From: Carol Barton, PhD [cbartonphd@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 9:02 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton window ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Boocker" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 2:06 PM Subject: Milton window > I hope I am not alone in having some concern about Carol Barton's most > recent response to David Norbrook. It reminded me of the kid who, when his > "rules" about how to play the game are challenged, threatens to take his > ball and go home. > > Let me make it clear that I write as someone who has planned to make a > contribution to the commemorative window. But I can't help but shrink at > the notion that Professor Norbrook is wrong for raising his most interesting > questions. > > There is, I think, a key critical issue manifest in the questions raised by > Professor Norbrook: > > There has always been a cultural divide between British and Americans > over British authors. Americans have appropriated Shakespeare and Milton, > not without some consternation from the British. In the late 19th century, > a number of monuments to British writers were erected in Britain, paid for > by Americans. There were similar questions then about the appropriateness > of those monuments, and the roles played by Americans, and I direct anyone > interested to read my piece on the placement on the window at St. Margaret's > in Spokesperson Milton, ed. Durham, McColgan. Matthew Arnold danced around > the head of a pin trying to explain why a window in honor of Milton was "ok" > given the poet's political associations. Arnold could only justify the > window by separating Milton the poet from Milton the Republican. He was a > great poet. And Arnold's speech did not come without raising questions > about the "contagion" spawned by Americans, who have bad taste in language > in literature. > My concern, in this regard, is that I fear the design of the window > moves too far in the direction of de-politicizing Milton. The plan is for a > window with flowers and lines from PL; but how is that representative of > Milton the political man? I think in their efforts to come up with > something that would not offend most people, they moved too far in the > direction of making the window too apolitical and unreligious. I think the > message of the window is simply that Milton wrote beautiful poetry. And > lest Professor Barton chastise me for my opinion being too late, I made > suggestions when they were solicited last year. > > Professor Norbrook should not be criticized for raising his questions. > In the words of a Persian proverb: "He who wants a rose must respect the > thorn." > > David Boocker > Tennessee Technological University > > From: Carol Barton, PhD [cbartonphd@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 9:30 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton window I would like to make a couple of things very clear in response to this latest spate of posts, particularly the one below, which seems to ignore the message in my previous message, and utterly mischaracterizes both my statements and their meaning (like the worst of bad entrants in the polemic wars). At no time did I threaten to "take my ball and go home," nor would I consider for a moment doing so. The Window Project is not subject to cancellation based on the post facto objections of a few, and has indeed gone forward quite robustly despite the contrary opinions expressed here (thank you to all who have made that statement possible). We continue to receive generous donations from those who understand that the Window is a gesture of love and respect, not a political statement, and not a seal of endorsement of Milton's burial site, or the secular or religious politics of the church in which he is buried. The fact remains, he is buried there: or would the dissenting respondents have him exhumed, and moved to a site more consistent with their political sensitivities? We are honoring him where he lies. At no time did I question David Norbrook's right to question -- or, for that matter, John Leonard's or anyone else's right to do so: I merely questioned the propriety, timing, and thrust of those questions, and their seemingly direct criticism of the appropriateness of the Window just at the moment of the public launch of a program that has been privately in the making for over a year. I do, however, most pointedly question the solipsism of the statement below that "The plan is for a window with flowers and lines from PL; but how is that representative of Milton the political man? I think in their efforts to come up with something that would not offend most people, they moved too far in the direction of making the window too apolitical and unreligious. I think the message of the window is simply that Milton wrote beautiful poetry." Indeed, the message is simply that Milton wrote beautiful poetry, his greatest works consisting of decidedly beautiful *Christian* poetry. The Window, whether Mr. Boocker likes that idea or not, will be placed in a church that has been an active house of worship since the first of its buildings was erected, during the reign of William the Conqueror. Milton was a Christian poet, and regardless of the politicizing of that designation, St. Giles's is a Christian church (talk about counting angels dancing on the head of a pin!). The sensibilities of the current parishioners must be respected, and they are not at all interested in Milton's politics: it was those politics that made the intial suggestion of a erecting memorial to him at Westminster anathema. Our nation itself is a monument to Milton's politics. Fortunately, our contributors do not seem to share Mr. Boocker's apparent concurrence with Arnold's comment about the "'contagion' spawned by Americans, who have bad taste in language in literature." We understood _The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates_ and _Eikonoklastes_ and _The Readie and Easie Way_ and Milton's other contributions to concepts of individual liberty well enough to "hold these truths self-evident, that all men are created equal." For Milton, I think that would have been enough. Carol Barton ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Boocker" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 2:06 PM Subject: Milton window > I hope I am not alone in having some concern about Carol Barton's most > recent response to David Norbrook. It reminded me of the kid who, when his > "rules" about how to play the game are challenged, threatens to take his > ball and go home. > > Let me make it clear that I write as someone who has planned to make a > contribution to the commemorative window. But I can't help but shrink at > the notion that Professor Norbrook is wrong for raising his most interesting > questions. > > There is, I think, a key critical issue manifest in the questions raised by > Professor Norbrook: > > There has always been a cultural divide between British and Americans > over British authors. Americans have appropriated Shakespeare and Milton, > not without some consternation from the British. In the late 19th century, > a number of monuments to British writers were erected in Britain, paid for > by Americans. There were similar questions then about the appropriateness > of those monuments, and the roles played by Americans, and I direct anyone > interested to read my piece on the placement on the window at St. Margaret's > in Spokesperson Milton, ed. Durham, McColgan. Matthew Arnold danced around > the head of a pin trying to explain why a window in honor of Milton was "ok" > given the poet's political associations. Arnold could only justify the > window by separating Milton the poet from Milton the Republican. He was a > great poet. And Arnold's speech did not come without raising questions > about the "contagion" spawned by Americans, who have bad taste in language > in literature. > My concern, in this regard, is that I fear the design of the window > moves too far in the direction of de-politicizing Milton. The plan is for a > window with flowers and lines from PL; but how is that representative of > Milton the political man? I think in their efforts to come up with > something that would not offend most people, they moved too far in the > direction of making the window too apolitical and unreligious. I think the > message of the window is simply that Milton wrote beautiful poetry. And > lest Professor Barton chastise me for my opinion being too late, I made > suggestions when they were solicited last year. > > Professor Norbrook should not be criticized for raising his questions. > In the words of a Persian proverb: "He who wants a rose must respect the > thorn." > > David Boocker > Tennessee Technological University > > From: tom bishop [tgb2@po.cwru.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 8:54 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Accomplished snare A friend reports seeing the following sign in a beauty salon window in New York City: "Electrolysis by Dalila" -- ________________________________________________________ Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law. -- Justice John Paul Stevens From: Seb Perry [sebperry@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 10:34 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton window [David Boocker wrote:] >There has always been a cultural divide between British and Americans >over British authors. Americans have appropriated Shakespeare and >Milton, >not without some consternation from the British. In the late >19th >century, a number of monuments to British writers were erected in >Britain, >paid for by Americans. There were similar questions then >about the >appropriateness of those monuments, and the roles played by >Americans, and >I direct anyone interested to read my piece on the >placement on the window >at St. Margaret's in Spokesperson Milton, ed. >Durham, McColgan. Matthew >Arnold danced around the head of a pin >trying to explain why a window in >honor of Milton was "ok" given the >poet's political associations. Arnold >could only justify the window by >separating Milton the poet from Milton >the Republican. He was a >great poet. And Arnold's speech did not come without raising questions >about the "contagion" spawned by Americans, who have bad taste in >language >in literature. > My concern, in this regard, is that I fear the design of the >window >moves too far in the direction of de-politicizing Milton. The >plan is for >a window with flowers and lines from PL; but how is that >representative of >Milton the political man? I think in their efforts >to come up with >something that would not offend most people, they moved >too far in the >direction of making the window too apolitical and >unreligious. I think >the message of the window is simply that Milton >wrote beautiful poetry. Milton *did* write beautiful poetry. Would the Milton critical industry be anything like as large as it is if he hadn’t? I’m having trouble envisaging *Eikonoklastes* as a GCSE set-text.... Appropriation is a fascinating issue. Surely Mr. Boocker is not suggesting that only Americans appropriate Milton? What about the Romantics? I think we all (mis)appropriate Milton to some extent by choosing to study those aspects of his work that interest us most. To complain about the “de-politicizing” of Milton is to single out his politics as worthy of commemoration ­ another appropriation, equally arbitrary. Can anyone envisage a memorial that would do justice to every facet of the man and his writings, pleasing all but offending none? Personally, I regard the appropriation of Milton to serve the modern republican cause to be as narrow-minded and tedious as Shelley’s preface to *Prometheus Unbound*. There is a place for such activities, of course, but it shouldn’t be in the sphere of academia. Sorry if this is turning into a rant ­ I’ve felt very strongly about the issue ever since I went to a Tom Paulin lecture that purported to be about Byron but turned out to be a plug for Paul Muldoon’s latest volume of poetry. >Professor Norbrook should not be criticized for raising his questions. Agreed. But if he’s going to raise objections to a project already well under way, I think it only fair that he be asked to come up with a viable alternative, one that would be appropriate to Milton’s “meaning for today” without misappropriating him. Sorry to be still harping on Trafalgar Square, but the following from *Animadversions* seems apt: "Why doe wee therefore stand worshipping, and admiring this unactive, and livelesse Colussus, that like a carved Gyant terribly menacing to children, and weaklings lifts up his club, but strikes not, and is subject to the muting of every Sparrow." For "Sparrow", substitute "Pigeon" and we’re left with perhaps not quite the sort of commemoration Milton would have had in mind. Seb Perry. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From: John Leonard [jleonard@julian.uwo.ca] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 8:50 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: "Not willingly let it die" Carol Barton writes: The >point is that we have made a concerted time-, money-, and energy- >consuming effort to get this Project up and running and see that we to >whom Milton has contributed so much do not "willingly let it die." > I'm sorry, Carol, but that is not the point. The point is Milton's wishes: what they were, and whether we have a responsibility to honour them. David Norbrook is no more willing than you are to let Milton's work die. Whatever Miltonists decide about the stained glass window, our decision will have no effect on the continued life of Milton's writings, which have never drawn their strength from star-ypointing pyramids. Milton needs no such weak witness of his name when he has built himself a live-long monument in his poetry and prose. The window promises to be a testament of our gratitude, nothing more, nothing less. John Leonard From: David Boocker [DBoocker@tntech.edu] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 2:07 PM To: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Milton window I hope I am not alone in having some concern about Carol Barton's most recent response to David Norbrook. It reminded me of the kid who, when his "rules" about how to play the game are challenged, threatens to take his ball and go home. Let me make it clear that I write as someone who has planned to make a contribution to the commemorative window. But I can't help but shrink at the notion that Professor Norbrook is wrong for raising his most interesting questions. There is, I think, a key critical issue manifest in the questions raised by Professor Norbrook: There has always been a cultural divide between British and Americans over British authors. Americans have appropriated Shakespeare and Milton, not without some consternation from the British. In the late 19th century, a number of monuments to British writers were erected in Britain, paid for by Americans. There were similar questions then about the appropriateness of those monuments, and the roles played by Americans, and I direct anyone interested to read my piece on the placement on the window at St. Margaret's in Spokesperson Milton, ed. Durham, McColgan. Matthew Arnold danced around the head of a pin trying to explain why a window in honor of Milton was "ok" given the poet's political associations. Arnold could only justify the window by separating Milton the poet from Milton the Republican. He was a great poet. And Arnold's speech did not come without raising questions about the "contagion" spawned by Americans, who have bad taste in language in literature. My concern, in this regard, is that I fear the design of the window moves too far in the direction of de-politicizing Milton. The plan is for a window with flowers and lines from PL; but how is that representative of Milton the political man? I think in their efforts to come up with something that would not offend most people, they moved too far in the direction of making the window too apolitical and unreligious. I think the message of the window is simply that Milton wrote beautiful poetry. And lest Professor Barton chastise me for my opinion being too late, I made suggestions when they were solicited last year. Professor Norbrook should not be criticized for raising his questions. In the words of a Persian proverb: "He who wants a rose must respect the thorn." David Boocker Tennessee Technological University From: John Leonard [jleonard@julian.uwo.ca] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 8:24 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton Window Project Jameela Lares wrote >I have been reading with interest the various comments on high/low church >shifts at St. Giles Cripplegate, Oxford, and elsewhere, and especially the >fascinating recent post of Sharon Achinstein. Along this line, I wanted >to note or perhaps reiterate that St. Giles Cripplegate now has a female >rector, the Rev. Katharine Rumens, who is in fact the very first female >incumbent of a London City Church. > Jameela, Is this an argument for or against the window? Are you saying 1) Milton (who named one daughter after a female Judge) would have approved of a female clergy, so the monument and site are fitting? Or 2) Milton would have been appalled by the ordination of women, so the monument and site are unfitting? Or 3) The ordination of women is so obviously just as to make Milton's wishes irrelevant so we should all stop worrying about him and go ahead and celebrate him whether he likes it or not? John Leonard From: Jameela Lares [jlares@ocean.otr.usm.edu] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 12:25 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton Window Project I have been reading with interest the various comments on high/low church shifts at St. Giles Cripplegate, Oxford, and elsewhere, and especially the fascinating recent post of Sharon Achinstein. Along this line, I wanted to note or perhaps reiterate that St. Giles Cripplegate now has a female rector, the Rev. Katharine Rumens, who is in fact the very first female incumbent of a London City Church. Jameela Lares Associate Professor of English University of Southern Mississippi Hattiesburg, MS 39406-5037 +(601) 266-6214 ofc +(601) 266-5757 fax From: James Dougal Fleming [jdf26@columbia.edu] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 10:45 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton Window Project Doesn't Corbett's poem begin something like Tell me, you anti-saints, why glass Longer lives with you than brass? The poem commemorates, if memory serves, "anti-saint" action against brass plaques (ancestors of those blue ones now thought iconologically neutral?), action that the good bishop Corbett attacks by the conceit of brass vs. glass. He goes on to allege that the anti-brass iconoclasts spare windows because some godly businessmen manufactured glass, before suggesting, in the lines quoted below, that iconoclasts see their own resemblance in such "painted ware." James Dougal Fleming On Sat, 13 Jan 2001, David Norbrook wrote: However, most of the windows mentioned > by R. M. Frye did have high church associations, one of them provoking > Richard Corbett's anti-Puritan satire 'Fairford Windows': > Or is't, because such painted ware > Resembles something that you are, > Soe py'de, soe seeming, soe unsound > In manners, and in doctrine, found, > That, out of Emblematick witt, > You spare your selves in sparing it? > If it be soe, then Faireford boast > Thy Church hath kept, what all haue lost; > And is preserved from the bane > Of either warr, or Puritane: > Whose life is colour'd in thy paint, > The Inside drosse, the Outside Saint. > Milton went out of his way to resist this stereotype. Yet it's > interesting that Edmund Waller - no Puritan - in a poem to Milton's > collaborator Henry laws compared his monodic music to clear glass as > opposed to stained glass: > A church window, thick with paint, > Lets in a light but dim, and faint. > I think the proposed memorial raises some fascinating questions about > religion, politics and aesthetics, and I can only apologize to those > Miltonists who apparently believe it would be inimical to Milton's > spirit to think about them at all. > > David Norbrook > > Derek Wood wrote: > > > > 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: Carol Barton, PhD [cbartonphd@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 9:09 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton Window Project David, I can appreciate the reasons for your continued philippic on the propriety of the Milton Quadricentenary Window (most recent post below), but I would like to re-emphasize the fact that a number of people have been working tirelessly and without compensation on this project for a year; we have laid all of the foundations for approval by the congregation and the municipal authorities, and have discussed the design and are in negotiations with the manufacturer concerning price and delivery. If you object as strenuously as you appear to do to the manner in which we have chosen to honor Milton and commemorate his four hundredth birthday at the place of his interment (whether you agree with his chosen burial site or not), you have merely to withhold your own contribution: what possible motive you can have for attempting to persuade others to do so (intentionally or otherwise) is beyond me. As I said in an earlier post, we invited comments and suggestions over a year ago. The time to raise persistent objections was then, not now. The Window Project, involving a representation of a piece of Miltonic poetry surrounded by the flowers he loved dearly enough to catalogue in detail throughout his works, is a firm commitment at this point, not a far-off dream. While the foregoing remarks are mine alone, I would like to thank Rose Williams, Bill Hunter, Derek Wood, Scott Grunow, Ann Guld, Seb Perry, Tom Corns, James Fleming, and all of those who have supported the Project in this debate thus far, silently or vocally, on behalf of the Committee (Jameela Lares, Al Labriola, Philip Birger, John T. Shawcross, and John M. Steadman, and me) for having done so. The point is that we have made a concerted time-, money-, and energy- consuming effort to get this Project up and running and see that we to whom Milton has contributed so much do not "willingly let it die." There is nothing inherently wrong with our giving him the kind of lasting memorial of respect and gratitude that he wished for in "Manso," or with our doing so in the place where his earthly remains reside: he himself was not specific about an appropriate site for his "storied urn," and it was in this church that he chose (actively chose, since he was John Milton, Sr.'s sole heir) to bury his beloved father, if he did not express an active desire to be interred there himself. Certainly, as others have suggested, there is nothing so wrong with this Project that it merits such a relentless campaign to strangle it at birth. (One cannot help but wonder which side of the debate the poet himself would have been on; with all due respect, I doubt that it would have been yours.) The Milton Quadricentenary Project is very much alive and well, and will continue to thrive and grow until at least 9 December 2008, when the Milton Quadricentenary Window will be installed at a special ceremony to be held in the ancient church of St. Giles, Cripplegate, in London's Barbican district. We hope you will join with us in that celebration, but will understand if you (or anyone else) feels compelled to do otherwise. Again, thank you to all of those who in various forms have expressed their certain support. Best to all, Carol Barton ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Norbrook" To: Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 4:34 PM Subject: Re: Milton Window Project > My hope has been that we could gain some clarification about the meaning > both of Milton's burial and of its current commemoration, and I think > light is emerging, though it seems there are still questions that > haven't been asked and some to which we may never be able to give firm > answers; I look forward to further information from those better > informed on the details. What I think can easily be forgotten in an > ecumenical age is how sharply these issues could be politicized and how > quickly conditions changed - the context of Of True Religion in relation > to the Declaration of Indulgence has to be considered. Derek Wood, > wisely pointing to the need for 'sensible doubt and > hesitation', has reminded us of a pattern of participation in church > ceremonies; but doubts can go in different ways, and the public space of > churches in the Cromwellian 1650s was different from that of the > Restoration 1660s. Even in the 1660s, as Sharon Achinstein's posting > shows, there were differences of practice in different churches and we > would need careful local analysis to firm up the picture of his > ecclesiastical allegiance. Masson noted that he was married in 1663 by > Robert Gell who had held his living through the Protectorate. The > evidence seems to me consistent with describing him as neither a 'high' > nor 'low' Anglican but a (very) occasional conformist. > On the question of burial, the question came up for me because it had > been problematic for many of Milton's political allies. When Oliver > Cromwell was buried in Westminster Abbey, an elegist noted that this > seemed strange: > But soft, must Cromwell to an abbey go? > The name of Cromwell is to abbeys foe. > Three years later his body, his wife's, and those of many associates > were exhumed from Westminster Abbey and ignomoniously reburied outside; > his head was severed and displayed on a spike. Also in the number was > John Bradshaw whom Milton had highly praised. A disinterral likely to > have been of particular interest to him was of the poet Thomas May, who > had worked with him as a propagandist for the Council of State; a few > years later the poet laureate, Sir William Davenant, was buried in May's > space. Isaac Dorislaus was effectively receiving a double assassination > since he had been murdered by royalists when a Commonwealth envoy in the > Netherlands; Milton had translated some of the ensuing correspondence. > Three years later saw the death in prison of John Hutchinson, who had > served on the Council of State. He was so anxious about being buried > with rites he considered idolatrous that he insisted his wife have his > body transported the long journey from Kent to Nottingham where he was > buried in the family church - presumably sufficiently under the control > of his widow to be an acceptable resting-place, for she audaciously > placed an inscription marking his imprisonment as unjust within the > church. Two years later saw the death of Ann, wife of the republican > statesman Robert Overton, of whom Milton had written that he was 'linked > with me with a more than fraternal harmony, by reason of the likeness of > our tastes and the sweetness of your disposition'. Ann Overton asked to > be buried in the dissenting churchyard at Bunhill Fields, near to the > congregationalist preacher Henry Jessey, whose funeral had been the > occasion for a major political demonstration. Overton in turn asked to > be buried there in his will, dated June 1678. The republican James > Harrington, who was no strong Puritan, was buried in an Anglican church > on his death in 1677, but his failing sanity in his later years was > blamed by his friends on ill-treatment by the government and Andrew > Marvell is said to have composed an epitaph for him that was so > outspoken it was not used. Edmund Ludlow, who had been a committed > supporter of the Commonwealth, read the architecture of Restoration > London as a mark of the final vanity before the apocalypse, and > described Wren's St Paul's as a monument of tyranny. In the unlikely > event that he had forgotten these contacts, in 1673 Sir Peter Wentworth, > a totally unrepentant republican, bequeathed him a legacy because of his > Defences - a dangerous memory to raise at that time. > What these parallels suggest is that the question of burial raised for > Milton both political and basic human questions, of honour and > solidarity. There was a whole spectrum of beliefs between different > groups on the republican side, and all kinds of different tactical > accommodations were made after 1660, and there is room for argument > about exactly where Milton came down. What does disturb me is the > attempt by some correspondents to erect a sharp boundary between those > safely inside the church and those outside, who are lumped together by > Carol Barton as advocates of 'wholesale anarchy'. Thanks to Tom Corns > for his reminiscences of Bunhill Fields; maybe Milton would have turned > up his nose at that locale a bit, in a way that Robert Overton didn't, > but if the new monument is designed to exalt Milton at the expense of > the politically correct fanaticism of Overton, then my hesitations are > confirmed. (The term 'fanatic' is more or less the 17th-century > equivalent of 'politically correct'; each term is open to rather > indiscriminate use, and admirers of Milton of all people need to be wary > about how they are used.) However even if I remain unconverted on the > window question - and I look forward to further evidence - I shall > gladly come forward to support blue plaques and other forms of > commemoration and am very grateful to Carol Barton and others for > getting on so energetically with projects that have been shamefully > neglected for a long time. > Finally some inconclusive thoughts about stained glass. Milton > certainly did mark himself off from the more radical opponents of > stained glass in churches in Il Penseroso, both in its publication in > 1645 and in its post-Restoration republication. Richard Marks has some > interesting material in his Stained Glass in England during the Middle > Ages (1993). The revival in the 1620s and 30s was not purely a High > Church phenomenon - he cites a window at Hampton Court with a label > declaring - though with a revealing defensiveness - that it is > historical and not superstitious. However, most of the windows mentioned > by R. M. Frye did have high church associations, one of them provoking > Richard Corbett's anti-Puritan satire 'Fairford Windows': > Or is't, because such painted ware > Resembles something that you are, > Soe py'de, soe seeming, soe unsound > In manners, and in doctrine, found, > That, out of Emblematick witt, > You spare your selves in sparing it? > If it be soe, then Faireford boast > Thy Church hath kept, what all haue lost; > And is preserved from the bane > Of either warr, or Puritane: > Whose life is colour'd in thy paint, > The Inside drosse, the Outside Saint. > Milton went out of his way to resist this stereotype. Yet it's > interesting that Edmund Waller - no Puritan - in a poem to Milton's > collaborator Henry laws compared his monodic music to clear glass as > opposed to stained glass: > A church window, thick with paint, > Lets in a light but dim, and faint. > I think the proposed memorial raises some fascinating questions about > religion, politics and aesthetics, and I can only apologize to those > Miltonists who apparently believe it would be inimical to Milton's > spirit to think about them at all. > > David Norbrook > > Derek Wood wrote: > > > > 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: John Hale [john.hale@stonebow.otago.ac.nz] Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 8:33 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Query I am working on Milton's Cambridge Latin writings, prose and verse, currently. Then I am editing and translating the De Doctrina. JKH From: David Norbrook [dn44@umail.umd.edu] Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 4:35 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton Window Project My hope has been that we could gain some clarification about the meaning both of Milton's burial and of its current commemoration, and I think light is emerging, though it seems there are still questions that haven't been asked and some to which we may never be able to give firm answers; I look forward to further information from those better informed on the details. What I think can easily be forgotten in an ecumenical age is how sharply these issues could be politicized and how quickly conditions changed - the context of Of True Religion in relation to the Declaration of Indulgence has to be considered. Derek Wood, wisely pointing to the need for 'sensible doubt and hesitation', has reminded us of a pattern of participation in church ceremonies; but doubts can go in different ways, and the public space of churches in the Cromwellian 1650s was different from that of the Restoration 1660s. Even in the 1660s, as Sharon Achinstein's posting shows, there were differences of practice in different churches and we would need careful local analysis to firm up the picture of his ecclesiastical allegiance. Masson noted that he was married in 1663 by Robert Gell who had held his living through the Protectorate. The evidence seems to me consistent with describing him as neither a 'high' nor 'low' Anglican but a (very) occasional conformist. On the question of burial, the question came up for me because it had been problematic for many of Milton's political allies. When Oliver Cromwell was buried in Westminster Abbey, an elegist noted that this seemed strange: But soft, must Cromwell to an abbey go? The name of Cromwell is to abbeys foe. Three years later his body, his wife's, and those of many associates were exhumed from Westminster Abbey and ignomoniously reburied outside; his head was severed and displayed on a spike. Also in the number was John Bradshaw whom Milton had highly praised. A disinterral likely to have been of particular interest to him was of the poet Thomas May, who had worked with him as a propagandist for the Council of State; a few years later the poet laureate, Sir William Davenant, was buried in May's space. Isaac Dorislaus was effectively receiving a double assassination since he had been murdered by royalists when a Commonwealth envoy in the Netherlands; Milton had translated some of the ensuing correspondence. Three years later saw the death in prison of John Hutchinson, who had served on the Council of State. He was so anxious about being buried with rites he considered idolatrous that he insisted his wife have his body transported the long journey from Kent to Nottingham where he was buried in the family church - presumably sufficiently under the control of his widow to be an acceptable resting-place, for she audaciously placed an inscription marking his imprisonment as unjust within the church. Two years later saw the death of Ann, wife of the republican statesman Robert Overton, of whom Milton had written that he was 'linked with me with a more than fraternal harmony, by reason of the likeness of our tastes and the sweetness of your disposition'. Ann Overton asked to be buried in the dissenting churchyard at Bunhill Fields, near to the congregationalist preacher Henry Jessey, whose funeral had been the occasion for a major political demonstration. Overton in turn asked to be buried there in his will, dated June 1678. The republican James Harrington, who was no strong Puritan, was buried in an Anglican church on his death in 1677, but his failing sanity in his later years was blamed by his friends on ill-treatment by the government and Andrew Marvell is said to have composed an epitaph for him that was so outspoken it was not used. Edmund Ludlow, who had been a committed supporter of the Commonwealth, read the architecture of Restoration London as a mark of the final vanity before the apocalypse, and described Wren's St Paul's as a monument of tyranny. In the unlikely event that he had forgotten these contacts, in 1673 Sir Peter Wentworth, a totally unrepentant republican, bequeathed him a legacy because of his Defences - a dangerous memory to raise at that time. What these parallels suggest is that the question of burial raised for Milton both political and basic human questions, of honour and solidarity. There was a whole spectrum of beliefs between different groups on the republican side, and all kinds of different tactical accommodations were made after 1660, and there is room for argument about exactly where Milton came down. What does disturb me is the attempt by some correspondents to erect a sharp boundary between those safely inside the church and those outside, who are lumped together by Carol Barton as advocates of 'wholesale anarchy'. Thanks to Tom Corns for his reminiscences of Bunhill Fields; maybe Milton would have turned up his nose at that locale a bit, in a way that Robert Overton didn't, but if the new monument is designed to exalt Milton at the expense of the politically correct fanaticism of Overton, then my hesitations are confirmed. (The term 'fanatic' is more or less the 17th-century equivalent of 'politically correct'; each term is open to rather indiscriminate use, and admirers of Milton of all people need to be wary about how they are used.) However even if I remain unconverted on the window question - and I look forward to further evidence - I shall gladly come forward to support blue plaques and other forms of commemoration and am very grateful to Carol Barton and others for getting on so energetically with projects that have been shamefully neglected for a long time. Finally some inconclusive thoughts about stained glass. Milton certainly did mark himself off from the more radical opponents of stained glass in churches in Il Penseroso, both in its publication in 1645 and in its post-Restoration republication. Richard Marks has some interesting material in his Stained Glass in England during the Middle Ages (1993). The revival in the 1620s and 30s was not purely a High Church phenomenon - he cites a window at Hampton Court with a label declaring - though with a revealing defensiveness - that it is historical and not superstitious. However, most of the windows mentioned by R. M. Frye did have high church associations, one of them provoking Richard Corbett's anti-Puritan satire 'Fairford Windows': Or is't, because such painted ware Resembles something that you are, Soe py'de, soe seeming, soe unsound In manners, and in doctrine, found, That, out of Emblematick witt, You spare your selves in sparing it? If it be soe, then Faireford boast Thy Church hath kept, what all haue lost; And is preserved from the bane Of either warr, or Puritane: Whose life is colour'd in thy paint, The Inside drosse, the Outside Saint. Milton went out of his way to resist this stereotype. Yet it's interesting that Edmund Waller - no Puritan - in a poem to Milton's collaborator Henry laws compared his monodic music to clear glass as opposed to stained glass: A church window, thick with paint, Lets in a light but dim, and faint. I think the proposed memorial raises some fascinating questions about religion, politics and aesthetics, and I can only apologize to those Miltonists who apparently believe it would be inimical to Milton's spirit to think about them at all. David Norbrook Derek Wood wrote: > > 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: Ann Gulden [a.t.gulden@iba.uio.no] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 8:59 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: A CofE Milton, and/or a Unitarian one There is a Milton window in the Tate Library, Harris Manchester college, Oxford. A fine + sombre Victorian portrait of Milton in stained glass. In view of the discussion of 'high' and 'low' church: this was originally a permanent private hall for dissenting theologians. A very few years ago it became a college proper. It has been the college for mature students for over 30 years. The college has long been associated with Unitarianism, and houses a fine collection of Unitarian texts . The window seems fitting, and is a great inspiration to independent thinkers in that setting. Ann Torday Gulden, Oslo At 08:13 11.01.01 EDT, you wrote: > >Questions have been raised about this subject, which needs further >consideration. First, one must recognize the differences in the Anglican >communion between "high" and "low" polarization. There is little of this >in other denominations: "low" and :high" Presbyterians or Methodists are nt >so sharply divided om religious issues. Where such splits have developed >the church has itself split--e.g. the Presbyterian Church over >slavery. The CofE even today includes such tensions (e.g. ordination of >women clergy). T.S. Eliot, I suppose, represents the "high" branch. > >It is in the light of such tensions that I think we should view Sharon >Achenstein's enormously enlightening discoveries about the vagaries of the >St. Giles parish. Milton certainly was not of the "high" wing, but he >could still cite the XXXIX Orders and refer to "our church" in OF TRUE >REL. Surely he had some say in the location of his burial. And he could >honestly sign to agreement with the Articles for his two degrees, though >anti-Miltonists, of course, brand him a hypocrite for such actions. On >these issues I refer again to VISITATION UNIMPLOR'D, pp. 14-16 et al. plus >its slight modification in "Responses" in MQ. As for the polygamy issue >(coupled with that of divorce in DDC, Ch x), also see VU, pp. 142-44 I >don't know how to put it more clearly, but evidently some readers are >unable to understand this evidence. I do not know that it has been rebutted. > >One last point, the very interesting quotation from EIKON in YP III, 558, >where Milton inveighs against "the chanted service book." Here I must >stress "chanted," rather than just the service book. Again a "low" church >position. > >W .B. Hunter > > > From: durocher@stolaf.edu Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 1:30 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Riverside Milton 2nd? Dear Miltonists (especially, in this case, Roy Flannagan), I recall Roy Flannagan mentioning here recently that the second edition of the *Riverside Milton* is now available. In considering texts to order for my Spring 2001 Milton course, however, only the 1998 ed., first edition, shows up in both Books in Print and Amazon.Com. Has anyone been successful in ordering the 2nd edition? Is it indeed out yet or not? Thanks. By the way, I am still alive and 20 years at least away from retirement, Philip, and will give you additional bibliography (to complement the fine posts by Stella Revard and Mario DiCesare) directly. Rich DuRocher St. Olaf College From: whunter [whunter@mymailstation.com] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 7:14 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: A CofE Milton Questions have been raised about this subject, which needs further consideration. First, one must recognize the differences in the Anglican communion between "high" and "low" polarization. There is little of this in other denominations: "low" and :high" Presbyterians or Methodists are nt so sharply divided om religious issues. Where such splits have developed the church has itself split--e.g. the Presbyterian Church over slavery. The CofE even today includes such tensions (e.g. ordination of women clergy). T.S. Eliot, I suppose, represents the "high" branch. It is in the light of such tensions that I think we should view Sharon Achenstein's enormously enlightening discoveries about the vagaries of the St. Giles parish. Milton certainly was not of the "high" wing, but he could still cite the XXXIX Orders and refer to "our church" in OF TRUE REL. Surely he had some say in the location of his burial. And he could honestly sign to agreement with the Articles for his two degrees, though anti-Miltonists, of course, brand him a hypocrite for such actions. On these issues I refer again to VISITATION UNIMPLOR'D, pp. 14-16 et al. plus its slight modification in "Responses" in MQ. As for the polygamy issue (coupled with that of divorce in DDC, Ch x), also see VU, pp. 142-44 I don't know how to put it more clearly, but evidently some readers are unable to understand this evidence. I do not know that it has been rebutted. One last point, the very interesting quotation from EIKON in YP III, 558, where Milton inveighs against "the chanted service book." Here I must stress "chanted," rather than just the service book. Again a "low" church position. W .B. Hunter From: srevard@siue.edu Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 4:47 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Query Dear Philip: Michelle Ronnick has done some work on Milton\'s Latin prose. She is running at session on Neo-Latin with APA. There are many neo-Latinists alive and well in Europe--and not all of them are retired or dead. The next meeting of IANLS (International Association for Neo-Latin Studies) will be in Bonn in 2003 and we would welcome papers on Milton\'s Latin--prose or poetry. Stella Quoting Phillip Sidney Horky : > Salve, Miltoneers! > > I am wondering whether or not anyone is working substantively on Milton\'s > Latin writings. I am aware only of Estelle Haan\'s work on Milton and the > Italic academy and Stella Revard\'s work on the early poetry. Has anyone > translated Milton\'s Latin prose works since the Yale edition of some > half-Century ago? > > Once I have completed my Master\'s degree, I am planning to pursue my PhD > in English Literature. It seems that almost everyone who studies the Latin > of this period is either dead or retiring. > > Grata est, > Phillip Horky > Graduate Student, Department of Classics, University of Chicago > > From: Mario A. Di Cesare [dicesare1@mindspring.com] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 8:15 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Query Dear Philip Sidney Horky, I suggest that you check on the work of John Hale ((U. of Otago, New Zealand), and that you investigate John Dillon's bibliography (of Milton the classicist), published in Milton Studies some years ago, I think. As for workers in the vineyard of Latin literature of Renaissance England, I would like to put your mind and career plans at rest: there are quite a few out there, as the programme of the Neo-Latin Congress at Cambridge last August would show. Sufficient young women and men to keep things lively. You might also check the publications of Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies (MRTS), formerly at SUNY Binghamton, now comfortably ensconced at Arizona State University's Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies (ACMRS). Good luck in your work: There's plenty of interesting stuff around and a lot to be learned from it. Mario Di Cesare Phillip Sidney Horky wrote: > Salve, Miltoneers! > > I am wondering whether or not anyone is working substantively on Milton's > Latin writings. I am aware only of Estelle Haan's work on Milton and the > Italic academy and Stella Revard's work on the early poetry. Has anyone > translated Milton's Latin prose works since the Yale edition of some > half-Century ago? > > Once I have completed my Master's degree, I am planning to pursue my PhD > in English Literature. It seems that almost everyone who studies the Latin > of this period is either dead or retiring. > > Grata est, > Phillip Horky > Graduate Student, Department of Classics, University of Chicago From: rwill [rwill627@camalott.com] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 3:48 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Query > I am wondering whether or not anyone is working substantively on Milton's > Latin writings. I am aware only of Estelle Haan's work on Milton and the > Italic academy and Stella Revard's work on the early poetry. Has anyone > translated Milton's Latin prose works since the Yale edition of some > half-Century ago? Dear Philip, I have translated a number of Milton's Latin poetic works while comparing them to major Roman writers. I have also translated some of his Italian poems. Some of my work has been sent to Hugh as part of the Milton Project. If you like I can email you one or two. The Latin ones have figures of speech, etc , explained, as I used them in a graduate Milton class for non-Latin speakers. For the past three years I have been writing textbooks in Latin, but I am about ready to return to Milton. Rose Williams From: Paula Loscocco [ploscocc@Barnard.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 3:40 PM To: FICINO@listserv.utoronto.ca; Milton-L@richmond.edu; WWP-L@brownvm.brown.edu Subject: thanks Thanks to all the very many & extremely helpful replies to my December query about pre-1650 women writers being described (or describing selves) as Sapphos! Best, Paula Loscocco / Barnard College From: Phillip Sidney Horky [phorky@midway.uchicago.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 10:06 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Query Salve, Miltoneers! I am wondering whether or not anyone is working substantively on Milton's Latin writings. I am aware only of Estelle Haan's work on Milton and the Italic academy and Stella Revard's work on the early poetry. Has anyone translated Milton's Latin prose works since the Yale edition of some half-Century ago? Once I have completed my Master's degree, I am planning to pursue my PhD in English Literature. It seems that almost everyone who studies the Latin of this period is either dead or retiring. Grata est, Phillip Horky Graduate Student, Department of Classics, University of Chicago 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 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