloucester Cathedral in protest against high churchiness in 1679 during the popish plot as Ôa vile relic of popish superstitionÕ. [There is an excellent article on Fowler and the politics of Cripplegate parish in the 1680s by Mark Goldie and John Spurr in _English Historical Review_ 110 (June 1994).] St. Giles Cripplegate of MiltonÕs day, then, was a church in flux, a conduit through which the tensions between Anglicanism and varieties of dissent were filtered, and it is clear from the records that sympathies remained largely on the side of dissent. MiltonÕs headstone, removed in 1679, made way for steps to be built up to the altar (according to Aubrey): this was part of a process of the Anglicanization of Cripplegate. It is simply perfect and ghastly too that MiltonÕs memorial was demolished in the name of enhancement of ceremony and sacrament in this process. MiltonÕs burial at this church rather than in the dissenting burial ground at Bunhill fields, then, need not be seen as his reconciliation with the Anglican Restored church. Cripplegate church at the time of MiltonÕs death was certainly not mainstream Restored Anglican. From the vantage point of today, that church presented in the 1660s and 1670s a far cry from the present churchÕs marriage of cross and crown. Any commemoration needs to be sensitive to these passions and controversies through which Milton was living. , Sharon Achinstein ---------------------- Sharon Achinstein Associate Professor Department of English University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 USA (301) 405-3809 sa147@umail.umd.edu From: Carol Barton, PhD [cbartonphd@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:26 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu <3A53EFA3.5C6EDDFF@umail.umd.edu> Subject: Re: Milton Window Project Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 12:14:33 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu Dear List, Owing to the length and complexity of his post, and because of the relevance of this thread to viability of the Milton Quadricentenary Window Project, I would like to respond to David Norbrook's comments about Milton and republicanism, and the propriety of installing non-iconic stained glass window as a memorial to the poet's name, partially inter alia, as follows: DN: > Thanks to Carol Barton for information about the history of the window > project; I am a latecomer to this list, hence my surprise. My belief is > that monuments have a double responsibility to past and to present, to > respect as fully as possible the commemorated person's own wishes, as > far as we can construct them, and to translate those wishes into terms > meaningful for today. CB: I agree with that sentiment, David; I also have a strenuous objection to our modern tendency to recreate history (and the figures of history) to suit our own sensibilities or constructions. As to reconstruction of his wishes, and his putative "rejection" of the Church of England, it must be noted that, though Milton disagreed with church governance, he was not a "dissenter" in the sense that the Lollards or Adamites or Familists were: he objected to hirelings and benefices misused ("the hungry Sheep look up, and are not fed"), but I doubt seriously that he would have participated in or approved of the New Noddle's iconoclastic pogrom; he had a greater respect for art, even religious art, as Roland M. Frye's book, _Milton's Imagery and the Visual Arts_, suggests (my thanks to Al Labriola for making that apt observation). Certainly, Milton would not have promoted a Tudor-like seizure of the churches for secular reincarnation: he despised the corruption of the church, not the church itself; and would have been an ordained C of E minister himself (having twice subscribed), had that process not been politicized by Laud and Charles to the extent that, when required to do so for a third time, he declined to "subscribe slave." He abhorred the political appropriation of the Book of Common Prayer when it was used (as in Laudian/Carolinian hands it was) as a weapon of oppression, but as Bill Hunter has pointed out, he also employed its text in his greatest poem. It was the mindless, rote repetition of set prayers, the kind that result in little children intoning "Our Father who art in Heaven, Harold be thy name" as a substitute for the impromptu outpourings of "th'upright heart and pure" that he deplored, not use of the BCP by the less poetically inclined among the faithful as a means expressing what they sincerely felt, but could not articulate -- after all, he had painstakingly translated the greatest of "set prayers," the Davidic Psalms, into English, and Skinner (the formerly "anonymous" biographer) says they were his favorite poetry. It was a long walk, from Bunhill Row to the Barbican, for a man afflicted with blindness, age, and gout, but Milton must also have attended St. Giles, Cripplegate at least once (for his father's funeral), and nothing about his relationship with Betty suggests that she would have gone against his wishes and interred him there if he had ever expressed an objection to her doing so; quite the contrary, according to her brother-in-law's legal testimony at the settlement of Milton's nuncupatory will. I don't think we can extrapolate a hatred of the Church of England from Milton's many and vociferous criticisms of its operations either, any more than we can assume a rejection of monarchy as a result of his contempt for tyranny, and for all of that which threatens free thought and the unfettered communion of the individual heart and soul with its Creator (whether under crown or crucifix). The SMECTYMNUANs (all important State Church divines) argued against episcopacy as strenuously as Milton did -- and nonetheless remained practicing C of E ministers. Even Milton's stance on *that* issue must be qualified: the fact that he was against prelacy does not mean that he was against the "sublime work of health-bearing religion" (_Elegia Quarta_), or that he endorsed blasphemous behavior like fornicating or urinating on the altar (a popular Dissenter "demonstration" of salvation), or that he approved of any other form of sacrilege -- or disapproved of others attending church (whether he personally found it necessary or useful to do so or not). "Help us to save free Conscience from the paw / Of hireling wolves whose Gospel is their maw," he exhorts Cromwell as Lord General, a theme that runs consistently throughout the canon from _Lycidas_ to _The Means to Remove Hirelings_. No one can demonstrate that Milton ever supported any form of wholesale anarchy, secular *or* religious ("License they mean, when they cry liberty"). He argued for tolerance for the Dissenters -- but that doesn't mean he *was* one. Likewise, he was against oppression, and the abuse of power, in all of its forms -- but that doesn't mean he was against the institutions of church or monarchy in se, or the responsible wielding of power for the right reasons, by responsible hands. DN: > Concerning the past, I'm glad that Carol Barton has been researching the > circumstances of Milton's burial, whose contexts need exploring. I'm > struck by Skinner's phrasing: 'he happened to be buried in Cripplegate, > where about thirty years before he had by chance also interred his > father': 'happened' and 'chance' don't seem strong expressions of > allegiance to a holy place. CB: I think that one must take such statements in context, not only in terms of what is said before and after, but taking note of the tone and tenor of the surrounding statements as well. The full text of the sentence you have cited in part reads as follows: "He had this elegy in common with the patriarchs and kings of Israel, that he was gathered to his people; for he happened to be buried in Cripplegate, where about thirty years before he had by chance also interred his father." In context, the statement is far less sinister than it might otherwise seem: since the poet was buried in Cripplegate, are not the "people" to whom he was "gathered" the parishioners of that C of E church in which he was buried, and the Bunhill Fields neighborhood in which he lived and died (writ large, the people of London, and of England)? And couldn't Skinner's reference to his father's burial "by chance" so far from the gravesite of his mother mean no more than that Skinner thinks it curious that Milton did not have his parents interred together? The possible implication in Skinner's words that these events were not consciously planned is worth further consideration, of course, but the records on the subject of Milton's funeral are scant; I plan to issue a full report on the results of my investigation (in the form of a monograph) as soon as the work is complete, as I indicated earlier. DN: > Also by Aubrey's observation that the stone > was removed in 1679, a politically sensitive year, for what was no > ordinary 'renovation work' but raising the steps to the communion table: > I can't help wondering whether Milton might have turned in his grave at > that time. His final religious views were not those of the time of > L'Allegro - though it's true he did reprint it in 1673, along with his > poem to Lancelot Andrewes; so he may not find it too much of an irony to > be confronted with the recently-installed stained-glass image of the > Bishop, which will have prepared him nicely for his own window. CB: Lancelot Andrewes preached in that church (1588-1605), as Milton would have known, and Oliver Cromwell was married there; John Foxe himself lies in the same hallowed earth. Perhaps that will incline you to mend your speech a little, David? (asked with a smile). DN: Concerning the present: at the end of my Writing the English Republic I > speculate about the appropriate memorials for republicans and ponder the > risk of a new, heritage-style idolatry that would be inappropriate for > their mentality; but in balance it's far better they should be present > than not. CB: As I question our politically-correct tendency to conceive of literary figures as embodiments of Swift's Hack, locked in a garret, away from the world, and utterly susceptible of labels from which we would recoil in horror, were they applied to us. Who among us is a "republican," today? What is a "liberal"? What does it mean, to be a "conservative" or a "socialist," or a "Marxist," or even a "deconstructionist"? Aren't terrorists "freedom fighters" by their own estimation? Are there no shades of meaning, no degrees of committment, no opportunity for independent thought, in any affiliation we might adopt? (This discussion alone suggests that even the term "Miltonist" doesn't have a single, uniform meaning, beyond our reverence in common for the man, and perhaps only SOME of his acts and works.) I don't see Milton turning in his grave because there will be a church window in his name at Cripplegate, David -- either because he deplored the abuse of the bishop's mitre, or because he detested the misuse of the sceptre. I am in process of doing what I can to rectify the blue plaque problem, as well: a year ago, I applied to the Corporation of London for plaques for Bread Street and Bunhill Row, which (at £1,000 each) may also involve the need for some financial assistance on the part of the Milton community. We have already made provision in the charter of the Fund to allow us to do that (as well as to support the Cottage and the Milton Society of America) with any monies that may remain once the Window project is paid for. I do hope, especially on that basis, that this debate will not dissuade those who were otherwise inclined to offer their support. Best to all, Carol Barton From: Derek Wood [dwood@stfx.ca] Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 3:42 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton Window Project <3A53EFA3.5C6EDDFF@umail.umd.edu> Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu It is with some delicacy that Toland cuts short speculation about why Milton in old age was not a "professed member of any particular sect among Christians." He concludes "...I will by no means venture to determine; for conjectures on such occasions are very uncertain, and I never met with any of his acquaintance who could be positive in assigning the true reasons of his conduct." Sensible doubt and hesitation we too might learn from in this matter. Now, as late as 1658, he buried both his wife and baby daughter in St. Margaret's, Westminster. At this time, he was living in Petty France, Westminster. A record has survived of his expenses for his wife's pall with escutcheons attached. The escutcheons displayed his coat of arms, with the spread eagle. This does not suggest some one who absolutely or even fiercely eschews ceremonial. In July 1674, months before he died, he was preparing himself for death. He thought it might well happen before his brother's return from Ipswych. In those months, I cannot believe he did not discuss with his beloved Betty, where he should be buried, especially since Bunhill Fields was so close to the house and so apparently obvious a last resting place. She would hardly have disobeyed his last wishes, even if his "learned and great friends" had other ideas. But I imagine that one thing overcame his dislike for clergymen and formal rites: it was the thought of lying next to the father who had done so much to make his career possible At tibi, care pater, postquam non aequa merenti Posse referre datur, nec dona rependere factis, Sit memorasse satis, repetitaque munera grato Percensere animo, fidaeque reponere menti. dw From: Roy Flannagan [Roy@gwm.sc.edu] Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 9:40 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Seventh International Milton Symposium, Beaufort, SC, June 3-June 8, 2002 Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu After some careful consultation about college schedules, local weather in = South Carolina, and no-see-ums, Sharon Achinstein and I have decided to = move the dates of IMS 7 to the first week of June in 2002, probably June 3 = (Monday) through June 8 (Saturday). This schedule would allow the = Symposium to begin after most semester schools have ended for the summer; = it would allow greater use of the University of South Carolina facilities = in Beaufort. Because the Symposium continues through a weekend, various = international and national flights might be cheaper. The dates would = still admit the likelihood of very sunny but not too hot weather in = Beaufort--neither being guaranteed, of course. We are negotiating with different theater troupes about a performance of = Milton's masque, and with different granting agencies about money to pay = for a performance. We have promises from local entrepreneurs and = hoteliers of good rates on hotels and B&Bs. We think we can plan an = island excursion, an oyster roast (free!), and a tea party in a renovated = mansion on Bay Street. We will also be able to book rooms in a brand new = conference center hotel, on the water. Meanwhile, potential attendees are = welcome to see what Beaufort has to offer by searching the Web under = Beaufort SC (not North Carolina) and under the Beaufort Gazette. We will be negotiating with readers for abstracts and papers soon, and = setting up a timetable for call for papers, announcements, submissions, = and notices of acceptance. Any suggestions would be welcome at this point. From: Alexander Moseley [Alexander.Moseley@ukgateway.net] Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 3:33 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: re Ecclesiastical commeroration Milton was a deeply religious man, even if, towards the end of his life, = he became cynical towards his own education and religious practices--as = any thoughtful person may have done considering the traumas of civil war = and disruption in his time. Religion was the most important thing in his = life, and as for ridding London of its military heroes, I am sure Milton = would have opposed such a move since his depiction of Christ is often as = a warrior (cf also Samson Agonistes, Milton's conception of the strength = and power of the English nation, etc. [accordingly, he would not have = thought much of the socialist Ken Livingstone or his policies]). One = should not confuse modern republicanism with what should be commemorated = in the memorial, and perhaps one should consider what Milton may have = wanted--after all he certainly wanted to be something great, known, and = commemorated. Heather Eisenhut he104@york.ac.uk From: Alexander Moseley [Alexander.Moseley@ukgateway.net] Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 3:44 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Book of Common Prayer/Gunpowder Plot Some thoughts: The description suggests that James, head of the Church, believer in = Divine Rights of Kings, would have been shown (through divine intuition) = the plotters' intent. The fortuitous discovery is thus rendered into a = rationalisation of why James and his descendants were chosen to be the = monarch. Take a look at the Ikon Basilika (sp?) of Charles I for a = comparison in which God's light shines down upon the crown and head of = Charles (who had lately been executed).=20 Heather Eisenhut he104@york.ac.uk From: Robin Hamilton [robin.hamilton2@btinternet.com] Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 7:55 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: re Ecclesiastical commeroration From: Alexander Moseley > and as for ridding London of its military heroes, I am sure Milton = > would have opposed such a move since his depiction of Christ is often as = > a warrior (cf also Samson Agonistes, Milton's conception of the strength = > and power of the English nation, etc. [accordingly, he would not have = > thought much of the socialist Ken Livingstone or his policies]). Surely it would depend on +which+ miltary hero? I find it difficult to conceive of Milton approving of a monument to, for example, Prince Rupert. Robin Hamilton From: Cobelli@aol.com Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 7:28 PM To: Milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton windows project/ecclesiastical commemoration Dear List: Please allow me to make a broad thought regarding this thread, then retire to the types and shadows of my pre-apocalyptic existence. A creative intellect capable of giving us the sensuous, perhaps even headily baroque, description of Edenic in Book IV of Paradise Lost cannot have been completely iconoclastic or anti-image. Scott Grunow Editor-in-Chief Office of Publications Services University of Illinois/Chicago scottgr@uic.edu From: t.n.corns@bangor.ac.uk Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 10:01 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Milton Window Project In an idle moment last summer, I visited Bunhill Fields, and was shown around by the gardener (it's now a grisly sort of park), who vividly remarked that if you pull up a weed it brings a sprinkling of human bones with it, and that on occasions the movement of the earth exposes remains; he'd just been showing a group round and noticed a fairly complete spine had made its way to the surface. I haven't checked the fascinating glossy brochure you can buy there, but it's my recollection that (1) most of the actual graves date from after the 1670s (2) the place before that must have been a very unprepossessing bonefield. It had received, inter alia, the contents of ossuaries elsewhere in the city including a huge load from St Paul's. A massive number of people are buried there, far far more than the orderly gravestones of the eighteenth-century dead would suggest. Frankly, not a place a man of property would wish to have been seen dead, especially as there were alternatives. So Milton's non-interment in the graveyard of Bunyan and Defoe is probably not of itself tractable to much interpretation. Tom Corns From: Alan Rudrum [rudrum@sfu.ca] Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 9:13 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: CFP DURHAM 2001 Ninth International Conference of the Centre for Seventeenth Century Studies, Durham Castle, 16-19 July 2001 I have been asked by Richard Maber to pass on the following message: that as the call for papers went out late this year, proposals for papers will be accepted until mid-January. Proposals to R.G.Maber@durham.ac.uk "The conference will focus on the general theme of Britain in Europe and the Wider World. The theme may be studied from a wide variety of different perspectives. Papers are invited on fields such as political and social history, literature, philosophy, theology, science, medicine, music, and the visual arts. Contributions which span disciplinary boundaries are particularly welcome. Papers should be of thirty minutes reading time, although some shorter papers may be included....Each session will have ample time for discussion." The approximate cost of the conference will be :Residential, all meals 175 pounds; non-residential, all meals except breakfast: 120 pounds. Both figures include the registration fee of 25 pounds. Please forward this message to anybody who might be interested. Alan Rudrum From: John Geraghty [johnegeraghty@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 12:48 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Book of Common Prayer/Gunpowder Plot image Katherine, I have a software tool that can reduce the size of the image without reducing the quality and save it in the .jpeg format. If you forward me the image i would be happy to reduce the size of the file and send it back to you. -john >From: "Katherine Eggert" >Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu >To: , >Subject: Book of Common Prayer/Gunpowder Plot image >Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:00:22 -0700 > >Regarding the query I sent yesterday: a couple of people have e-mailed >to ask if I have a scanned copy of the image that I can send out. I >do, and will happily e-mail it to anyone who sends me a note off-list. >However, it's one of those jpeg images that's very slow to load, and I >don't want to clog up everyone's mailboxes, so I'm refraining from >inflicting it on all the Miltonists and Ficinians. > >Again, many thanks to all! > >Katherine > >Katherine Eggert >Associate Professor of English >University of Colorado, Boulder >Katherine.Eggert@colorado.edu > >-----Original Message----- >From: Katherine Eggert >To: milton-l@richmond.edu ; >FICINO@listserv.utoronto.ca >Date: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 3:47 PM >Subject: Book of Common Prayer/Gunpowder Plot > > > >(With apologies for cross-posting.) A colleague of mine who works on > >the 18th century has asked me to post the following query to my > >learned Renaissance colleagues. Replies may be made directly to me, > >or to the list. Many thanks! > > > >Katherine Eggert > >Associate Professor of English > >University of Colorado, Boulder > >Katherine.Eggert@colorado.edu > > > > > > > >> > >>I have a question about an image connected to the Gunpowder Plot. >In > >a > >>1745 edition of the Book of Common Prayer, there is an illustration > >>accompanying the Gunpowder Treason service. At the center of the > >image, > >>there is what appears to be a magic mirror on an pedestal; the > >mirror > >>shows the familiar scene of Guy Fawkes approaching Parliament. > >Above, we > >>see the (again familiar) eye of God shining into the mirror, > >presumably > >>creating the image of Fawkes by some kind of projection. To the > >right, > >>two men in Elizabethan dress recoil in horror at what they see in >the > >>glass. My questions are these: first, what is the origin of this > >>image (ie, when did it first appear in the BCP)? two, much of the > >>iconography surrounding the Gunpowder Plot includes the eye of God > >and the > >>figure of Fawkes, but none of the other images I have looked at > >includes > >>what I am calling the magic mirror (it actually looks like a round > >>big-screen TV)--where does that come from? three, is there any > >chance > >>that the more prominent of the two figures at the right represents > >King > >>James, since (in the standard version of how the plot was thwarted) > >he is > >>the one who brilliantly figured out what was going on? Thanks in > >>advance for any and all help. > >> > >> > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From: Seb Perry [sebperry@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 9:46 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton Window Project John Leonard wrote: > This is an intriguing thread but it is starting to show signs of polarizing > the list. I hope this doesn't happen. David Norbrook has raised a real > issue, and he has done so tactfully and rationally. Yet David Norbrook has still not explained how it is that a stained glass window depicting lines of his poetry is at odds with Milton's iconoclasm while a statue in Trafalgar Square would suit him right down to the ground. Why is an ecclesiastical commemoration inherently inferior to a secular one? Wouldn't a full-scale representation of the man be just the sort of Miltolatry *Paradise Regained* and *Samson Agonistes* are so preoccupied with? D.N. wrote: >Concerning the present: at the end of my Writing the English Republic I >speculate about the appropriate memorials for republicans and ponder the >risk of a new, heritage-style idolatry that would be inappropriate for >their mentality; but in balance it's far better they should be present >than not. To me the proposed medium and place send the wrong signal >about Milton's meaning for today I agree with Mr. Leonard - this is certainly not "politically correct non-thought", but I'm not sure it's got much to do with Milton. I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't read Milton for his republicanism any more than for his anti-papism. I've not read huge amounts of the prose, but it seems to me that his political and religious thinking were inextricably linked. The idea that his republicanism still has "meaning for today" while his religious beliefs don't seems arbitrary if not downright spurious. Seb Perry. From: Derek Wood [dwood@stfx.ca] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 3:52 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton Window Project Two footnotes: 1. to my earlier message. I forgot to mention that Milton's third marriage in 1662-3 was in church. Blind Milton himself signed the declaration in which he "prayed License to be marryed in ye church of St George, in ye Burrough of Southwark, or St. Mary Aldermary, in London;" 2. to Thomas Corns's message about Bunhill Fields: it was the site of one of the most horrible of all the burying pits during the Plague. Defoe writes, "it was not then walled about, [and] many who were infected, and near their end, and delirious also, ran wrapped in blankets or rags and threw themselves in, and expired there before any earth could be thrown upon them." It may have started in April and in June there were nearly 600 deaths. Milton did not leave for Chalfont until July. dw From: Thomas.H.Luxon@Dartmouth.EDU Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 10:57 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Embarrasing Correction Dear Miltonists, Befoire anyone else points it out and makes the situation even more embarrassing, please allow me to correct a glaring error in my 1999 article, "A Second Daniel: The Jew and the 'True Jew' in The Merchant of Venice" Early Modern Literary Studies 4.3 (January, 1999): 3.1-37 <. In Paragraph 11, I refer to "Giovanni Diodati" as "the father of John Milton's best friend, Charles". Of course the Genevan theologian and Bible commentator was Charle's uncle, not his father. Charles' father was Theodore Diodati. I regret the error enormously. I hope being the first publicly to point it out will encourage people to go easy on me. Thank you, Tom Luxon