From: Carol Barton [cbartonphd@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 5:11 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Puritans and the Good Old Cause To Roy and others interested in these questions: (1) The readie and easie way to determine what Milton would have meant by the term "Puritan" (which he rarely uses, and then as I recall only in retaliation--as in "YOU call us 'Puritans'") is to look in a concordance. Unfortunately, I don't possess one here. (2) "The Good Old Cause" was not Milton's coinage. If you go to http://www.voicenet.com/~kuenning/qhp/penington/cause.html. for example,you will find the following, written by Isaac Penington the younger.: To the Parliament, the Army, and all the Well-affected in the Nation, who have been faithful to the Good Old Cause [1659] THAT there hath been a backsliding and turning aside from the GOOD OLD CAUSE even by the army (who formerly were glorious Instruments in the hand of God) hath been lately confessed, and that they have cause, and desire to take shame to themselves. Now that they may see the cause of shame that lies upon them, and may abase themselves in the sight of God, and before all the world, it behooves them to search narrowly into their backslidings, and consider the fruits thereof, that they may be truly humbled, and turned from that Spirit which led them aside, lest any of them take advantage to make a feigned confession for their own ends, and fall afresh to seek themselves; and their own Interests, and not the Good Old Cause, singly, and nakedly, as in the sight of the Lord. Many bad fruits have grown from this corrupt spirit, and the corrupt course it hath run in these late years, which would be narrowly searched into, and considered of: Some few general ones I may mention. 1. The name of God hath been blasphemed in the sight of the whole earth, and that holy Spirit and Power (which many hearts can witness was the beginner and carrier on of this Work) made a scoff and derision to the enemies of truth in these nations, and in the nations round about, who watched to see the issue and result of these things. The controversy was very great and eminent, and drew many eyes upon it, the Lord was appealed to on both sides to decide it; and many know, that by his presence and power in the army, the scale was turned, (even when they were very low, and cried out for prayers; and made large promises in the day of their distress.) Yea, the Lord did not desert the army, but heard their prayers, and the prayers of his people for them, carrying on the deliverance, until he had given a perfect victory into their hands. But then the army deserted the Lord; and just like men that were ruled by the spirit of the world, forgot the Lord, and his cause and interest, and their fellow companions in the hard travel and service, and set up themselves, and their own interest, making their general the greatest, and their officers great. Thus the Cause was betrayed, the measure of it lost, a private, particular, selfish, earthly, corrupt interest set up, and men countenanced and advanced, not according to their fidelity to the Good Old Cause, but according to their compliance with this new selfish interest. 2. The great work of God, both in these nations, and in the world, hath hereby been turned backward. In these nations, that spirit which began this work (when at any time it hath appeared in simplicity and singleness for the prosecution of it) hath been snibbed; what was built up formerly, thrown down; and that which was thrown down, now again built up; so that the face of the nation was changed, and unrighteous ones came into place and power, and the innocent and upright (those that feared God, and could not seek themselves, or the pleasing of men) have been oppressed and crushed. And if the work was thus stopt in these nations, its advantage of spreading further must needs be interrupted. God had raised up a power against oppression, in which he eminently appeared, even to the dread of the nations round about: and how far this power should have gone on in his work, by the leadings of his Spirit, had they waited in his counsel, kept to their Leader, and not turned aside to another spirit, and to other ends and interests, who can tell? 3. Great and vast treasures have been expended, for the maintaining of you in greatness in your backslidings, and the poor have groaned to bear the burthen: and while ye have grown thus high, extravagant, and excessive, many (who remained faithful) have wanted even that which was their due, and have undergone great hardships thereby. 4. The account of all the blood which hath been shed lies somewhere. Was it for a thing of nought? Was it of no value? Nay, it was precious in the sight of the Lord; many (yea very many) in the singleness and simplicity of their hearts losing their lives for the Cause. And yet how soon had you forgot all this, casting it, and the cause behind your backs, and setting up yourselves! Thus have ye grieved that good Spirit, which never gave you victory over your enemies for this end, that his name, and cause, and interest should be forgotten, and yours grow great: but the name of the Lord should have been exalted by you, and ye should have remained low and little, both in your own eyes, and in the eyes of others. But the Lord hath been veiled by your greatness, and that veil lies upon him at this day: Read this in the true humility, and in the fear and dread of his great name, who will be exalted over all, and whom no power or greatness on earth shall be able to hinder from arising. Remember these things, O ye backsliding children, and be abased; that the Lord may forgive you, and may vouchsafe yet once more to make use of you in his service. But I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy, lest ye should confess, and turn back, not with an upright heart, but feignedly: and if so, then you will not lie flat in your spirits, either before the Lord, or before men, but will be keeping up the greatness ye have got in your backslidings, and seeking your own interests, and self-ends afresh. There hath been often a naked, honest, simple, pure thing stirring in the Army, which the great ones (seeing some present use of) fell in with, and improved for their own ends; but destroyed the thing itself; so that it attained not to the bringing forth of that righteous liberty, and common good which it seemed to aim at (and did indeed aim at in those in whom the stirring did arise) but was made use of as an advantage to advance them in their particular interests against their enemies, and so set them up. Have ye seen this use made formerly of such lively stirrings in some, and such fair pretenses in others after righteousness, liberty, and the common good? Take heed of it now. Let not the pure stirrings after good, be betrayed into the selfish lusts and interests of your own corrupt hearts. Do not fall so hastily to the work of reformation, nor be not so forward to propose things for settlement; but wait to be purged from that backsliding spirit (which sticks closer to you and makes you unfitter for this service than you are aware) that you may come into a capacity of desiring the common good, and of being faithful in the prosecution of it; and put off your greatness and swelling honors that ye have contracted in the time of your backslidings, and come at least into an equal balance with them that remained faithful. Are ye humbled before the Lord for your backslidings, and yet keep your corrupt standings? Is this true humiliation? Is this taking of shame to yourselves? Ah, do not force the Lord to deal with you! do not force the Lord to strip you, and manifest your shame! If it be truly in your hearts, that the work of the Lord should go on, let such be picked out who have not backslidden, and let them carry it on; and stand ye by a while, till it be made manifest that your hearts are changed, and there be a testimony given to the nation, that you are truly humbled, and become men of other spirits: For while this spirit remains in you, ye will be secretly for yourselves, and cannot possibly be cordial, either to the Lord, or to the nation, in the work of reformation; but while you seem to be setting your hands to it, your hearts will be erring from it, and your endeavors will be to obstruct those whose hearts are entire and faithful to it. Now to the Parliament, let me say this, Ye have one day more by the good hand of God, by the great mercy of God, ye have one day more; (not for your righteousness, not for your fitness for the work; but for the unrighteousness of that power, which would not go on with the Lord's work, but bring back again to Egypt, hath the hand of the Lord been stretched forth against them.) Be not slothful, be not selfish, be not wise in the flesh: but know that Wisdom which is to be your Guide and Leader, and let it be your wisdom to follow. A Providence hath brought you together; let the same Providence lead you. Be single and honest to the nation, and upright hearted toward God; and if any straits come, be not hasty, but wait for the manifestation of his council, for the unveiling of his arm to protect you. Let not the army be your confidence. Do not any one thing to please the army; much less a corrupt interest of a part of the army; but apply your selves to do that which is truly just and righteous in the sight of God, of the army, and of all men. The Lord hath as it were new created you, and given you a new being; look up to him to preserve you, and apply your selves faithfully to his work, without self-ends and interests in yourselves, and against all self-ends and interests in others, leaving it to his power to stand by you and preserve you therein; and do not join (through fear or favor) with that which is great and powerful, but with that which is single and honest. Mind the stirring of that spirit in the army, and in the nation, which revived the Good Old Cause; and cherish it and cleave to it: mind likewise the apostatizing spirit, which would color over the apostasy, and make it seem as little as they could, and frown upon it, though in persons never so great. Ye are in the place of God; respect not persons, but righteousness, and ye shall have honor, even that honor which will stand, when the vain honor and title which corrupt man aspires after, whereby his heart is lifted up above his brethren (which the King of Israel's was not to be) shall fall to the ground, do men what they can. Open your eyes (that eye in you which alone can see the power that hath wrought this change) there is the arm of flesh, and the arm of the Lord before you, choose which you will cleave to. The Lord hath a work to do, a great work, and he will not want instruments. Ye have a time of trial, whether ye will become fit instruments in the hand of the Lord; improve it in his fear and in his wisdom; and do not think yourselves secure, as ye can gain the present powers on your side; but be single to the Lord, and he will bring over the hearts of the army and nation to you. And take heed of your debates; let every man fear his own wisdom and his own will, in every word he speaks in the House; for that which comes from self, will be but for self (though under a pretence it may seem to be for God) but pursue what is manifestly good and righteous, and not what the wisdom of the serpent can cast a color over, and make appear so. > To those who have remained faithful in the nation, and waited for this day, I have one word also. Keep your eye on the Lord; fix not your hopes on the army, or on the Parliament; but look through them, to him who hath the power over them. Man is a vain, empty, foolish thing, there is no good to be expected from him. If the Lord appear in them, and they abide in his fear, and be guided by his counsel, they may be instruments of good in his hand, otherwise they will prove but broken reeds; but he that waiteth on the Lord shall not be disappointed, but shall meet with and receive the good in the Lord's season. The Lord's mighty power is at work, he snappeth instruments asunder at his pleasure. When they are wise, when they are strong, when they are puffed up in the imaginations of their hearts, he overturneth them with his finger, and calleth up that which was not, that which the foot of pride trampled upon. The Lord is known by the judgment which he executeth; the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. Wait on the Lord: If these also prove treacherous, his hand can overturn them also; and he will at length bring forth an instrument, which his soul can take pleasure in, and which he will make faithful to him in his work. O nation of England, wait on the Lord! wait on the Lord, O my soul! From Chalfont in Bucks, the 18. of the 3. mon. 1659. This from one who is a friend to the Commonwealth, a lover of true Freedom, and desires the good of all men. Isaac Penington the younger. LONDON, Printed by J. M. for Giles Calvert, at the Black-Spread-Eagle near the West end of Pauls, 1659 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The above paper was obtained from the Quaker Collection at Haverford College's Magill Library. ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ Best to all, Carol Barton From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 10:26 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Theory, Practice, and Milton Good lord -- that's absolutely horrible. Theory is spilt religion... Jim << Ont he use and misuse of theory ... at JMU we have set texts for the MA 'comprehansive' exam, and last spring one of the texts I suggested was Browne's 'Religio Medici' - the grad students got together to ask faculty to talk with them about each of the texts, and when they got together with me, after I talked to them about Browne, about the philosophical and religious climate, about English prose, etc etc, one of the very brightest asked me, "But why is this text supposed to be interesting? It doesn't seem to fit any current theory. Is it just because he writes well?" What do you make of that? -- 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: James Dougal Fleming [jdf26@columbia.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 10:14 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton and the weather On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Robert Appelbaum wrote: > > Since geological time wasn't discovered until the late eighteenth century > or early nineteenth century, it seems unlikely that Milton or anyone of his > day and age would have conceived of weather evolving over periods of time, > much less that they were living in an ice age. And indeed if one reads > through the popular literature of the era one is struck by how little > English people complain about the weather. There is, though, a fairly persistent mid-17th-century motif of the "winter-spring." See Cartwright's pastoral to the Bishop of Chichester, or Thomas Washbourne's "Upon a Great Shower of Snow which Fell on May Day, 1654." Who knows whether these texts actually are responding to climactic chnage. Personally I belive many of them to be responding to the Caroline-Christological propaganda narative of Prince Charles' birth in May 1630. JD Fleming From: John Leonard [jleonard@uwo.ca] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 8:30 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton and the weather > > Since geological time wasn't discovered until the late eighteenth century >or early nineteenth century, it seems unlikely that Milton or anyone of his >day and age would have conceived of weather evolving over periods of time, >much less that they were living in an ice age. And indeed if one reads >through the popular literature of the era one is struck by how little >English people complain about the weather. They have left a posterity much unlike themselves. From: John Leonard [jleonard@uwo.ca] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 12:16 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Notice to Contributors to *The Dialogic Milton* The following is a notice to fellow Miltonists who submitted papers to a volume of essays entitled *The Dialogic Milton*, edited by Jane Hiles and Caroline McAlister. The volume was intended to honour the memory of Georgia Christopher. We have recently been informed by several reliable sources (including the Press to which the volume was submitted two years ago) that this project fell through about a year ago. We are making this information public because the editors of the volume have not notified contributors or replied to repeated inquiries over the past two years. Apparently, some contributors have already withdrawn their essays and published them elsewhere. Others might still be unaware of this turn of (non)events. It is for the sake of these contributors (some no doubt still listing their essays as "forthcoming") that we are posting this to Milton-L. Dennis Danielson John Leonard From: Peter C. Herman [herman2@mail.sdsu.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 10:58 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton and the weather At 01:45 PM 3/14/01 -0800, you wrote: > Since geological time wasn't discovered until the late eighteenth century >or early nineteenth century, it seems unlikely that Milton or anyone of his >day and age would have conceived of weather evolving over periods of time, >much less that they were living in an ice age. And indeed if one reads >through the popular literature of the era one is struck by how little >English people complain about the weather. The major exception to Bob's comment would be the many comments about the incredibly lousy weather in 1596 (see, for example, the passage in Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream by, I believe, Oberon, about how the oxen have plowed in vain because of the massive rains). People noted the weather because it caused crop failures, dearth, and real unrest. Now, while this is obviously well before Milton, he certainly would have known this passage from MND. Peter C. Herman From: John Hale [john.hale@stonebow.otago.ac.nz] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 4:24 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: New Critical Mythologies The TLS reviews of Richards' latest book(s) might yield something? >See John Paul Russo, I.A. Richards His Life and Work (1989). > Best wishes, > Derek Wood. > > >Tmsandefur@aol.com wrote: > > > I.A. Richards has naturally been mentioned in this connection. I'm >working on > > a long term project which involves Richards tangentially. Does anyone >know of > > any articles or books with good BIOGRAPHICAL information about Richards? > > > > Timothy Sandefur From: Dan Knauss [tiresias@juno.com] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 11:33 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Richards I think Lewis attacks Richards in several places. This may be related to his long-time hostility toward Eliot. What I remember offhand is that in A Preface to Paradise Lost Lewis uses Richard's "stock responses" but argues for their validity in interpretation rather than accepting Richards' neagtive treatment of them. On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:09:37 EST AntiUtopia@aol.com writes: > I'm sorry I can't help you with biographical information, but C.S. > Lewis > attached Richards somewhere -- you may find it interesting to read. > I > think he saw Richards as locating beauty in the subject (seeing > something > as beautiful is a certain type of response) instead of in the object > > (that's a beautiful thing) and had a bit of a problem with that. If > I can > find the reference I'll send it on to you. > > Jim > > ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. From: Gardner Campbell [gcampbel@mwc.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 9:24 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Richards Lewis makes the argument you cite in *The Abolition of Man*. I can't remember whether he mentions Richards. Gardner Campbell Mary Washington College >>> AntiUtopia@aol.com 03/12/01 10:09AM >>> I'm sorry I can't help you with biographical information, but C.S. Lewis attached Richards somewhere -- you may find it interesting to read. I think he saw Richards as locating beauty in the subject (seeing something as beautiful is a certain type of response) instead of in the object (that's a beautiful thing) and had a bit of a problem with that. If I can find the reference I'll send it on to you. Jim From: Greg Benoit [gregwa@gregwa.com] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 8:18 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: WW/JM At 10:23 AM 3/12/2001 EST, you wrote: >I feel like I'm going from literary novel to comic book when I go from >Milton to Wordsworth :) > >But that's just me... amen, brother! and it ain't just you!! Gregory C. Benoit Dubuque, IA ________________________ gregwa@gregwa.com http://www.gregwa.com From: Tmsandefur@aol.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 9:18 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: A queftion Okay, I have a question that has very little to do with Milton--but I can't think of any group of people more qualified to answer it--or to tell me what I can do with my question!--than you all. What are the grammatical rules for using the long-s, which we've all seen in things like the Declaration of Independence "Congrefs," "Wafhington," et cetera? I've noticed that it seems to disappear instantly from writings after 1800, and that some people, like Thomas Jefferson, never used it, while others, like Alexander Hamilton, used it so much it's distracting. Why was it used? And I've noticed that there seem to be rules for its use--it's never used at the end of a word, and if used with a double-s, the first one is long and the second is not, as in "Congrefs." Were there any other rules for its use? Just curious, Timothy Sandefur From: Margaret Thickstun [mthickst@hamilton.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 10:51 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton and the weather At the interdisciplinary Swift conference in Dublin in June 1995, John Kington, of East Anglia, gave a paper on "The Value of the Journal to Stella to Historical Climatology." Apparently Swift spent most of his time complaining about the weather--and complained no matter what the weather--so climatologists (I thought at first that this was a new theoretical perspective of which I was unaware!) find his journals highly informative. If anyone is seriously interested in pursuing information about the weather in particular years during Milton's career, you might begin with this man. I do know that the person who writes those light lit crit books (Who Betrayed Elizabeth Bennet? Can Jane Eyre Be Happy?, etc.) has an essay about the dating of Emma (the year in which Austen may have set the story) in terms of late blossoming apple trees. Margaret Thickstun Department of English Hamilton College 198 College Hill Rd Clinton, NY 13323 (315)859-4466 From: john rumrich [rumrich@mail.utexas.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 11:24 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Richards I have a vague recollection of Lewis arguing something like that point (with reference to the sublime) in--I think--An Experiment in Criticism (?). >I'm sorry I can't help you with biographical information, but C.S. Lewis >attached Richards somewhere -- you may find it interesting to read. I >think he saw Richards as locating beauty in the subject (seeing something >as beautiful is a certain type of response) instead of in the object >(that's a beautiful thing) and had a bit of a problem with that. If I can >find the reference I'll send it on to you. > >Jim From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 10:59 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: New Critical Mythologies I probably should have phrased my statements a bit more carefully, but... I wouldn't argue that New Critics or anyone denied that an intentionality existed behind a text, or even that texts were somehow reflective of an author's intent. Just that "textual meaning" cannot be equated with, or defined in terms of, authorial intent. So I didn't mean to deny that W&B claimed that authors had intentions or that texts were intentional objects. I think we're on the same page here, so to speak :) However, I think they went beyond just complaining about the specific use of certain kinds of data (they did complain about this, of course, but went beyond that complaint). Now, to me, it gets really interesting from this point :) << [Perhaps W&B would say authorial intent existed] largely in the realm of unarticulated consciousness of experience or the phenomenologists' noema, which is the excess of meaning that escapes articulation. What does get articulated (put into signs) is necessarily intentional because it has an object and exists toward something. Yet what is articulated cannot become a basis for determining (and articulating in language) the inarticulate, unsayable and forever uncertain prior intention or consciousness that gave rise to it. What we have is the text itself, and according to W&B, meaning (which is intentional) inheres it it. This is not a separation of textual meaning and authorial intent; it is their conflation.>> I disagree here. I think for W&B the relationship between authorial intent and textual meaning is indefinable both ways. "Meaning" inheres in the text, but we don't know what relationship that meaning has or could have in the author's mind either on a conscious or a subconscious level. A good writer is not necessarily a good reader, and the "meaning" that inheres in texts (textual meaning as W&B described it) is the product of reading, not writing. What's assumed in your statements above is that a writer will read his or her text in a way similar to readers such as W&B. Honestly, I don't think that's that big a leap to make -- but it's still a leap, however small. We could almost apply philosophical arguments about color here. We really don't know what's in another person's head. <> Luther's Christ-centered interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures are often allegorical, however. I think he substituted one form of allegorizing for another in practice. <> I can see this argument as supporting the statement that the NC's emphasis on finished texts is a bow to authorial intention, but not that it was an intentional bow :) << The New Critics never seemed to notice this--that textual critics interpretively reconstruct the "scholarly" versions of texts through methods designed to "recover" what the authors' final intentions were. This also means that the historical texts being (re-)produced as critical editions have had anachronistic, modern assumptions about textuality and authorship imposed on them.>> W&B did adopt the methods of some of their forebears and that's probably why people like Richards, Eliot, and so on are anachronistically called New Critics. But they also rejected a good bit of the methodology developed to determine authorial intent. When I was trained in hermenutics -- a training whose goal was specifically to recover the "author's probable intent" -- we started with the text in ways very similar to new critical approaches. We just didn't end there. We studied the text in an ever widening circle of contexts -- the author's other works, the author's biography and personal letters, the historical situation at the time of the writing, etc. It was a pretty good method, actually, but you see the farther on we went the further away we were from New Critical methods. I think it's a mistake to say New Critics were in the business of recovering authorical intent. As you said above, they would probably say we may be recovering that intent, or we may not -- we just can't know. I think it would be better to say that New Critical methods have been and could been, and perhaps even originated with, people concerned with recovering authorial intent. However, you'll see that the intentionalists couldn't just stop with the textual/linguistic studies because that led too often to textual indeterminacy...it left far too many ambiguities for them. Historical and biographical approaches tend to lend weight to some interpretations over others, but even these approaches are text-dependent and, as I mentioned in other posts, the critic has to recreate the history, arbitrarily choosing what historical information and what biographical information is relevant to the text at hand. There isn't a reasoned methodology out there that tells us what history is relevant. The critic's own judgment is always the bottom line here, and some critics have better judgement than others... <> I think that would make an interesting study too, and I agree with your summary of the problems inherent in a text only approach. I think we need to see that our selection of the "res" is itself guided by our own current context. I don't think we quite know how to select the historical referents that would be most relevant to the audience at the time, and tend to merely select the referents that are most relevant to us now... Jim From: Robert Appelbaum [r_appel@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 4:46 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton and the weather Since geological time wasn't discovered until the late eighteenth century or early nineteenth century, it seems unlikely that Milton or anyone of his day and age would have conceived of weather evolving over periods of time, much less that they were living in an ice age. And indeed if one reads through the popular literature of the era one is struck by how little English people complain about the weather. Climate is usually taken for granted, and the English usually take it for granted that their constitutions have already been adapted to English weather conditions by force of habit. But the experience of travel, whether in Southern Europe or in the New World or Eastern Europe surely must have caused the English to think more deeply, if not more unhappily, about the miserable conditions of their "blessed isle," their "demi-paradise." Perhaps their knowledge of conditions in Scotland made them feel better, or the discomfort of a summer in Venice or Virginia. But weren't! some of the Royal Society members interested in temperature readings all the same? We know that they were interested in refrigeration. And the categories of hot and cold in early modern thinking had much deeper meanings than today, as heat and coldness were also thought ot be qualities of the blood, of the humours, and hence of dispositions. When Milton worries about not being in a warm enough climate to write an epic, I would guess, he is thinking about the vicissitudes of temperate that could in fact, by traditional science, be held to be caused in part by weather conditions. Our expressions "hot-blooded" and "cold-blooded" are related to this. The science of hot and cold things was a science of similitudes, and as relevant to the nature of national identity as to the preserving of corpses. John Hale wrote: Has anyone noticed references in Milton himself or among his correspondents and associates to the English weather - not as being its *usual* beastly cold / dark / wet self, but as being even *worse than usual.* I've been reading a book on climate-change over recorded-history time, from which I learn that 1550-1680 was *unusually cold on several mainlands and certainly in western Europe. It is known as the "Little Ice-Age," because during it the glaciers expanded once more. I am keen to hear whether Milton or people he knew had any sense of the longer-term weather patterns, and especially whether Milton knew people who were systematically recording temperatures and so forth. Is this an activity of Hartlib's network? John Hale Robert Appelbaum English Department University of San Diego San Diego, CA 92110-2492 Visit my home page: www.geocities.com/r_appel/Robert.html And please forgive the commercial intrusion below: --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices! From: Cobelli@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 9:19 PM To: Milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton and the weather I was just reading a review of the relatively new book by Brian Fagan, The Little Ice Age: The Prelude to Global Warming, 1300-1850, New York: Basic Books, 2000, when this thread came up. Before I even saw a photo of the books' cover on amazon.com, the snowy landscapes of Brueghel immediately entered my mind. The references to winter's discomforts in pastoral poetry, such as Spenser's Shepherd's Calendar, whether (pun intended) relate to actual weather conditions could of course be debated as it is part of the convention. But then, concrete events can influence art, perhaps working subtly within the formal conventions of the period. But then I do wonder if the emphasis on the infant Christ suffering cold in the manger, so prevalent in late medieval carols (and later, the Burning Babe of Southwell appearing in a freezing, icy night), is not only a result of the Franciscan emphasis on Christ's humanity, but perhaps could relate to "little ice age" conditions. Still, such an approach at least to me is questionable, especially in approaching literary works, as I tend to hold with Tuve's views that imagery during the Renaissance period conveyed a public, general meaning, "using public symbols for the conveyance of unmistakable general meanings." Has anyone done a search in Milton's works using a concordance for references to winter and snow? And I can't conclude this admittedly vague, rambling post without mentioning the rich image in Vaughan's "I walk't the other day" of the flower preserved beneath a bed of snow and ice. (Again, when this poem was written, circa 1650, were consistently snow-covered winters prevalent in Europe?) This may have been a personal experience for the poet, but the flower and snow and ice immediately become a parable of death and resurrection. The grief for his brother becomes the grief of the sinner redeemed by the hope of resurrection. Scott Grunow Editor-in-Chief Office of Publications Services University of Illinois at Chicago scottgr@uic.edu From: Orpheus [cwduff@alcor.concordia.ca] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 11:37 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Theory, Practice, and Milton (fwd) p'erhaps one need s to know less and see more w'hen readin' the ole' blinde[d] guy From: Cynthia A. Gilliatt [gilliaca@jmu.edu] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 9:00 AM To: Milton-l list Cc: Milton-l list Subject: Re: Theory, Practice, and Milton Ont he use and misuse of theory ... at JMU we have set texts for the MA 'comprehansive' exam, and last spring one of the texts I suggested was Browne's 'Religio Medici' - the grad students got together to ask faculty to talk with them about each of the texts, and when they got together with me, after I talked to them about Browne, about the philosophical and religious climate, about English prose, etc etc, one of the very brightest asked me, "But why is this text supposed to be interesting? It doesn't seem to fit any current theory. Is it just because he writes well?" What do you make of that? -- 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: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 10:10 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Richards I'm sorry I can't help you with biographical information, but C.S. Lewis attached Richards somewhere -- you may find it interesting to read. I think he saw Richards as locating beauty in the subject (seeing something as beautiful is a certain type of response) instead of in the object (that's a beautiful thing) and had a bit of a problem with that. If I can find the reference I'll send it on to you. Jim From: Carol Barton [cbartonphd@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 8:43 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: . . . what is a puritan ? asks Roy Flannagan . . . The term goes back to the early Reformation, to the Wycliffites (Lollards) and the other sects who, in response to Luther's _Ninety-Five Theses_, vowed that all ecclesiastical teaching and practice that was not specifically authorized by scripture would be anathema to their worship. (Thus marriage was no longer considered a sacrament, because Christ attended, but did not officiate at, a wedding, and baptism remained one, because he had been baptized by John, &c.) They wanted to "purify" the church of the corruptions of Roman Catholicism -- the term was applied pejoratively at first, and later, as the quote I recently posted from Milton himself suggested, came to apply to almost anyone whose religious leanings were stricter than thou's. Best to all, Carol Barton From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 10:24 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: WW/JM I feel like I'm going from literary novel to comic book when I go from Milton to Wordsworth :) But that's just me... Jim Now if you want to talk about Blake, Coleridge, or Keats, I'd love that :) Did you know Dorothy died before she could finish the Grasmere Journals? Pity she didn't die before she could start them... << think it wld. be intertstin' t'compare&contrast these two big poets Wordsworth whose words were worth and Milton's whose were deterritorialized againstthe pop speak of his day; his latined ringing english. with WW baaack to speech policy >> From: Dan Knauss [tiresias@juno.com] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 10:40 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Footnotes to previous discussions For Milton, I don't think there is a textual "inner light" apart from a "non textual inner light." The "inner light" is the Word in the word. -Dan Knauss On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:31:43 -0500 (EST) James Dougal Fleming writes: > But isn't Milton basing his arguments, here as elsewhere, on > Scripture -- > which is to say, precisely _not_ on some non-textual "inner light"? > After > all, "the essence of the scriptures is plainness and brightness; > the > darkness and croookedness is our own." JD Fleming > > > On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Carol Barton wrote: > > > Two things that may be of interest, in terms of the > injudiciousness of > > trying to affix a permanent label to any sectarian in our period > (let alone > > Milton himself), and a very useful passage from _Bucer_ on Milton > and the > > concept of "inner light": > > > > 1. In _Reason of Church Government (1.6)_, Milton himself says > "For the word > > Puritan seems to be quashed, and all that heretofore were counted > such, are > > now Brownists." A little later in the same section, ("as for > those terrible > > names of sectaries and schismatics . . ."), he refers the > prelates to God's > > "best disciples in the reformation, as at first by those of your > tribe they > > were called Lollards and Hussites, so now by you be termed > Puritans and > > Brownists . . ." > > > > 2. From _The Judgment of Martin Bucer_: > > Certainly if it be in man's discerning to sever providence from > chance, I > > could allege many instances wherein there would appear cause to > esteem of me > > no other than a passive instrument under some power and counsel > higher and > > better than can be human, working to a general good in the whole > course of > > this matter. For that I owe no light or leading received from any > man in the > > discovery of this truth, what time I first undertook it in "the > Doctrine and > > Discipline of Divorce," and had only the infallible grounds of > scripture to > > be my guide. He who tries the inmost heart and saw with what > severe industry > > and examination of myself I set down every period will be my > witness . . . > > for God it seems intended to prove me, whether I durst alone [and > > Abdiel-like] take up a rightful cause against a world of > disesteem, and > > found I durst . . . . > > > > > > (And thank you, Norm, for the kind words.) > > > > Best to all, > > > > Carol Barton ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. From: Sara van den Berg [vandens@SLU.EDU] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 7:40 AM To: Roy Flannagan Cc: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Other teasers: what, exactly, was the Good Old Cause, and, duh, I think the caveats in the 70s and 80s reflected a move by historians to limit the use of "Puritan" to 16th c English reformers. It really wasn't a matter of our social attitudes, but of scholarly debates about terminology and its discontents. Sara van den Berg Roy Flannagan wrote: > what's a Puritan > Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu > Precedence: bulk > Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu > > I am also interested, after Carol Barton's last post, to know exactly what > Milton would have meant by "Puritan," since we people trying to write about > Milton in the Seventies and Eighties, even, were told not to use the word > to apply to him, perhaps because "Puritan" took on such negative overtones > after Arthur Miller got done with New England preachers and witches and > Hugh Hefner raked American sexual puritanism over so many coals. > > And I am not sure what we mean when we talk about the Good Old Cause, after > the Restoration. Is Milton actually waxing sentimental about the good old > days of a military oligarchy (as in "Mussolini made the trains run on time")? > > Roy Flannagan From: Orpheus [cwduff@alcor.concordia.ca] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 11:20 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton and the weather I think that is very interesting take on the line of poem as weather reader.'You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows'as B.Dylan once sang One ofthe interesting points being made in the Phillip K. Dick novel is that it was the emotional weather which was chanign as well; the end of the Paradise that was the Elizabethan era; its open-ended experiemental generosity; of course there were serious flaws in that Paradise, and there were the plagues and the violence, and all the rest of the terror of livng in that no teeth period of pox and clap and so on; but there was that freedom of language which was being invented and re-invented by every poet, playwright and numerous gifted scriveners hidden and not so hidden; and Orland by Woolf is also part of the portrayal of that freedom being lost with 'the great change.' "an age too late" looks back to something earlier; no matter that is more dangerous, yet it was less restricted in the overall sense; 'we had a cold coming of it' too late is too cold. On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Jameela Lares wrote: > > Might the unusual climactic change be implied in "an age too late"? > > Jameela Lares > Associate Professor of English From: Dan Knauss [tiresias@juno.com] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 12:07 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: New Critical Mythologies Jim, I think Milton's importation of classical anthropology onto the "ontology of the book" may also reflect Augustinian and Lutheran thinking about scripture as sacramental--i.e., it is a mediatory incarnation of the divine will/intentio/mind. Gadamer's phenomenological hermeneutics may be in this line of thinking. He clearly saw the connection between his thought and post-Kantian German (Lutheran) biblical and general hermeneutics up to Heidegger. Others have pointed out the connections back to Augustine (e.g., Jean Grondin in _Sources of Hermeneutics_ SUNY-Press, 1995), so here there is an instance of what you wish for as a reclaiming of "philosophy and theology as a part of European history." You may be interested in this article by G.T. Karnezis, "Gadamer, Art, and Play"--http://www.svcc.il.us/academics/classes/gadamer/gadartpl.htm as well as "Some Principles of Phenomenological Hermeneutics"--http://www.brocku.ca/english/courses/4F70/ph.html Dan Knauss ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. From: Bowman, Mary [mbowman@uwsp.edu] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 3:46 PM To: 'Milton List'; 'renaissance-l'; 'Sidney/Spenser List' Subject: Call for papers I am still accepting proposals for the "English Literature before 1800" session of next year's Midwest MLA Annual Convention (November 1-3, 2001, Sheraton Cleveland City Centre, Cleveland, Ohio). > The topic for next year's session is "Theory, Criticism, and Pedagogy." > How does our work as scholars, critics, and theorists relate to our work > as teachers of early modern literature? Proposals addressing the topic > from any angle are welcome: e.g., using theory and scholarship in the > classroom, undergraduate research, research inspired by classroom > experiences, etc. > > Abstracts may be submitted by mail or e-mail by March 30, 2001, to > > Mary R. Bowman > Department of English > University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point > Stevens Point, WI 54481 > 715-346-4338 > mbowman@uwsp.edu > > For more information about the M/MLA, visit the website at > > > From: Derek Wood [dwood@stfx.ca] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 12:06 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: New Critical Mythologies See John Paul Russo, I.A. Richards His Life and Work (1989). Best wishes, Derek Wood. Tmsandefur@aol.com wrote: > I.A. Richards has naturally been mentioned in this connection. I'm working on > a long term project which involves Richards tangentially. Does anyone know of > any articles or books with good BIOGRAPHICAL information about Richards? > > Timothy Sandefur From: Dan Knauss [tiresias@juno.com] Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 6:03 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Cc: tiresias@juno.com Subject: Re: New Critical Mythologies On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 13:21:24 EST AntiUtopia@aol.com writes: > In a message dated Thu, 8 Mar 2001 7:36:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, > Dan > Knauss writes: > > << Timothy--Yes, New Criticism is pretty traditional in seeing the > results > of sound rhetorical/formal exegesis as indicative of authorial > intention.>> > > I'll have to disagree with you there. . . . > I agree that Eliot and Richards may have defined > textual meaning, ultimately, in relationship to the author's intent (the > conclusion of Eliot's essay on Hamlet certainly implies this), but the > association of authorial intent with textual meaning is Exactly what guys like > Wimsatt and Beardsley were against. I don't think I'm wrong to say that the New Critics saw the text and its structure as indicative of authorial intention. (And I do know who the NCs were and were not.) Wimsatt and Beardsley don't say there isn't a relationship between textual meaning and authorial intention. They just say we can't plausibly know what that relationship is. For them the "intentional fallacy" is trying to interpret a text or authenticate an existing interpretation of a text by appealing to some specific information from or about the author that indicates what they intended/meant to mean. W&B see this as either reductionistic or conducive to speculation, but they do not deny that authors have intentions and their texts are intentional objects. Perhaps W&B would see authorial intention as existing largely in the realm of unarticulated consciousness of experience or the phenomenologists' noema, which is the excess of meaning that escapes articulation. What does get articulated (put into signs) is necessarily intentional because it has an object and exists toward something. Yet what is articulated cannot become a basis for determining (and articulating in language) the inarticulate, unsayable and forever uncertain prior intention or consciousness that gave rise to it. What we have is the text itself, and according to W&B, meaning (which is intentional) inheres it it. This is not a separation of textual meaning and authorial intent; it is their conflation. The conflation of authorial intention with the text itself (the verbal icon) resembles in many ways Luther's conflation of the spiritual sense of scripture with the literal in order to destroy the grounds for allegorical interpretation of scripture. That textual meaning=authorial intention in New Criticism is more evident when you pay attention to its assumption that exegesis is normally going to be performed on "finished" texts--i.e., texts that are "finished" because they embody the "author's final intentions." The exegete neatly links up with the philologist/textual critic, whose job is to provide the "fixed," "finished," "authorial," and "authoritative" text-itself; i.e., the text embodying the final intentions of the author(s). The New Critics never seemed to notice this--that textual critics interpretively reconstruct the "scholarly" versions of texts through methods designed to "recover" what the authors' final intentions were. This also means that the historical texts being (re-)produced as critical editions have had anachronistic, modern assumptions about textuality and authorship imposed on them. Quite a few people in text crit. and medieval studies have made the argument I've summarized in the previous paragraph. I don't know if anyone has linked it with other recent studies in the cultural history of print, literacy, and reading practices. Making that sort of link explicit would be interesting, because it would show how modern textual criticism and New Criticism (indeed any interpretive system that grounds meaning in the text itself) is highly inflected by assumptions derived from Protestantism and print culture. When these assumptions go into textual crit. and exegetical practices that are applied to classical, medieval, and biblical texts, considerable distortions occur as the texts are forced into an ontological status that they never had. Prior to the 16th century, meaning was seen to inhere in a transcendent ground (the verba) mediated by a very open, changing, changeable physical text (the res). Luther's literal exegesis and the New Critical notion of a "verbal icon," however, represents a hypostasizing of the verba in the res. In both cases the intended effect is the same: anyone can read the text; there is no necessity to learn its history, nor is there any need to be initiated into a historical tradition/community of readers and interpretations that your own reading must take into account. -Dan From: Cobelli@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 7:42 PM To: Milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: critical mythologies A New Critic can start with the text and discover context in the text, such as, an obvious example, Biblical and mythological allusions. A text does not exist in a vacuum, of course, but then you can't force a context or an ideology on a text if there isn't any material in the text to support such context or ideology. Scott Grunow, old-fashioned New Critic Editor-in-Chief Office of Publications Services University of Illinois at Chicago scottgr@uic.edu From: huttar [huttar@hope.edu] Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 11:48 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Spells of bad weather (slightly off-topic) Someone recently asked about records of an especially severe winter in the (I think it was) early 17th century. I can't help on that, but there has also been conversation on the Tolkien-L list about cataclysmic events and their effects (the Seattle earthquake was what started off that thread). The following eye-witness description of the winter of 1816 may be of interest; and after that I will append a brief reference from another Tolkien-L correspondent concerning the "Little Ice Age" (earlier however than the period being asked about here). Just for fun. Chuck Huttar ---- Forwarded Message ----- From: Lalaith To: tolkien Subject: RE: Cataclismic events in ME and the Earth, was Re: (off) Seattle Halstar@aol.com schrieb: > > What is the Tambora explosion? An eruption of the volcano Tambora in Indonesia. The mountain spit so much debris into the higher atmosphere that for months it caused a significant drop of the average global temperature all over the northern hemisphere, hence the "year without summer". Here is a live report from my ancestor, Johann Philipp Benack, authorized translation by myself: "The year 1816 deserves to be especially recorded and remembered. It was even worse than a year of war because of the severe weather and cost increase. Winter took off already in the year 1815, end of the month October, when already the first snow fell, and frost and snow continued till April 1816 when only in mid of April it was possible to go into the field and till it with summer vegetables, which could only happen with many hardships due to the always stormy conditions; for the entire spring was cold and devastating. Fruit trees of any kind displayed themselves rich of fertility and blossoms; but because of the persistent cold no blossom could properly sprout. And so everything was doomed to freeze so that neither apples nor peaches could be seen or preserved in our area [Kronberg, Germany]. June 22nd, there came again rainy days lasting unceasingly into the month of August. The tilled summer vegetables grew beautifully, the potatoes were very big but could not be harvested due to the tremendous humidity ... at St. Johns Day it was proper time to cut the grass but this could only happen end of July when a few bright days came [other sources confirm that July alone counted 24 days of rain. Lalaith] ... but immediately more rainy days came in so that only a few dry straw could be taken home, much almost decayed right away. Even when some pretty summer days came this lasted only 3 or four days, then rainy weather returned. ... Fruits became more expensive day by day, bread increased ... There was sorrow, pain and misery all around, far and wide, especially among the poor who sometimes were forced to go to sleep together with their children halfly fed or not fed at all. ... Many regions were much infected by floodings so that all the field fruits drowned and decayed and could not get preserved, on many fields hailstorms destroyed and damaged the fruits. Storms and winds caused much misery in many regions so that entire trees were pulled out of the ground, houses were unroofed, men and animals killed or wounded. No wonder that all nutrition had become expensive. One region had to support the other ." Sounds much like the Fell Winter, doesn't it? -- Lalaith AND THE SECOND TOLKIEN-L MESSAGE: this kind of misery was very common in early 14th. century. By that time what is called the little Ice Age started with similar consequences: failing of crops and famine. When the Black Death came in 1358, found a weakened population. The Little Ice Age also caused the Viking colonizers to abandon Greenland. From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 3:32 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Rilke Query This may not be the best place to ask, but it's a start... does anyone know of a good, active Rilke listserve? I've gone to some of the obvious list searches and no luck so far... Jim From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 12:43 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: New Critical Mythologies You know, the Milton quote you selected really stood out to me, too. I read that part of the Areopagitica as proceeding from Milton's intellectual alliance with the Greek tradition that affirms: "reason is what humanity has in common with the gods " -- see the Discourses of Epictetus. So Milton's argument at this point seems to be that books, being an extract from the "living intellect" that bred them, are necessarily representative of the best parts of the best persons. I realize I'm ignoring his discussion of "bad" books as well. It's not hard to fit a "bad" book into the argument of the Areopagitica -- in reading it we exercise our reason to find out what's "bad" about it -- so it provokes a useful exercise. I just don't recall how I worked out what exactly a "bad" book was given his description of what a "good" book is. Milton almost seems to prefer any book to any live person standing in front of him, to be honest. >From this point of view books are necessarily transhistorical as well, reason being what we ALL have in common with the gods (God). . . Needless to say, a post-structuralist can't do anything with such an essentialist, "oudated" assertion. I think that's the place to look for the difference between post structuralist and earlier approaches to texts. The best example I can think of is criticism of Shelley's Promethus Unbound over the past 40 years or so. Until the 60s, or later, criticism was largely enamored of the philosophical implications of Shelley's drama (not without good reason). But as time has gone on political readings are becoming more and more prevalent. I think this is reflective of our shift in paradigms -- I think the primary contextualization of our interpretive strategies had been philosophy and intellectual history, while the current contextualization is a specific theory of history. I think the obvious next step would be to reclaim philosophy and theology as a part of European history, but there will be resistance to this, because the tendency would be to level real differences between people of slightly different cultures and times through a philosophical/theological framework imposed upon them all. What we need to develop are readings, then, that are sensitive to the different nuances an idea may have across time and culture. A good example of failing to do this would be my appeal to Epictetus and the idea that reason is what humanity has in common with the gods just above. I referenced the idea without talking about how Milton appropriated this long tradition in western thought, and how it may be different in his hands than in Epictetus' hands, or in the hands of one of his own contemporaries. I think that would make for an interesting discussion... Jim > "For books are not absolutely dead things, but do contain a potency of life > in them to be as active as that soul was whose progeny they are; nay, the > do preserve as in a vial the purest efficacy and extraction of that living > intellect that bred them." > > Bracketing for a moment the political context in which those words appear, > consider them as a proposition about textuality. Is there a place, today, > to include such a proposition among the many others we entertain? > > Writing as someone who was once publicly derided for offering a theological > argument at an MLA Milton Society session--and, I should add, accused of > scholarly irresponsibility in "limiting my research," although afterward > the respondent could not offer me any more sources for my bibliography > besides saying "I assume you've read the Civil War pamphlets"--my biggest > concern with the many post-structural traditions, some of which I work > within, is not so much with what they propose as with what they exclude, > often without argument. > > From: John Leonard [jleonard@uwo.ca] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 5:01 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: New Critical Mythologies >For example, Richards and Eliot are often cited as examples of New >Criticism. As an earlier post pointed out, Richards isn't properly a New >Critic. The term "New Critic" derived from a book entitled _The New >Criticism_ which came out in 1941, I believe. The author of this book, >along with Wimsatt and Beardsley, are the real inheritors of the title "New >Critic." > Another "New-Critic-who-was-not-one" is William Empson. Empson was avowedly an intentionalist--not in the simplistic sense of thinking that everything was intended, but in the richer sense of wanting to know (in his own words, somewhere) "what is going on inside a poet's head." This, for Empson, includes *unconscious* intention, which of course is exactly where arguments about intention get interesting. j.l. From: Orpheus [cwduff@alcor.concordia.ca] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 2:24 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Cc: deleuze-guattari@lists.village.virginia.edu Subject: WW/JM think it wld. be intertstin' t'compare&contrast these two big poets Wordsworth whose words were worth and Milton's whose were deterritorialized againstthe pop speak of his day; his latined ringing english. with WW baaack to speech policy From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 1:00 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Theory, Practice, and Milton In a message dated 03/09/2001 7:50:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, fallon.1@nd.edu writes: > , it can also (probably > because of the kind of reading in isolation that Jim laments) lead > students, in my limited observation, to miss the text in the rush to have > it exemplify what the theory predicts it will exemplify. I have > unfortunately seen students after an immersion in theory move from agile > and perceptive readers of complex texts to programmatic and predictable > readers. (Of course I realize that an overreliance on, e.g., a limited > background in intellectual history can also lead to programmatic readings.) > Thanks for that post, Steve. Rushing to make the text "exemplify what the theory predicts" seems to be the biggest problem with virtually every theoretical approach imaginable -- Psychoanalytic approaches (even the later varieties -- Lacan, Kristeva, and Kleinian readings) postmodern, and post-structuralist approaches especially seem to exhibit this fault. Marxist readings can be this way, but feminist readings are getting increasingly more sophisticated as feminism itself splinters in varying outlooks. To me, the real value of theory is the question, "Ok, what exactly are we doing when we just read a text?" Theory doesn't necessarily answer this question, but simply poses it over and over and over again a number of different ways. Once we've learned to wrestle with words, we have to ask ourselves, "What exactly are these words here?" Reading it in isolation brings it into our history, contextualizes it now. When it was written, it was written in another history, another context. When we read it in isolation, we read a different text than the text it was when written. So I think the practice of having students read cold is a good place to start, but not necessarily a good place to stay once we start asking how we go about generating meaning from texts. I suspect you're right about Derrida in philosophical circles, by the way. I'm currently taking a Philosophy of Nature course taught my Robert Corrington (just published A Semiotic Theory of Philosophy and Theology by Cambridge Univ Press) who affirmed during class last week that, "Derrida spent a lot of time spinning his wheels." After asserting that he wasn't saying this because he was a "fuddy-duddy," but was offering a thoughtful opinion based upon his own reading, he seemed to imply that Derrida's later work may be more valuable than his earlier work. My comments about Derrida weren't so much advocacy of the guy's work (I think he needs to be dealt with if we're going to be intellectually honest in our methodology, though), but a desire to see a real education happen. That basically means understanding ideas before you teach them... Otherwise, I have to agree with your depiction of the academy and how different disciplines handle their material. Jim From: Orpheus [cwduff@alcor.concordia.ca] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 2:28 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton and the weather This is very interesting. In Orlando Virginia Woolf brings up this point and connets it to the transformation and gendering changes which take place to and in Orlando himself herself. Phillip K. Dick the American science fiction also makes quite an interesting aside reference to this matter in one his novels; I am sorry but I don't recall which novel it was; but since i've only Read one ofthem, I shld. be able to find out..; global colding is what happened then; the temperate clime of 'merry ole' englande became the brooding melancholy prone temp of the post Shakespearian era; 'Stormy weather.....' On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, John Hale wrote: > Has anyone noticed references in Milton himself or among his correspondents > and associates to the English weather - not as being its *usual* beastly > cold / dark / wet self, but as being even *worse than usual.* I've been > reading a book on climate-change over recorded-history time, from which I > learn that 1550-1680 was *unusually cold on several mainlands and certainly > in western Europe. It is known as the "Little Ice-Age," because during it > the glaciers expanded once more. I am keen to hear whether Milton or > people he knew had any sense of the longer-term weather patterns, and > especially whether Milton knew people who were systematically recording > temperatures and so forth. Is this an activity of Hartlib's network? > John Hale > From: Burbery, Timothy [burbery@MARSHALL.EDU] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 10:08 AM To: 'milton-l@richmond.edu' Subject: Query: Cromwell and Freud Dear List: I read somewhere - can't remember where - that Cromwell was Freud's hero. Is this true? If so, does anyone know why? I suspect it had something to do with the fact that Cromwell let Jews back into England, but I'm not sure. Thanks, Tim Burbery Marshall University -----Original Message----- From: AntiUtopia@aol.com [mailto:AntiUtopia@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 1:21 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: New Critical Mythologies In a message dated Thu, 8 Mar 2001 7:36:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, Dan Knauss writes: << Timothy--Yes, New Criticism is pretty traditional in seeing the results of sound rhetorical/formal exegesis as indicative of authorial intention.>> I'll have to disagree with you there. I think there's some confusion -- a confusion propogated by contemporary critical theory discourse -- about who and what the New Critics are. For example, Richards and Eliot are often cited as examples of New Criticism. As an earlier post pointed out, Richards isn't properly a New Critic. The term "New Critic" derived from a book entitled _The New Criticism_ which came out in 1941, I believe. The author of this book, along with Wimsatt and Beardsley, are the real inheritors of the title "New Critic." It's been applied to others retroactively, but I think this is inaccurate. See, I agree that Eliot and Richards may have defined textual meaning, ultimately, in relationship to the author's intent (the conclusion of Eliot's essay on Hamlet certainly implies this), but the association of authorial intent with textual meaning is Exactly what guys like Wimsatt and Beardsley were against. I actually had a nice undergrad Critical Theory course that maintained these nice distinctions in the early 1990s, and called criticism prior to the 1940s as largely being "Old Historicism," saying it followed methodologies similar to those of the New Critics but defined meaning in terms of authorial intent, etc. The label New Criticism was specifically applied to the authors mentioned above. I think the separation of textual meaning from authorial intent was a good move -- intent is only communicated via text on any level (until we learn telepathy :) ), so textual meaning always boils down to working with a text -- words on a page. But I don't think this move was made with any degree of clarity or deliberation until sometime in the 1940s. Jim From: James Dougal Fleming [jdf26@columbia.edu] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 11:32 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Footnotes to previous discussions But isn't Milton basing his arguments, here as elsewhere, on Scripture -- which is to say, precisely _not_ on some non-textual "inner light"? After all, "the essence of the scriptures is plainness and brightness; the darkness and croookedness is our own." JD Fleming On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Carol Barton wrote: > Two things that may be of interest, in terms of the injudiciousness of > trying to affix a permanent label to any sectarian in our period (let alone > Milton himself), and a very useful passage from _Bucer_ on Milton and the > concept of "inner light": > > 1. In _Reason of Church Government (1.6)_, Milton himself says "For the word > Puritan seems to be quashed, and all that heretofore were counted such, are > now Brownists." A little later in the same section, ("as for those terrible > names of sectaries and schismatics . . ."), he refers the prelates to God's > "best disciples in the reformation, as at first by those of your tribe they > were called Lollards and Hussites, so now by you be termed Puritans and > Brownists . . ." > > 2. From _The Judgment of Martin Bucer_: > Certainly if it be in man's discerning to sever providence from chance, I > could allege many instances wherein there would appear cause to esteem of me > no other than a passive instrument under some power and counsel higher and > better than can be human, working to a general good in the whole course of > this matter. For that I owe no light or leading received from any man in the > discovery of this truth, what time I first undertook it in "the Doctrine and > Discipline of Divorce," and had only the infallible grounds of scripture to > be my guide. He who tries the inmost heart and saw with what severe industry > and examination of myself I set down every period will be my witness . . . > for God it seems intended to prove me, whether I durst alone [and > Abdiel-like] take up a rightful cause against a world of disesteem, and > found I durst . . . . > > > (And thank you, Norm, for the kind words.) > > Best to all, > > Carol Barton > From: Sharon Achinstein [sa147@umail.umd.edu] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 9:21 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Cc: sa147@umail.umd.edu Subject: INTERNATIONAL MILTON SYMPOSIUM: CALL FOR PAPERS Call for Proposals Seventh International Milton Symposium Beaufort, SC USA 4-8 June 2002 Featuring a Performance of MiltonÕs Masque. Plenaries to be offered by Thomas Corns, John Hale, Victoria Kahn, Neil Keeble, David Norbrook, Annabel Patterson, Joseph Wittreich CALL FOR PROPOSALS Proposals are invited for twenty-minute papers to be delivered at the Seventh International Milton Symposium, in Beaufort, South Carolina, USA, 4-8 June 2002. The Symposium will feature new work in the field of Milton scholarship and seventeenth-century studies, inviting literary, religious, historical, and political approaches. Sessions might include the following topics: The Dramatic and Lyric Milton; MiltonÕs Sonnets; Milton and National Memory; MiltonÕs Reformations; Religious Conflict in mid-century England; Milton and others; Women readers and Milton; Radicalism in early modern Britain; Milton and his printers; Milton and post-colonialism; 350 years of MiltonÕs Blindness; Milton and the Visual Arts; The Early Modern Milton; The CommonwealthÕs Dutch Wars; Milton the European; Manuscript Milton; Milton after the New Historicism; Milton and the e-text; Milton and the Presbyterians; Milton and the Whig tradition; Milton and America; Milton and sexuality; Milton and education; Milton and Dissent; Milton and Heresy; Milton and Toleration; Milton and Textuality; Radical Readers; MiltonÕs Bones. Proposals on topics other than those listed above are encouraged. Complete panel session proposals are also welcome. Graduate student proposals are invited. Deadline for proposals: 30 June 2001. Proposals should take the form of an abstract no longer than a single-space page, about 500 words, in length. Please submit three (3) copies of abstracts to: Sharon Achinstein, Department of English, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 USA. ---------------------- Sharon Achinstein Associate Professor Department of English University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 USA (301) 405-3809 sa147@umail.umd.edu From: Jameela Lares [jlares@ocean.otr.usm.edu] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 9:55 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton and the weather Might the unusual climactic change be implied in "an age too late"? Jameela Lares Associate Professor of English University of Southern Mississippi Hattiesburg, MS 39406-5037 +(601) 266-6214 ofc +(601) 266-5757 fax On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, John Hale wrote: > Has anyone noticed references in Milton himself or among his correspondents > and associates to the English weather - not as being its *usual* beastly > cold / dark / wet self, but as being even *worse than usual.* I've been > reading a book on climate-change over recorded-history time, from which I > learn that 1550-1680 was *unusually cold on several mainlands and certainly > in western Europe. It is known as the "Little Ice-Age," because during it > the glaciers expanded once more. I am keen to hear whether Milton or > people he knew had any sense of the longer-term weather patterns, and > especially whether Milton knew people who were systematically recording > temperatures and so forth. Is this an activity of Hartlib's network? > John Hale > From: McLoone, George H. [gmcloone@nv.cc.va.us] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 12:37 PM To: 'milton-l@richmond.edu' Subject: Transatlantic Puritans Margaret Thickstun's post of Feb. 27 on the significance of New England divines has put me in mind of Milton's first Cambridge tutor, William Chappell, who recommended them as reading for divinity students. In his Art of Preaching (1656), Chappell lists works by Thomas Shepard, Thomas Hooker and John Cotton under the heading, "On True Conversion." These famous New Englanders are the only authors he lists under the conversion heading, although his bibliography as a whole ("A Nomenclator of sundry Tracts, . . .")is dominated by English authors. (Both Perry Miller in The New England Mind and Daniel Shea in Spiritual Autobiography in Early America mention Chappell in this regard.) Milton could have known Thomas Shepard as well at Cambridge, whose attendance at Emmanuel partly coincided with Milton's years at Christ's. Shepard surely knew Stephen Basset, who was at Christ's with Milton, and in his autobiography cites Basset by name. The context is one of backsliding, drunkenness, and such "beastly carriage" as to rival that of future American schools. George McLoone From: Tmsandefur@aol.com Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 9:30 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: New Critical Mythologies I.A. Richards has naturally been mentioned in this connection. I'm working on a long term project which involves Richards tangentially. Does anyone know of any articles or books with good BIOGRAPHICAL information about Richards? Timothy Sandefur From: Roy Flannagan [roy@gwm.sc.edu] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 9:23 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Other teasers: what, exactly, was the Good Old Cause, and, duh, what's a Puritan Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu I am also interested, after Carol Barton's last post, to know exactly what Milton would have meant by "Puritan," since we people trying to write about Milton in the Seventies and Eighties, even, were told not to use the word to apply to him, perhaps because "Puritan" took on such negative overtones after Arthur Miller got done with New England preachers and witches and Hugh Hefner raked American sexual puritanism over so many coals. And I am not sure what we mean when we talk about the Good Old Cause, after the Restoration. Is Milton actually waxing sentimental about the good old days of a military oligarchy (as in "Mussolini made the trains run on time")? Roy Flannagan