From: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 7:39 AM ESMTP; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:01:15 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:01:15 EDT From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Subject: Re: To: Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu This was a great post, Jesse, I hope I read it right :) --which will be a little difficult for me because I receive these Milton posts COMPLETELY out of order. You've obviously read my last post, but I haven't received it yet. I wasn't so much peeved as amused, but I am too arrogant to let things pass. Yes, that is a character flaw. And I'm sure not going to apologize for having an opinon :) Sorry :) It wasn't hard at all to be chastised, because I didn't take the chastisement seriously. Well, tell you what, I AM sorry if I was careless in my tone. I think that was implied in my previous post, but it probably should have been spelled out. <<2. The cognizance of the medium -- a listserve -- seems variously stressed and ignored. Sometimes we watch our tone in email posts, sometimes we don't. Sometimes we write nuanced messages, sometimes we don't. It's a listserve, which, I think, is a medium in which one easily offends and in which one does not want to spend too much time. Already I've broken my rule about time for posts to listserves with this single little response! To say that one expects detailed responses, from intelligent or unintelligent people, seems to be more of a rhetorical ploy than a genuine expectation.>> I think we're attaching different meaning to "detailed." I mean "detailed for a listserve," and I have a fairly consistent idea of what this should be having been on academic listserves for probably eight years now. I don't mean "detailed for an academic paper." Detailed for a listserve just means a complete idea is right there in front of me, not an unsupported conclusion. An unsupported conclusion requires one sentence, the detail I'm asking for requires three to five. Nothing like an academic paper, and I don't think too much for a listserve. BUT, I don't think it was possible for you to know what I meant by "detailed" from my post -- at least not without going back and rereading all my responses since I've been subscribed to the list. <<3. About biography and autobiography: it seems to me that the discussion of these forms so far has been naively, anachronistically modern and positivistic. The Spiritual Autobiography, as we're wont to call it these days, is famously problematic, generically speaking, in the seventeenth century, isn't it? Though we say, especially to undergraduates, that the "character" and biography are essentially similar, they are significantly distinct, especially from a cultural and historical perspective. On a Milton listserve, I wonder why we don't try to work out comprehensible terms to describe Milton's expressions about himself that do not draw from and thereby reinscribe late capitalism's epistemology. To speak of biography and autobiography in relation to Milton the same way we do in relation to Alice Walker seems wrong to me, even if I don't have the inclination to engage the issue in detail or otherwise myself right now.>> Well, that was good enough detail to me -- for now ;) But I would like a more specific description of capitalist epistemology and see that set in opposition to Milton's time...wasn't that the beginnings of capitalism in English society? If you'd like to see a discussion of the subject, this is a good place for you to start. Heck, it may even wind up involving some detail. Talk about a payoff for the readers :) <<4. The pedagogy implied in the conduct of AntiUtopia's very first class, and the politics it implies and the subjectivity it promotes, are problematic to me. One cannot claim to value expertise and want the expert to keep quiet.>> Yep, that was implied by the conclusion of my post, but not at all what I think I want in this forum. I was trying to argue from a position Ms. Burton and myself already hold to a bit more inclusive place. One that valued expertise but also demonstrated the respect it demanded. <> No, I disagree with this. I don't think this is clear at all in my post, and I don't think that's completely true in the table talk seminar in general. What's most valued is the acute, instructive observation, I think. I've heard a great deal of rhetorical brilliance obscuring weak points. . .while a single comment that clarifys a difficult problem is highly valued. << something AntiUtopia clearly possesses and employs to great effect (he notes that many of his professors love and hate him for his arrogance, though most women, presumably objects of romance or at least desire, simply hate him for it). However, expertise without flourish only oppresses, in such a context, at least to those who love the circumstance. Indeed, the professor in such a context has to be very careful about her authority, borne of expertise, because too many expressions of it silence the insecure and others who are more developed in the declarative, exclamatory, and imperative than they are in the genuine, as opposed to the rhetorical, interrogative. Virule types seem particularly peeved by the expert expressions. Many who are committed to debate-style seminars find that a professor who inserts her expertise "too often," whatever that be, is rather like "he who reigns / Monarch in Heav'n . . . / upheld by old repute . . . / but still his strength conceal'd, / Which tempted our attempt, and wrought our fall" from rhetorical splendour and acclaim to darkly visible cognizance of ignorance.>> Nah, that's not it at all. I'm a graduate student now and what I'm used to is a three hour seminar divided 1/3 - 2/3 or 1/2 - 1/2 between lecture and discussion. I value the lecture, need it, especially since it tends to describe the most recent scholarship on the subject -- that's intriguing to the professor lecturing, of course. It's even better when recent scholarship is described then placed within the context of previous scholarship. This is where a more experienced scholar is invaluable. What you appear to be doing is suppressing the meat of my post and running with a few statements at the end. Not a very good method. If you'd chosen to emphasize the bulk of my post (a much fairer approach, at the least), you would have to address my sincere respect for long time study of a subject, the fact that expertise in one subject isn't equivalent to authority in all subjects, etc. In other words, my real points. . . Thanks for the post ;) Jim From: Louis Schwartz [lschwart@richmond.edu] Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 10:40 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Early modern breeding Alan, A lot depends upon which women you're talking about (where they lived, what socio-economic level, what age, whether they nursed, etc.). There may be more recent work done on the question, but when I was rooting around among the demographic historians I found the following stats: For women in London among the wealthier classes the average birth interval was approximately 23 months with some sets of statistics yeilding averages as short as 20.5 months. Among lower-class women the rate was slower (approx. 27 months) because they tended to nurse their own and others' children. 18 months was, of course, physically possible for some women, and some no doubt experienced intervals that short, but on average it was slower. Also the intervals tended to lengthen as a woman got older. There are other factors that affected the length of time as well (if an infant died, for example, the interval to the next birth was often shorter, etc). These numbers were culled from Roger Finlay's *Population and Metropolis: The Demography of London 1580-1650 (Cambridge, 1981), 133-50 and Dorothy McLaren's "Marital Fertility and Lactation 1570-1720," in *Women in English Society 1500-1800,* ed. Mary Prior (London, 1986), 22-53. McLaren's essay looks at demographic information from parishes in Oxfordshire, Buckinhamshire, and Hertforshire and from family reconstruction work done in Somerset. She reports much longer birth intervals for women who nursed their own and others' infants, which she observes was most women in the period, and establishes the very different pattern experienced by wealthier women who hired the other women as wet nurses. You may be able to figure where your subject falls in all of the highly educated speculation on the matter. Louis Schwartz At 12:26 PM 07/27/2000 -0800, you wrote: > >Recently I was trying to figure out a "likely" birthdate for someone who >had x elder brothers and y elder sisters, the only d.o.b known being that >of the firstborn son. Disagreeing with my predecessor in this exercise >(who reckoned two years between births), I thought 18 months was likely, on >the perhaps flippant ground that if my mother could do it early modern >woman must have been able to. > >Then the thought presented itself that someone (L. Stone?) must have done >some research on this; there must be somewhere a statistic giving the >average number of months between births, perhaps even doing it in what some >would nowadays doubtless call "racist" ways, i.e. looking at the Irish, >Scots, and Welsh separately from the English. I'm thinking of the >time-period 1600-1620 more or less. And the county of Hereford, if that >should make a difference. > >Alan Rudrum > > > ======================================= Louis Schwartz English Department University of Richmond Richmond, VA 23173 (804) 289-8315 lschwart@richmond.edu From: Peter C. Herman [herman2@mail.sdsu.edu] Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 3:32 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: re: signing on instructions I will be teaching a Milton seminar this fall, and I'd like to give my class the opportunity to join Milton-L, but I've long since forgotten the instructions. Could someone please remind me? Peter C. Herman From: Jesse G. Swan [jesse.swan@uni.edu] Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 4:54 PM To: Milton Listserve Subject: Re: Hello Colleagues, While I've loved AntiUtopia's posts, I've wondered several things about the exchanges: 1. Why is so hard to be chastised? And when the chastisement is manifestly silly and only understandable as a reflex, why not respond emotionally rather than rationally? Why not realize that "by sad experiment I know, / How little weight my words with thee can finde," and apologize? Milton is not beyond apologizing himself, even when he might feel he's right: "Doth God exact day labour, light deny'd, / I fondly ask; But patience to prevent / That murmur, soon replies. . . " Milton is arrogant, to be sure, and many of us admire that in him, and his Satan, but he's much more than that, isn't he? Can we be? 2. The cognizance of the medium -- a listserve -- seems variously stressed and ignored. Sometimes we watch our tone in email posts, sometimes we don't. Sometimes we write nuanced messages, sometimes we don't. It's a listserve, which, I think, is a medium in which one easily offends and in which one does not want to spend too much time. Already I've broken my rule about time for posts to listserves with this single little response! To say that one expects detailed responses, from intelligent or unintelligent people, seems to be more of a rhetorical ploy than a genuine expectation. 3. About biography and autobiography: it seems to me that the discussion of these forms so far has been naively, anachronistically modern and positivistic. The Spiritual Autobiography, as we're wont to call it these days, is famously problematic, generically speaking, in the seventeenth century, isn't it? Though we say, especially to undergraduates, that the "character" and biography are essentially similar, they are significantly distinct, especially from a cultural and historical perspective. On a Milton listserve, I wonder why we don't try to work out comprehensible terms to describe Milton's expressions about himself that do not draw from and thereby reinscribe late capitalism's epistemology. To speak of biography and autobiography in relation to Milton the same way we do in relation to Alice Walker seems wrong to me, even if I don't have the inclination to engage the issue in detail or otherwise myself right now. 4. The pedagogy implied in the conduct of AntiUtopia's very first class, and the politics it implies and the subjectivity it promotes, are problematic to me. One cannot claim to value expertise and want the expert to keep quiet. Clearly what is valued in the table-talk seminar is rhetorical brilliance, something AntiUtopia clearly possesses and employs to great effect (he notes that many of his professors love and hate him for his arrogance, though most women, presumably objects of romance or at least desire, simply hate him for it). However, expertise without flourish only oppresses, in such a context, at least to those who love the circumstance. Indeed, the professor in such a context has to be very careful about her authority, borne of expertise, because too many expressions of it silence the insecure and others who are more developed in the declarative, exclamatory, and imperative than they are in the genuine, as opposed to the rhetorical, interrogative. Virule types seem particularly peeved by the expert expressions. Many who are committed to debate-style seminars find that a professor who inserts her expertise "too often," whatever that be, is rather like "he who reigns / Monarch in Heav'n . . . / upheld by old repute . . . / but still his strength conceal'd, / Which tempted our attempt, and wrought our fall" from rhetorical splendour and acclaim to darkly visible cognizance of ignorance. I do believe that these exchanges offer wonderful opportunities for reflection. I hope my little, quick contribution here will be seen as only that. Ready to apologize for most offenses taken, I am, Cordially, jesse owner-milton-l@richmond.EDU wrote: > ESMTP; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:32:12 -0400 > Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:32:11 EDT > From: AntiUtopia@aol.com > Subject: Arrogance. > To: > Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu > Precedence: bulk > Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu > > I think we all need to have a good heart to heart about arrogance here > :). Michael Bryson has a pretty good point -- given the claims Milton > appears to be making for himself in the opening poem of Paradise Lost, I > > think Milton himself would have been excluded from our attention just on > > that basis of that claim alone, never mind the attitude and rhetoric of > some of his prose. > > I'd like to say that yes, I am arrogant. Every woman I have ever known, > > and every person I have ever argued with via e-mail (or in person, for > that > matter), would testify that I am arrogant. I have even made pacts with > fellow arrogant people online. We've told each other, "I'll tell you > when > you're out of line if you tell me when I'm out of line. . ." :) I > haven't > mentioned my college professors, for that matter, who are all very > supportive and very impressed and very frustrated with me at times. . . > > But apart from a failure to watch my tone of voice in my posts (which I > tend to do), I don't feel I was being arrogant with Carol Burton. I'm > perhaps being a bit naieve to expect even academics to notice the subtle > > distinctions I'm going to be pointing out (especially since the > distinction > between autobiography and autobiographical referents in a fictional work > > seemed to have been lost on some readers), but I'm still going to > try. Stupid me, I believe communication is always possible with > intelligent people. > > I genuninely believe that after a point it **is** arrogant and just > plain > pigheaded for a novice to argue with a scholar **about their field.** > I've > argued with several people here, but once I've gotten any kind of a > detailed reply I thank the respondent and say I'll have to keep their > comments in mind when reading Milton again. That's really the most I > feel > I can say, and I am always genuinely appreciative of their comments. > > If Ms. Burton would reread my posts to her carefully, she would see I > did > the same with her. Her intuitions about Milton seem sound and reasoned, > > and I appreciated her comments as they directly related to Milton. > > But when she was speaking about the relationship between authors and > biography in general, she was speaking of an issue that goes far beyond > Milton scholarship, reflected in all schools of literary study, > especially > literary theory. Many intelligent, educated people have very diverse > intelligent, educated positions about this subject. Being someone who > cut > his critical teeth on Joyce's Portrait, this is an especially important > issue to me. > > The most reasoned and informed positions I have heard is that the > intersection between biography and fiction is always speculative to at > least a degree. I probably should provide quotes, but I'm at work right > > now and don't have my books ;) > > But to think that being a Milton scholar means you can argue from > authority > on this point is the empitome of arrogance, in my not so humble opinion. > > The very first college class I attended was an American Lit survey > course. The professor said that all of us are seated around this same > table because we're a community of learners. She made it clear she was > a > student as well, along with us, and that everyone's voice was to be > heard > provided they studied the subject. > > In our discussions she generally took a back seat...observing, guiding > when > necessary, but letting the students work things out. Her attitude in > the > discussions was exemplary. > > Course, she was still the person with the grade book, but she made her > point well ;) > > Jim > > << Refusal to engage in discourse with those who ever, at any time, have > > displayed "arrogance" would shut out a great many people, past and > present. > Milton would likely have been one of them. > > Michael Bryson > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Dougal Fleming [mailto:jdf26@columbia.edu] > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 11:16 AM > To: milton-l@richmond.edu > Subject: Re: Query--Mary Powell Milton > > > Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu > Precedence: bulk > Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu > > Let us neither promote, from our seniors or juniors, such unwarranted > cuffs! JDF. > > On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Carol Barton, PhD wrote: > > > > > I beg your pardon, Jim. You will note that very few of the senior > members > of > > this list engage you in discourse. Posts like your last one are the > > reason > > why. I have no interest in promoting such arrogance. > > > > > > Carol Barton -- Jesse G. Swan Assistant Professor of English University of Northern Iowa Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0502 319/273-2089 From: Roy Flannagan [Roy@gwm.sc.edu] Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 7:47 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Bigg Names (was Re: Query--Mary Powell Milton) Now, then, can we get back to the subject we started with: does anyone have any hard historical evidence whatsoever that Mary Powell's family was Roman Catholic? If Richard Powell was allowed to be a Justice of the Peace and if most of the records of his family are preserved through the Church of England, then is it fair to say that there was probably no religious objection to Mary's marrying John Milton? Roy Flannagan From: Carol Barton, PhD [cbartonphd@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 8:46 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Bigg Names John Leonard rightly quotes _Eikonoklastes_ in response to this uncharacteristically indecorous series of exchanges, and I would like to explain myself accordingly, lest the interpretations of others as to my intent promotes any more misapprehensions with respect to my reference to "senior scholars": > "in the native confidence of her single self, to earn, how she can, her > entertainment in the world, and to finde out her own readers; few perhaps, > but those few, such of value and substantial worth, as truth and wisdom, not > respecting numbers and bigg names, have bin ever wont in all ages to be > contented with." (Eikonoklastes, YP, 3 339-40). I was not referring to "bigg names," but to people who have studied Milton -- ALL of Milton, not just one or two of his works -- for a lifetime, to whom Milton is a profession, perhaps even an obsession, and not just a passing curiosity. Those who are in that position naturally hope to promote similar commitment in younger scholars who show a sincere interest in Milton, and the senior members of this list (by that definition) regularly do -- but not until and unless those younger scholars demonstrate a commitment to serious inquiry supported by genuine research and conscientious scholarship, and learn to address others with respect. That is all I was trying to get the person to whom that comment was addressed to recognize -- for his own benefit, not mine. Carol Barton From: alan rudrum [alan_rudrum@sfu.ca] Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 4:26 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Early modern breeding Well, I suppose I could assert my right to be regarded as a senior member of the list; in British Columbia they give us cards to certify that status. Free rides on the ferry Monday through Thursday, medications (except the really interesting ones, I gather) free 24/7. However, I want to ask a new question, my only excuse being that I am at present on a small island whose only "library" is the Volunteer Fire Department's twice-yearly booksale. Recently I was trying to figure out a "likely" birthdate for someone who had x elder brothers and y elder sisters, the only d.o.b known being that of the firstborn son. Disagreeing with my predecessor in this exercise (who reckoned two years between births), I thought 18 months was likely, on the perhaps flippant ground that if my mother could do it early modern woman must have been able to. Then the thought presented itself that someone (L. Stone?) must have done some research on this; there must be somewhere a statistic giving the average number of months between births, perhaps even doing it in what some would nowadays doubtless call "racist" ways, i.e. looking at the Irish, Scots, and Welsh separately from the English. I'm thinking of the time-period 1600-1620 more or less. And the county of Hereford, if that should make a difference. Alan Rudrum From: Carol Barton, PhD [cbartonphd@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 8:05 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Bigg Names (was Re: Query--Mary Powell Milton) Because my criticism of the post in question had nothing to do with the *content* of the inquiry being raised, but with the tone the respondent took with me, and typically takes with other members of this list (condescending and egotistical, arrogant and virtually abusive), I allowed my abiding distaste for his discursive posture to get the better of me, and in an injudiciously impulsive moment, responded to his insulting remarks online. I plead Milton to the "serving man" of _Colasterion_, with the same motives and indignation. What this young man does in the guise of inquiry, his "observations" unfounded in research or fact, speaks for itself. That he obviously did not bother to read what was intended to be a helpful response to his question (that Milton was too conscious an author to write in the self-revelatory "autobiographical" manner he seemed to want to find in his writing) is clear. That he presumes to think I am (and others are) too stupid to understand his sophomoric remarks because we do not agree with him is also apparent--and demonstrates the level of his scholarly "sincerity." I apologize to the other members of this list (junior and senior) who use it as it should be used, as a forum for responsible scholarly inquiry and colloquy and the free exchange of ideas, for having made any attempt whatsoever to engage this writer at all. Carol Barton ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Leonard" To: Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 10:28 AM Subject: Bigg Names (was Re: Query--Mary Powell Milton) > I too respectfully disagree with Carol and her uncharacteristically curt > "cuff." The part that rings false to me is the bit about "senior members" > ("You will note that very few of the senior members of this list engage you > in discourse"). Even if we could agree as to who the "senior members" are > (and I doubt if we could), it wouldn't matter, especially to Milton, for > whom it was axiomatic that truth should venture abroad > > "in the native confidence of her single self, to earn, how she can, her > entertainment in the world, and to finde out her own readers; few perhaps, > but those few, such of value and substantial worth, as truth and wisdom, not > respecting numbers and bigg names, have bin ever wont in all ages to be > contented with." (Eikonoklastes, YP, 3 339-40). > > John Leonard > > From: James Dougal Fleming [jdf26@columbia.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 11:23 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Query--Mary Powell Milton Better a libertarian lozell than a limitary licenser. JDF. On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, Carol Barton, PhD wrote: > > Ah! "License they mean, when they cry liberty?" > > Carol Barton > > > > Let us neither promote, from our seniors or juniors, such unwarranted > > cuffs! JDF. > > > > On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Carol Barton, PhD wrote: > > > > > > > > I beg your pardon, Jim. You will note that very few of the senior > members of > > > this list engage you in discourse. Posts like your last one are the > reason > > > why. I have no interest in promoting such arrogance. > > > > > > > > > Carol Barton From: John Leonard [jleonard@julian.uwo.ca] Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 10:29 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Bigg Names (was Re: Query--Mary Powell Milton) I too respectfully disagree with Carol and her uncharacteristically curt "cuff." The part that rings false to me is the bit about "senior members" ("You will note that very few of the senior members of this list engage you in discourse"). Even if we could agree as to who the "senior members" are (and I doubt if we could), it wouldn't matter, especially to Milton, for whom it was axiomatic that truth should venture abroad "in the native confidence of her single self, to earn, how she can, her entertainment in the world, and to finde out her own readers; few perhaps, but those few, such of value and substantial worth, as truth and wisdom, not respecting numbers and bigg names, have bin ever wont in all ages to be contented with." (Eikonoklastes, YP, 3 339-40). John Leonard From: Carrol Cox [cbcox@ilstu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 12:44 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Query--Mary Powell Milton] A British critic whose name I forget told of his sister coining a phrase that would be useful were it general. The two of them attended Saturday movies together as children, and whenever there was a scene so bad that it embarassed one for the actors, she would chew the tips of her gloves. They came to call such scenes "glove-sucky." The post quoted below is glove-sucky. I thought such pomposity existed only in TV sitcoms. Carrol Cox "Carol Barton, PhD" wrote: > I beg your pardon, Jim. You will note that very few of the senior members of > this list engage you in discourse. Posts like your last one are the reason > why. I have no interest in promoting such arrogance. > > Carol Barton From: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 7:22 AM ESMTP; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:32:12 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:32:11 EDT From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Subject: Arrogance. To: Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu I think we all need to have a good heart to heart about arrogance here :). Michael Bryson has a pretty good point -- given the claims Milton appears to be making for himself in the opening poem of Paradise Lost, I think Milton himself would have been excluded from our attention just on that basis of that claim alone, never mind the attitude and rhetoric of some of his prose. I'd like to say that yes, I am arrogant. Every woman I have ever known, and every person I have ever argued with via e-mail (or in person, for that matter), would testify that I am arrogant. I have even made pacts with fellow arrogant people online. We've told each other, "I'll tell you when you're out of line if you tell me when I'm out of line. . ." :) I haven't mentioned my college professors, for that matter, who are all very supportive and very impressed and very frustrated with me at times. . . But apart from a failure to watch my tone of voice in my posts (which I tend to do), I don't feel I was being arrogant with Carol Burton. I'm perhaps being a bit naieve to expect even academics to notice the subtle distinctions I'm going to be pointing out (especially since the distinction between autobiography and autobiographical referents in a fictional work seemed to have been lost on some readers), but I'm still going to try. Stupid me, I believe communication is always possible with intelligent people. I genuninely believe that after a point it **is** arrogant and just plain pigheaded for a novice to argue with a scholar **about their field.** I've argued with several people here, but once I've gotten any kind of a detailed reply I thank the respondent and say I'll have to keep their comments in mind when reading Milton again. That's really the most I feel I can say, and I am always genuinely appreciative of their comments. If Ms. Burton would reread my posts to her carefully, she would see I did the same with her. Her intuitions about Milton seem sound and reasoned, and I appreciated her comments as they directly related to Milton. But when she was speaking about the relationship between authors and biography in general, she was speaking of an issue that goes far beyond Milton scholarship, reflected in all schools of literary study, especially literary theory. Many intelligent, educated people have very diverse intelligent, educated positions about this subject. Being someone who cut his critical teeth on Joyce's Portrait, this is an especially important issue to me. The most reasoned and informed positions I have heard is that the intersection between biography and fiction is always speculative to at least a degree. I probably should provide quotes, but I'm at work right now and don't have my books ;) But to think that being a Milton scholar means you can argue from authority on this point is the empitome of arrogance, in my not so humble opinion. The very first college class I attended was an American Lit survey course. The professor said that all of us are seated around this same table because we're a community of learners. She made it clear she was a student as well, along with us, and that everyone's voice was to be heard provided they studied the subject. In our discussions she generally took a back seat...observing, guiding when necessary, but letting the students work things out. Her attitude in the discussions was exemplary. Course, she was still the person with the grade book, but she made her point well ;) Jim << Refusal to engage in discourse with those who ever, at any time, have displayed "arrogance" would shut out a great many people, past and present. Milton would likely have been one of them. Michael Bryson -----Original Message----- From: James Dougal Fleming [mailto:jdf26@columbia.edu] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 11:16 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Query--Mary Powell Milton Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu Let us neither promote, from our seniors or juniors, such unwarranted cuffs! JDF. On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Carol Barton, PhD wrote: > > I beg your pardon, Jim. You will note that very few of the senior members of > this list engage you in discourse. Posts like your last one are the reason > why. I have no interest in promoting such arrogance. > > > Carol Barton From: Michael Bryson [m-bryson@nwu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 11:02 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: RE: Query--Mary Powell Milton Refusal to engage in discourse with those who ever, at any time, have displayed "arrogance" would shut out a great many people, past and present. Milton would likely have been one of them. Michael Bryson -----Original Message----- From: James Dougal Fleming [mailto:jdf26@columbia.edu] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 11:16 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Query--Mary Powell Milton Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu Let us neither promote, from our seniors or juniors, such unwarranted cuffs! JDF. On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Carol Barton, PhD wrote: > > I beg your pardon, Jim. You will note that very few of the senior members of > this list engage you in discourse. Posts like your last one are the reason > why. I have no interest in promoting such arrogance. > > > Carol Barton > From: Carol Barton, PhD [cbartonphd@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 8:46 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Query--Mary Powell Milton Ah! "License they mean, when they cry liberty?" Carol Barton > Let us neither promote, from our seniors or juniors, such unwarranted > cuffs! JDF. > > On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Carol Barton, PhD wrote: > > > > > I beg your pardon, Jim. You will note that very few of the senior members of > > this list engage you in discourse. Posts like your last one are the reason > > why. I have no interest in promoting such arrogance. > > > > > > Carol Barton > > > > From: James Dougal Fleming [jdf26@columbia.edu] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 12:16 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Query--Mary Powell Milton Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu Let us neither promote, from our seniors or juniors, such unwarranted cuffs! JDF. On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Carol Barton, PhD wrote: > > I beg your pardon, Jim. You will note that very few of the senior members of > this list engage you in discourse. Posts like your last one are the reason > why. I have no interest in promoting such arrogance. > > > Carol Barton > From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 8:43 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Query--Mary Powell Milton In a message dated 7/24/00 7:35:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, cbartonphd@earthlink.net writes: << I beg your pardon, Jim. You will note that very few of the senior members of this list engage you in discourse. Posts like your last one are the reason why. I have no interest in promoting such arrogance. Carol Barton >> Carol -- there's nothing arrogant about disagreeing with you, nor with taking issue with your condesending, dismissive tone. Jim From: Neil Forsyth [neil.forsyth@angl.unil.ch] Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 9:47 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Audio recording of PL This message uses a character set that is not supported by the Internet Service. To view the original message content, open the attached message. If the text doesn't display correctly, save the attachment to disk, and then open it using a viewer that can display the original character set. From: Carol Barton, PhD [cbartonphd@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 7:19 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Query--Mary Powell Milton I beg your pardon, Jim. You will note that very few of the senior members of this list engage you in discourse. Posts like your last one are the reason why. I have no interest in promoting such arrogance. Carol Barton From: Alan Rudrum [rudrum@sfu.ca] Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 12:11 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Chris Orchard's message At 09:11 AM 19/07/2000 -0400, Chris Orchard wrote, apropos of my announcement of the imminent availability of the Broadview Anthology of Seventeenth Century Verse and Prose: >You might like to know Alan that I attempted to access this catalogue and >was informed that the contents could not be listed via this virtual >directory. I had the same experience, after I sent out the message; here is part of the message I got from Broadview when I alerted them: We are uploading a new structure to the site (various search queries, etc.) and happened to do it just around the time I sent off that email .. *************************** Perhaps the most useful thing I can do is repeat this part of my first message: Those who would like an email attachment of the Table of Contents may >obtain it by >emailing heidi.standell@broadviewpress.com. > >and , of course, those wishing to consider the book for posible text >adoption may request a complimentary examination copy. In the UK orders >should be placed with Broadview's UK agent, Turpin Distribution: > >Turpin Distribution Services Ltd. >Blackhorse Rd. >Letchworth, Hertfordshire England >SG6 1HN >Tel (01462) 672555 >fax (01462) 480947 *************************** One list member has already written to me to say that she has received the list of contents, so at least plain old e-mail works! Alan Rudrum From: John Leonard [jleonard@julian.uwo.ca] Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 8:28 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Audio recording of PL Beware the BBC version with elevator music in the background. Ghastly. The Argo recording with Sir Michael Redgrave as Satan, Tony Church as Milton ("the narrator" if you will), and Prunella Scales as Eve is superb if you can get it. I have it on 6 vinyl LPs. I think it is (or was) available on cassette. If anyone can confirm that it is available on CD, please let me know. John Leonard -----Original Message----- From: Norman T. Burns To: milton-l@richmond.edu Date: July 20, 2000 7:09 AM Subject: Re: Audio recording of PL > I can now report that, thanks to a tip from Mario DiCesare, I have located >an unabridged reading of _Paradise Lost_. Go to the wonderful website >Blackstone Audiobooks , then click >Categories, then Classic Literature, then find Milton in alpha list. There >are seven 1 1/2 hour audio tapes, cost is $49 inclusive of S&H; Blackstone >tapes can also be rented--PL is about $12 for 30 days. > We don't know how good the reader's performance is, but Mario has ordered >the tapes and, after his summer travels, may report on the matter to the >List. Perhaps this performance will not be as good as the marathon >readings so many members have been organizing, but I'm certain it will >prove more portable. > Since my earlier post about the Naxos abridged version, I have learned >that it is also available from Amazon for $17.98 + S&H: > >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/9626345020/ref=ed_oe_a/002-9030402-7 8 >77659 > >Amazon also sells the unabridged for $49.95 +$3 S&H, but Blackstone's price >includes the S&H. >--Norm Burns > >At 03:52 PM 7/18/2000 -0400, you wrote: > >Thanks to Henriette Stavis, I visited the Naxos site and can report that > >the PL audio there offered: > >http://www.naxosaudiobooks.com/system/index.html > >is abridged to a 4-hour performance. This page allows you to hear a sample > >(via RealPlayer) of the reading. 3 tapes are 10 pounds, 3 CDs are 14 pou nds. > >--Norm Burns > > > > > > > > > >At 03:59 PM 7/17/2000 +0200, you wrote: > > >Hello Chris, > > > > > >You asked about an audio-recording of 'Paradise Lost'. There is a NAXOS > > >audiobook of PL on 3 CDs (NAXOS 315912). I should think that it's possible > > >to order it from the NAXOS homepage which can be found at > > > > > >http://www.hnh.com/ > > > > > >I haven't heard the recording in question myself, so consider this as more > > >of a reference than a recommendation. > > > > > >Good luck, > > > > > >Henriette Stavis > > >Copenhagen, Denmark From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 11:41 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Query--Mary Powell Milton That's all fine, Carol, but I really don't see how this is much of a response to anything I had posted. Of Course every author is reflected in his or her work on some levels. I don't recall denying that. I would deny that Milton was autobiographical in the sense I defined -- say, in the sense Montaigne was. And yes, in order to pick up on biographical referents in Milton's work, anyone would need to deeply study his life and works. But again, I wasn't saying that there weren't any biographical referents in Milton's work, just that he didn't consciously do autobiography. That he tended to hide himself. That doesn't mean he did a perfect job, of course, and critics will be looking. Your specific examples were intriguing, but the extent to which we can make any of these affirmations with any certainty isn't just a matter of the study of Milton. This is an issue that goes well beyond the study of any particular author and reflects on literary theory itself. C.S. Lewis, for example, was in the unique position of being both a widely published fiction author and an established literary critic. He said that when critics and reviewers engaged in linking the meaning of his works with specific biographical referents they were always wrong. Wrong about the details and wrong about the relevance to his work. He wasn't saying this in a defensive manner either -- he was more than willing to defer final judgment on the meaning and importance of his work to his peers. He was just giving up some facts that I think we need to pay close attention to. So while I think this type of reasoning is intriguing and even useful at times (and the examples you gave seemed to be pretty good), it's still speculative. I don't entirely trust it. Now...you can continue being dismissive, or you can try paying attention to what I'm really saying and try responding to that... Jim From: Norman T. Burns [nburns@binghamton.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 5:42 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Audio recording of PL I can now report that, thanks to a tip from Mario DiCesare, I have located an unabridged reading of _Paradise Lost_. Go to the wonderful website Blackstone Audiobooks , then click Categories, then Classic Literature, then find Milton in alpha list. There are seven 1 1/2 hour audio tapes, cost is $49 inclusive of S&H; Blackstone tapes can also be rented--PL is about $12 for 30 days. We don't know how good the reader's performance is, but Mario has ordered the tapes and, after his summer travels, may report on the matter to the List. Perhaps this performance will not be as good as the marathon readings so many members have been organizing, but I'm certain it will prove more portable. Since my earlier post about the Naxos abridged version, I have learned that it is also available from Amazon for $17.98 + S&H: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/9626345020/ref=ed_oe_a/002-9030402-78 77659 Amazon also sells the unabridged for $49.95 +$3 S&H, but Blackstone's price includes the S&H. --Norm Burns At 03:52 PM 7/18/2000 -0400, you wrote: >Thanks to Henriette Stavis, I visited the Naxos site and can report that >the PL audio there offered: >http://www.naxosaudiobooks.com/system/index.html >is abridged to a 4-hour performance. This page allows you to hear a sample >(via RealPlayer) of the reading. 3 tapes are 10 pounds, 3 CDs are 14 pounds. >--Norm Burns > > > > >At 03:59 PM 7/17/2000 +0200, you wrote: > >Hello Chris, > > > >You asked about an audio-recording of 'Paradise Lost'. There is a NAXOS > >audiobook of PL on 3 CDs (NAXOS 315912). I should think that it's possible > >to order it from the NAXOS homepage which can be found at > > > >http://www.hnh.com/ > > > >I haven't heard the recording in question myself, so consider this as more > >of a reference than a recommendation. > > > >Good luck, > > > >Henriette Stavis > >Copenhagen, Denmark From: Cynthia A. Gilliatt [gilliaca@jmu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 8:07 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: New anthology: announcement I tried to see the table of contents as you suggested, and my Netscape browser returned this ... Directory Listing Denied This Virtual Directory does not allow contents to be listed. ... and an otherwise blank screen. I will follow up by e-mailing for an e-mail attachment as you also suggest, but thought you might wish to know of this glitch - maybe it's the browser? Cynthia Gilliatt -- JMU SAFE ZONES PARTICIPANT Cynthia A. Gilliatt English Department MSC 1801 James Madison University Harrisonburg VA 22807 gilliaca@jmu.edu http://raven.jmu.edu/~gilliaca/ 540-568-3762 or 6202 From: Chris Orchard [Corchard@grove.iup.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 9:11 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: New anthology: announcement You might like to know Alan that I attempted to access this catalogue and was informed that the contents could not be listed via this virtual directory. Chris Orchard -----Original Message----- From: Alan Rudrum To: milton-l@richmond.edu Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 7:15 AM Subject: New anthology: announcement >Please cross-post the following to other lists whose readers might be >interested. > >Readers of Milton-L might be interested to hear of the imminent >availability of the Broadview Anthology of Seventeenth Century Verse and >Prose, Editor Alan Rudrum, Associate Editors Joseph Black and Holly Nelson. > Vital statistics are as follows: > > > >1333 pages >isbn 1551110539 >US 37.95, CDN 48.95, uk 17.95 > >All university bookstores in North America should have the basic order >information for Broadview, but any academic experiencing difficulty may >contact the Broadview Customer Service Department directly at >customerservice@broadviewpress.com or 705-743-8990. The table of contents >is now on the Broadview site, www.broadviewpress.com. To view it go to >catalogue and to search, editors, type in Rudrum and you're there. > >Those who would like an email attachment of the Table of Contents may >obtain it by >emailing heidi.standell@broadviewpress.com. > >and , of course, those wishing to consider the book for posible text >adoption may request a complimentary examination copy. In the UK orders >should be placed with Broadview's UK agent, Turpin Distribution: > >Turpin Distribution Services Ltd. >Blackhorse Rd. >Letchworth, Hertfordshire England >SG6 1HN >Tel (01462) 672555 >fax (01462) 480947 > >The best guess for delivery of bound books is August 3. > >It will take a couple of weeks for orders to reach people after stock >reaches the Broadview warehouse. > > >Alan Rudrum > > From: Carol Barton, PhD [cbartonphd@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 9:04 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Query--Mary Powell Milton In response to my observation that > << Jim has not seen the autobiographical in Samson. I think he needs > to read the tragedy again. (And I think before you can make *any* > autobiographical assertions about *any* author, but particularly about one > as self-revelatory as Milton is, you need to have read more than a couple of > his works.) Jim "Anti-Utopia" [?] indicates > > That's funny, I mentioned Samson in the next post :) I think we're pretty > close to agreement here. In my posts, though, I was talking specifically > about direct autobiographical writing, in which the first person voice is > employed and Milton would be consciously and directly writing about himself > and his experiences. He seemed to shy away from that at some pretty ripe > opportunities for it. The point is, Milton (as I said in a subsequent post) is an extremely self-conscious author. When as a mature man he writes "consciously and directly about himself and his experiences," he is doing it for a reason: to counter the slanders written about him by Alexander More, to answer the enemies who say his blindness is God's judgment upon him, to demonstrate that he has himself lived the life of a good man (and possesses the kind of "upright heart and pure" he would require of all poets). Those statements are no more trustworthy in the pure sense(because they are deliberately crafted) than any of his silences: Milton was a flesh and human being, as capable of selective memory or burnishing the truth as any of us are, no matter how honest. And he was an artist crafting his art. I do NOT mean to suggest or imply that he was a liar: but I *would* argue, as I *have* argued elsewhere, that (for example) despite his vociferous and convicted public denunciation of his detractors' claims that God had stricken him blind for writing DDD and TKM (reductionist shorthand), he had tangible assurance of heaven's approval, he was secretly very concerned about precisely the opposite. The fact that he says something in his literary persona (poet or polemicist) does not make it "true" in the empirical, absolute sense-- only true for him, or true from his perception, or true from the standpoint of what he wants his reader to believe. More revelatory, I think, is a Freudian slip like having the orbless Samson pray that light will revisit his sightless orbs: having had his eyes put out, he has merely sockets -- but his AUTHOR has sightless eyes. He makes very few of those, but when he does, they are telling. More reliable are Milton's letters to his friends and acquaintances -- but even those are "literature" of a kind, tainted by the subjective: who knows if the house the Powells lived in with their son-in-law was really all as horrible as Milton's characterization of it makes it seem? Complaining about it to a friend who would understand, he said it was: do none of us exaggerate under such circumstances, intentionally or not? The point of my previous comments, to you and to the young lady from Loyola, is that one must always bear in mind that Milton (like every other author) was a human being, just like you are. He was a highly principled, extremely well-educated, and very intelligent man, but he was still a man, no less flawed than the rest of us: he lived in the world, and knew what was going on around him, just as you do; and he stretched the truth and engaged in an occasional deception or self-deception (such as pretending he didn't know it was Du Moulin, and not More, who wrote the Cry), and everything he writes is infused with his own perspectives and perceptions, and his own experiences, preferences, and pet peeves. That does *not* mean that, on a one-to-one correspondency, Mary Powell Milton is every bad wife he mentions in DDD, or that the woman who begged on her knees for his forgiveness in his cousin's home is personified in Dalila returning to Samson: there may be elements of Mary there in both cases, but they have undergone a sea-change from whatever they meant to him in "real life" to become the props of literary discourse. Likewise, Adam's relationship with Eve is only partially what Milton thinks it should have been, and partly what the Bible says it was. Those who think he is a misogynist have misread _Paradise Lost_ through the wrong filters: Eve is the first hero of the piece. There is a big difference between what *is* and what Milton wants you to know or think. And you can't begin to discriminate between the two until you have (at least) read all of Milton, side by side with Phillips and Aubrey and Wood and the Anonymous Biographer and the pertinent works of Toland, Masson, Parker/Campbell, and Shawcross. I apologize to my colleagues for this long post. Carol Barton From: danielso@interchange.ubc.ca Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 2:06 PM To: History of Astronomy Discussion Group; milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: thank you Dear Colleagues, I want to express a humble and hearty thanks to members of both the History of Astronomy and the Milton lists--my two "home" lists--who over the past year have offered indispensible advice and moral support as I completed _The Book of the Cosmos_ (which last Wednesday was the suggestion-of-the-day from those e-folks who name themselves after a large river, and this morning I'm thrilled to say made its debut on their Science Bestsellers list). So, whether you trace your intellectual lineage to Galileo or to his visitor the young epic-poet-to-be, I'm very grateful for your occasional counsel and ongoing collective conversation. Long may it continue. Respectfully, Dennis Danielson ____________________________ Dennis R. Danielson Professor and Associate Head Department of English University of British Columbia Phone: 604-822-9569; Fax: 604-822-6906 Email: danielso@interchange.ubc.ca Home: