From: Dr. Carol Barton [cbartonphd@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 10:44 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton and Galileo John and John (and all of the others of that name in this club!)-- Far be it from me to call Milton a liar -- but I think that, like every other author, he was capable of taking "poetic license" with the truth. We know, for example, that he was aware that Morus was NOT the author of the _Cry of the Royal Blood_ -- but he was of that faction, and an easier (more convenient) target than Du Moulin, and Milton took his advantage where he saw it. A lie? Not exactly . . . but not the truth, either. I would think that, if Milton had actually met Galileo, he would have left us a more coherent record of the event than the single sentence I cited. Of course, he also refers to the Optick Glass (that Galileo did NOT invent)--but almost anyone of his era could have done that. I am away from my books, but in 1Def, I believe, he catalogues the great Italians he has met on his journey: Galileo is conspicuous by his absence. Milton is a poet, not an historian . . . he takes liberties, and shapes truth to his own ends sometimes, especially when he is discussing biography (look how long it takes him to "rush home" from the continent when he hears about the troubles at home). Absent any clear evidence to the contrary, I am willing to accept his assertion about Galileo . . . a little skeptically. But I certainly would not promulgate it as fact in a physics paper (that's how rumors become "truth"). I am dealing with a series of similar "untruths" that are not exactly lies in a paper being submitted to Milton Studies. The point is not that the statements are "lies" per se -- but they are misapprehensions of the sort that occur in the game "telephone," and the more they are repeated, the more they are accepted as "truth" by those who don't know the facts. I have seen and photographed a statue that "doesn't exist," inscribed with a line no one knows is there -- because every scholar who cites it cites the first scholar who reported its existence (without crediting him)-- but the geneology is clear, because he omits it. I think the Galileo story may be just a little bit of self-generated apocrypha, too. Best to all, Carol Barton ------Original Message------ From: John Rumrich To: milton-l@richmond.edu Sent: October 5, 2000 1:39:36 PM GMT Subject: Re: Milton and Galileo I'm not trying to start anything, really, least of all with Roy or Carol. But this helpful exchange makes me wonder just what we would accept as "fact." Milton says he visited Galileo (who was not yet in 1645 the almost mythological figure that he has become). Do we have evidence of Milton publishing assertions about himself that are deliberate, outright lies? Why are we skeptical about his visit to Galileo? My question in part concerns the rules of evidence. What sort of testimony regarding a meeting in 1637 would be so reliable as to let us call the meeting a "fact." I ask this in part because I see the same phenomenon in the authorship controversy re De doctrina. The statistical analysts confirm that the style of the prefatory epistle is Milton's. The epistle describes the "authorial genesis" of the treatise in considerable detail, and the author the epistle calls the treatise "his dearest and best possession"--the product of a lifetime of painstaking labor. Yet the stylometricians and the rest of the committee investigating the provenance ignore this testimony. Again, it seems that Milton himself has been ruled out as a reliable witness regarding his own doings and indeed is considered to be so unreliable as to be the perpetrator of gross and complicated fabrications. I realize that Milton was not absolutely opposed to lying, especially under certain compelling circumstances (eg in war or to deceive the enemies of God and true religion). But he was no Falstaff. What circumstances in the case of Galileo or of De doctrina would have warranted his lies? Why should we suspect his veracity? John Rumrich >Your recollection is correct, Alice. No one has ever been able to prove >Milton's assertion in _Areopagitica_ ("There it was that I found and visited >the famous Galileo . . ."), in the paragraph that begins "And lest some >should persuade ye, Lords and Commons . . . ." > >Of course (to my knowledge), no one has disproved it, either. But it >certainly shouldn't be stated as "fact" until and and unless someone does. >(You can find the statement on p.737 of the Hughes 1957 edition.) > >Best, > >Carol Barton > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Alice Mathews ENGL, 2050" >To: >Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 9:33 AM >Subject: Milton and Galileo > > > > I'm reviewing an article for a colleague on the editorial board of a > > physics journal. The writer of the article states as a fact, "Milton > > visited Galileo in the late summer of 1638 ." > > > > I seem to recall some difference of opinion about whether Milton > > and Galileo actually met. Can anyone advise me of the current > > thinking on this matter? > > > > Regards, > > Alice Mathews > > Alice Mathews > > Assistant Chair Internet:Mathews@unt.edu > > Department of English Pegasus:cas/mathews > > University of North Texas Telephone: 940-565-2850 > > P.O. Box 311307 FAX: 940-565-4355 > > Denton, TX 76203 > > > > From: Jameela Lares [jlares@ocean.otr.usm.edu] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 9:08 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton and Galileo The problem that originated this thread was the author of a forthcoming work needing to maintain a scholarly _ethos_. This could be done by simply emending the statement, "Milton met Galileo . . ." to "Milton reported that he met Galileo . . . " This emendation would, I think, indicate that the scholar writing the work was savvy enough to know that the visit had been questioned but put the burden of proof on the nay-sayers. Jameela Lares Associate Professor of English University of Southern Mississippi Hattiesburg, MS 39406-5037 +(601) 266-4319 ofc message +(626) 577-5810 home/fax (sabbatical) From: tristan saldana [hbeng175@csun.edu] Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2000 1:16 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton and Galileo I want to believe Milton first of all. I must thank the list for provoking this discussion of Milton's "meeting" with Galileo, particularly because it has raised the question of what constitutes evidence in literary study (a subject that I have always found terribly interesting!). Upon rereading Milton's Galileo-account I have decided that it seems rather cursory, and I am very curious about this cursoriness with which Milton all but dismisses the "Tuscan artist." For someone who must of undoubtedly been so important to Milton, I would think that he would have had more of an impression of him to share, though not necessarily in the rhetorical arena of Areopagitica but to recount in some other text what he learned from the "prisner." If only he had recounted a single conversation that they had had or even a word that Galileo had told him. Because I believe that Milton did "find" and "visit" Galileo, but because I am also unsatisfied with Milton's account, I would like to introduced another possibility: that Milton did "meet" Galileo, but that he may not have spoken with him. They may have only exchanged greetings or glances and nothing more. Imagine what Milton and Galileo might have said to each other, if they had spoken, that Milton chose never to recount it? But for the time being, let us believe Milton. Tristan Saldana From: Cynthia A. Gilliatt [gilliaca@jmu.edu] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 8:44 AM To: Milton-l list Cc: Milton-l list Subject: Re: Milton and Galileo I would agree that, lacking either contradictory and equally compelling assertions to the contrary, lacking logical or chronological contradictions, we should take Milton and others who predate our world of electronic and paper trails at their word about these kinds of things. Or, we could access JM's Visa and American Express bills .... TGIF! Cynthia -- 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: Mario A. DiCesare [dicesare@interpath.com] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 9:58 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Recordings of Paradise Lost Dear Colleagues, As Norm Burns promised many weeks ago, here is my report on two recorded readings of Paradise Lost. (It took a long time to get the unabridged version.) First, a disclosure: I listened to these readings not long after listening (yet once more) to Derek Jacobi's reading of a long passage from Robert Fagles' translation of the Iliad, for possible use in a course. So I am perhaps not being completely fair by comparing small things with great. The two versions: (1) Blackstone Audiobooks, unabridged, seven cassettes 10.5 hours, $49.95 at Amazon; (2) Naxos Audiobooks, abridged, three CDs, 4 hours, $17.00 at Amazon; this one rounds up the usual suspects -- Books 1 and 2 (almost complete), most of Book 4, Book 9, half of Book 10, Book 12: 553-end. Very brief bridge summaries. Readers: Frederick Davidson, unabridged. Anton Lesser, abridged version, Laura Paton as Eve. Davidson is unknown to me; according to the blurb, Anton Lesser is an accomplished actor, both classic and modern, including Petruchio, Romeo, and Richard III for the RSC. The CD / abridged version has one great practical virtue: Tracks are clearly identified (there are 47), so that one can readily find particular passages. The accompanying booklet provides the texts read, in minuscule print. My Blackstone box lacked an accompanying booklet, but the box may have been a slightly deficient return. The cassettes lack information on contents; I inserted the second cassette in my tape player; the reader announces ``Cassette Two, Side One'' (the same, and only, information available on the cassette label), and then plunges back *in medias res*. The assumption seems to be that one will simply listen to these 7 cassettes straight through for 10.5 hours. Don't. It's not the same as participating in one of the public readings that are happily becoming popular. As we drove the half-hour or so from our home to Asheville, that little jewel of a city cheerily set in the Blue Ridge mountains (our slogan is Altitude Affects Attitude), my attention wandered occasionally during Cassette Two, Side One; halfway through, I turned it over to Cassette Two, Side Two, figured out where the reader was, managed to listen carefully to anaother hundred lines or so, and decided this was a good but hardly compelling reading. Davidson's clear, precise, sometimes hurried, usually strong, sometimes harsh reading of line after line after line after line too easily faded from my hearing. Besides his clarity and the strength of his voice, Davidson's reading has a special virtue in his respect for the verse line, a problem which defeats one easily in reading Milton's verse variously drawn out. However, on the whole his reading lacks range, variation, and clean measure. It's not a lackluster reading by any means -- he has energy or at least force (and volume) -- but too often it seemed to me largely neutral. While Davidson's is a workmanlike performance, I liked Anton Lesser's reading a good deal better. It is, unfortunately, limited to an abridged text. The decision to have a woman read Eve's lines seemed to me right. While Lesser does not pay as much attention to the verse line as I would like, letting sense draw him over the metrical boundaries too smoothly, he nonetheless does capture the Miltonic rhythm. In his reading, he varies pace, tone, volume, and feeling; there were times when he drew me fully into the action or the conversation. Admittedly, neither quite measures up to Jacobi reading of the Iliad (or the very little I've heard so far of Ian McKellen reading Fagles' translation of the Odyssey), but both clearly have virtues; indeed, what reader could measure up to these giants? Davidson's is complete -- its major recommendation. Lesser's is eminently listenable and sometimes deeply moving. While I prefer Lesser's reading, I think students would benefit from either. Abridgement, as in survey course anthologies, inevitably skews the poem, but that need not be the effect of listening to a substantial portion of text. Rather, given the realities of Miltonic composition of the epic, it's important to experience the oral character of this poem as well as its on-the-page existence, and Lesser's version will help accomplish that. It might even complement or supplement the kind of public reading of the whole poem becoming more common these days -- a cheering phenomenon which is surely one of the happiest benefits of the Milton List. Mario A. Di Cesare From: John Rumrich [rumrich@mail.utexas.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 9:40 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton and Galileo I'm not trying to start anything, really, least of all with Roy or Carol. But this helpful exchange makes me wonder just what we would accept as "fact." Milton says he visited Galileo (who was not yet in 1645 the almost mythological figure that he has become). Do we have evidence of Milton publishing assertions about himself that are deliberate, outright lies? Why are we skeptical about his visit to Galileo? My question in part concerns the rules of evidence. What sort of testimony regarding a meeting in 1637 would be so reliable as to let us call the meeting a "fact." I ask this in part because I see the same phenomenon in the authorship controversy re De doctrina. The statistical analysts confirm that the style of the prefatory epistle is Milton's. The epistle describes the "authorial genesis" of the treatise in considerable detail, and the author the epistle calls the treatise "his dearest and best possession"--the product of a lifetime of painstaking labor. Yet the stylometricians and the rest of the committee investigating the provenance ignore this testimony. Again, it seems that Milton himself has been ruled out as a reliable witness regarding his own doings and indeed is considered to be so unreliable as to be the perpetrator of gross and complicated fabrications. I realize that Milton was not absolutely opposed to lying, especially under certain compelling circumstances (eg in war or to deceive the enemies of God and true religion). But he was no Falstaff. What circumstances in the case of Galileo or of De doctrina would have warranted his lies? Why should we suspect his veracity? John Rumrich >Your recollection is correct, Alice. No one has ever been able to prove >Milton's assertion in _Areopagitica_ ("There it was that I found and visited >the famous Galileo . . ."), in the paragraph that begins "And lest some >should persuade ye, Lords and Commons . . . ." > >Of course (to my knowledge), no one has disproved it, either. But it >certainly shouldn't be stated as "fact" until and and unless someone does. >(You can find the statement on p.737 of the Hughes 1957 edition.) > >Best, > >Carol Barton > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Alice Mathews ENGL, 2050" >To: >Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 9:33 AM >Subject: Milton and Galileo > > > > I'm reviewing an article for a colleague on the editorial board of a > > physics journal. The writer of the article states as a fact, "Milton > > visited Galileo in the late summer of 1638 ." > > > > I seem to recall some difference of opinion about whether Milton > > and Galileo actually met. Can anyone advise me of the current > > thinking on this matter? > > > > Regards, > > Alice Mathews > > Alice Mathews > > Assistant Chair Internet:Mathews@unt.edu > > Department of English Pegasus:cas/mathews > > University of North Texas Telephone: 940-565-2850 > > P.O. Box 311307 FAX: 940-565-4355 > > Denton, TX 76203 > > > > From: John Hale [john.hale@stonebow.otago.ac.nz] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 5:09 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton and Galileo If we are to doubt, I mean seriously doubt, that Milton met Galileo although he says he did, how many more statements which derive from a solitary say-so of Milton's will we have to doubt too? I can't see the point of such scepticism, which after all is making Milton out a liar; and it seems particularly unreasonable to apply such a scepticism only selectively. What do other people think, though, about the general point rather than the Galileo thing which began the discussion? JKH From: Sheila Rebecca Sander [sheila@hum.ku.dk] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 8:53 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Sv: Milton and Galileo In _Areopagitica_ Milton refers to his visit to Italy and says: 'There it was that I found and visited the famous Galileo, grown old, a prisoner to the Inquisition, for thinking in astronomy otherwise that the Franciscan and Dominican licensers thought'. (Since I haven't got my copy of _Areopagitica_ with me here, I am citing from The Norton Critical Edition of _Paradise Lost_; Scott Elledge, ed. 1993, page 386). Regards, Sheila Rebecca Sander Ph.D. student, University of Copenhagen ----- Original Message ----- From: Alice Mathews ENGL, 2050 To: Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 3:33 PM Subject: Milton and Galileo > I'm reviewing an article for a colleague on the editorial board of a > physics journal. The writer of the article states as a fact, "Milton > visited Galileo in the late summer of 1638 ." > > I seem to recall some difference of opinion about whether Milton > and Galileo actually met. Can anyone advise me of the current > thinking on this matter? > > Regards, > Alice Mathews > Alice Mathews > Assistant Chair Internet:Mathews@unt.edu > Department of English Pegasus:cas/mathews > University of North Texas Telephone: 940-565-2850 > P.O. Box 311307 FAX: 940-565-4355 > Denton, TX 76203 From: Carol Barton, PhD [cbartonphd@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 3:28 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton and Galileo Your recollection is correct, Alice. No one has ever been able to prove Milton's assertion in _Areopagitica_ ("There it was that I found and visited the famous Galileo . . ."), in the paragraph that begins "And lest some should persuade ye, Lords and Commons . . . ." Of course (to my knowledge), no one has disproved it, either. But it certainly shouldn't be stated as "fact" until and and unless someone does. (You can find the statement on p.737 of the Hughes 1957 edition.) Best, Carol Barton ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alice Mathews ENGL, 2050" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 9:33 AM Subject: Milton and Galileo > I'm reviewing an article for a colleague on the editorial board of a > physics journal. The writer of the article states as a fact, "Milton > visited Galileo in the late summer of 1638 ." > > I seem to recall some difference of opinion about whether Milton > and Galileo actually met. Can anyone advise me of the current > thinking on this matter? > > Regards, > Alice Mathews > Alice Mathews > Assistant Chair Internet:Mathews@unt.edu > Department of English Pegasus:cas/mathews > University of North Texas Telephone: 940-565-2850 > P.O. Box 311307 FAX: 940-565-4355 > Denton, TX 76203 > > From: Roy Flannagan [roy@gwm.sc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 9:38 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton and Galileo If we are to believe Milton in Areopagitica, he did indeed visit Galileo, but for the debated question, see Mario Di Cesare's Milton and Italy 1991 volume, specifically articles by Edward Chaney and Neil Harris. When Milton describes the "less assured" glass of Galileo in PL, he does seem to be speaking from first-hand observation, but we have only his testimony to prove that he met Galileo in 1638. Roy Flannagan >>> mathews@unt.edu 10/04/00 06:58 AM >>> I'm reviewing an article for a colleague on the editorial board of a physics journal. The writer of the article states as a fact, "Milton visited Galileo in the late summer of 1638 ." I seem to recall some difference of opinion about whether Milton and Galileo actually met. Can anyone advise me of the current thinking on this matter? Regards, Alice Mathews Alice Mathews Assistant Chair Internet:Mathews@unt.edu Department of English Pegasus:cas/mathews University of North Texas Telephone: 940-565-2850 P.O. Box 311307 FAX: 940-565-4355 Denton, TX 76203 From: Juliet Cummins [juliet.cummins@pgrad.arts.usyd.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 8:13 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: RE: Milton and Galileo Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu There is a chapter in "Milton and Italy" which argues that Milton did visit Galileo and that the speculation about the visit is unfounded, but I can't remember which one. I can, however, give you (rather a lot of) references on the subject: Gilbert, Allan H. "Milton and Galileo." Studies in Philology 19 (1922): 152-85. Nicolson, Marjorie Hope. "Milton and the Telescope." ELH 2 (1935): 1-32. Harris, Neil. "Galileo as Symbol: The 'Tuscan Artist' in Paradise Lost." Annali dell'Instituto e Museo di Storia della Scienza Firenze 10 (1985): 3-29. Walker, Julia M. "Milton and Galileo: The Art of Intellectual Canonization." Milton Studies 25. Ed. James D. Simmonds. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 1989. 109-23. Herz, Judith Scherer. "'For whom this glorious sight?': Dante, Milton and the Galileo Question" in Mario A. Di Cesare, (ed.). Milton in Italy: Contexts, Images, Contradictions. Binghampton: Medieval & Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1991. 147-57. Friedman, Donald. "Galileo and the Art of Seeing." Di Cesare 159-74. Boesky, Amy. "Milton, Galileo, and Sunspots: Optics and Certainty in Paradise Lost." Milton Studies 34. Ed. Albert C. Labriola. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 1996. 23-43. Hope this helps. Juliet Cummins. -----Original Message----- From: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu [mailto:owner-milton-l@richmond.edu]On Behalf Of Alice Mathews ENGL, 2050 Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 11:34 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Milton and Galileo I'm reviewing an article for a colleague on the editorial board of a physics journal. The writer of the article states as a fact, "Milton visited Galileo in the late summer of 1638 ." I seem to recall some difference of opinion about whether Milton and Galileo actually met. Can anyone advise me of the current thinking on this matter? Regards, Alice Mathews Alice Mathews Assistant Chair Internet:Mathews@unt.edu Department of English Pegasus:cas/mathews University of North Texas Telephone: 940-565-2850 P.O. Box 311307 FAX: 940-565-4355 Denton, TX 76203 From: Alice Mathews ENGL, 2050 [mathews@unt.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 9:34 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Milton and Galileo I'm reviewing an article for a colleague on the editorial board of a physics journal. The writer of the article states as a fact, "Milton visited Galileo in the late summer of 1638 ." I seem to recall some difference of opinion about whether Milton and Galileo actually met. Can anyone advise me of the current thinking on this matter? Regards, Alice Mathews Alice Mathews Assistant Chair Internet:Mathews@unt.edu Department of English Pegasus:cas/mathews University of North Texas Telephone: 940-565-2850 P.O. Box 311307 FAX: 940-565-4355 Denton, TX 76203 From: Paula Loscocco [ploscocc@barnard.edu] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 12:18 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: caroline acrostic Thanks, Chris--I was almost certain I'd here from you. I am going right thru STC, starting may 1660, so should find these--this is JUST the moment I'd expect to see them, actually. Thanks so much! Best, Paula At 09:19 AM 9/28/2000 -0400, you wrote: >Paula, I know that there were some in May/June 1660, some of which engaged in >what I call a flexible acrostic akin to Jonson's masque in which he manipulated >the letters of James Stuart's name to form the letters "claimes Arthur's seat." >In the mean time yo umay want to check all the poems that came out in rapid >succession in 1660 which you would find in the Thomason Tracts or in Wing. >Chris Orchard > > >