Talk:John Milton/Archive 1

Introduction to the Article

The introduction is misleading. To mention Eliot twice, and Leavis once, two of Milton's staunchest antagonists in the 20th century, and then to flank these remarks with Johnson's disparagment is absurd. In a section that consider's Milton's legacy, this type of analysis would have been appropriate, if still quite misleading to Johnson's estimations and somewhat misleading to Eliot's more slippery, evolving opinions. The introduction currently reads as if the second greatest poet in our language should be approached via Eliot and the New Critics, picking up Johnson just as they do in the anti-Miltonist debates. These are interesting and deep considerations, that have only deepened historical condemnations of Milton, but they hardly account for a proper introduction. Imagine the Wikipedia article on Shakespeare beginning with two different hostile remarks by Shaw, or more formidably, the stern repugnance of Tolstoy's dismissal. Interesting, relevant? Yes. Appropriate for an introduction? No. Adam Fitzgerald (talk)

As a Milton scholar, I have to agree that the introduction is tendentious. It does not read like a neutral overview of Milton's significance. I'm sorry that I only have time to complain and not to fix it...and also that I don't know how to attach one of those flags questioning the neutrality of the article. But I hope some more enterprising Wikipedians will do so! --Caliginous (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was responsible for some of the original language in the introduction and I welcome these thoughtful if somewhat overzealous criticisms. As it currently stands, however, I think the intro gives a very misleading rundown of the reputation of Paradise Lost. Though I think reputation is essential (and that Eliot and Leavis were extremely important to Milton's modern reception), there should be more language about why Milton is so intrinsically great before a historical survey of his reputation. I realize this is tricky to do in a "value-neutral" Wikipedia article, but the Miltonist community is surely up the task! Esquilax8 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.1.100 (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Lost was not widely known until after his death and after the fall of the Puritan government. Not surprisingly, although some scholars created amended editions of his work, his attempt to "justify the ways of God to man" was seen as a curiosity during the Enlightenment, as Newton's influence spread and scientific knowledge increased. In the 19th century, the Romantic poets rejected the rhymed couplets of Pope, choosing Milton's blank verse, and clerically minded British scholars included his work in the study of English poetry. American scholars followed, and for over a hundred years, Milton was considered a major poet. T. S. Eliot and F. R. Leavis, in the early and mid 20th century, helped to clarify the extent to which Milton's narrow concern with reinventing Christian sacred works limited his vision in the long poems. The Christian polemicist C.S. Lewis and more recent religious minded scholars have tried to revive Milton's reputation. These scholars either ignore the contents of Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained, taking it, despite Milton's clear intentions, as unimportant or metaphorical, or supporting it because of its clear theological intentions. Milton has thus become a part of the larger cultural debate over religion. Those who try to revive his reputation often also try to revive the reputation of other religious poets, such as Spenser, thus recreating a canon of religious poetry that can be required in university English departments.

I really am uncomfortable with this paragraph and think it has to stay out. Milton was/is emphatically not merely the province of orthodox religious scholars, or religious people in general, as the writer suggests. The whole thing is unsourced and non-neutral in tone. 72.229.134.169 (talk)Esquilax8 —Preceding comment was added at 02:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the edit - the material is more relevant to a legacy section as said before. It also misleads the reader into having the impression that Milton is not a celebrated or acclaimed author now. Whilst he has suffered criticism, as do all authors (some people dismiss Shakespeare as a fraud who stole others' stories), he remains a key writer in English history. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis's Rehabilitation

The suffering of Milton's reputation at the hands of the modernists is mentioned, but not his rehabilitation by C.S. Lewis?138.163.0.38 14:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual Beliefs

An emphasis on Milton's spiritual beliefs in relation to works would be of great value.

I've added some on the religious significance of Milton's poetry and prose, but I'm sure many Milton scholars will agree that it is rather more difficult to classify Milton's own theological positions – they were complex, perhaps changing, and set in a difficult context. Any thoughts on this matter would be much appreciated.

Copyrights sale

Surely it's bollocks to say that Milton sold a copyright for £10 in 1667, when copyright did not even exist until 1709?

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/History_of_copyright

Also, £10 in 1667 had approximately the same purchasing power as £1000 today.

(see http://eh.net/hmit/ppowerbp/?action=before70&pounds=10&shillings=&pence=&year=1667)

According to this page Milton sold the publishing rights to Paradise Lost for an initial payment of £5 and £5 for each of three impressions as they were completed. ErikD 22:34, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

This being the case, why does the anachronistic and just plain wrong reference to

copyright persist in this article?

--- Copyright did exist in Milton's time. Read his own Areopagitica and note this sentence in his treatment of the Licencing Order: "For that part which preserves justly every mans Copy to himselfe" - He's talking about copyright, which did exist in a primitive form at that time. Milton did indeed sell the rights to Paradise Lost for ten pounds, but whether copyright in general was taken as seriously in the 17th century as it was after 1709 is a different matter altogether.

Copyright existed as a matter of common law in England (and doubtless many other countries) long before it was codified. To assert that it did not is as ridiculous as to say there was no such thing as marriage until the office of County Clerk was established. --Haruo 22:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Modern" copyright began with the Statute of Anne, but it was preceeded by the so-called "Stationer's Copyright", as enforced by the printer's guild and supported by the state as part of the machinery of censorship, either the Star Chamber or its statutory successors. See for example, History of copyright law#Earliest copyright disputations, or this web site. studerby 14:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"His incessant labours cost him his eyesight"

Not specific enough. How did he lose his eyesight? 4.65.244.206 21:34, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Some sources say that Milton's eyes were strained by many years of reading late at night by candlelight. Being no doctor I have no idea whether this is a plausible explanation for blindness - but perhaps it should be mentioned as a possible explanation for his blindness in the article? - 14th December 2005

I'm not sure how he lost his eyesight, and nor is it relevant. It happened around the early 1650s, and he was completely blind by the 1660s, which made for a nice symbolic correlation which appeared in his poetry. Milton, England and his character Samson were all eyeless in Gaza at the Mill with slaves at the time that the English Revolution failed and the people welcomed Charles II to the throne. – 3 Apr 07

He was completely blind by 1652, possibly as a result of glaucoma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.186.20 (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diction

Some of the diction and prose in this article is out of character with Wikipedia and not particularly helpful. "Hewing to the old faith" may be a nice turn of phrase but not helpful to readers who don't know that you're trying to say he was Catholic. And "Milton père"? That's not even English! There's no need to show off, just say "Milton's father." Remember we're trying to put together a general audience encyclopedia here. Tue Apr 27 15:50:13 UTC 2004

The use of the word "rusticated" also seems questionable.Thecopybook (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with rusticated. If you don't know what it means look it up. That's what dictionaries are for. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This article seems to have been taken from an older source.

It writes: "His point of view is entirely subjective and individualistic; his faith is deduced from Scripture by the inner illumination of the Spirit"

Well, is it based on scripture, or is in entirely individualistic? And how could one know whether Milton's innards had been illuminated at the time of his writing? Moreover, it's just odd to claim such individualism for Milton, since he's part of a tradition of Puritan dissent--cf. the Levellers, etc., and the works of Christopher Hill. Milton was part of a broad puritan movement.

To reply to this comment: It was both. Milton believed that it was best for the individual to interpret scripture using the light of Reason that god had placed in his breast. cf. his writing in Christian Doctrine (I don't have the citation to hand, but you can look up the index.) Of course, there was a certain element of elitism in the need to educate people to realise what scripture was trying to say (see e.g. Cedric Brown's biography). Finally, there was a whole range of Puritanism, which cannot be viewed as a monolith, and Milton can arguably placed in the more 'individualistic' range. For an excellent introduction to this, see A.S.P. Wodehouse's introduction to his collection of documents in Puritanism and Liberty. See also, the sligthly dated, but still good, Milton and the Puritan Dilema.

A general purpose article om Milton should also provide a bit more context about the times--this article assumes the reader knows about the English Civil war and its consequences, when this kind of thing should at least be touched on for those readers not up on the history of seventeenth-century England.

I suspect that the claim that Milton sold the copywright of his works is however correct. If the wiki article on copywright says that one couldn't sell or claim the right to publish things in England pre-1700, it is mistaken.

When did john milton go blind?

I found the article extremely helpful for some school work of mine. Keep up the good work! -V-

Source Missing

This source appeared in early versions of this page. Why is it not listed anymore?

"Text from Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religion, 1911"

--SSherris 15:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Married Life

There is absolutely no "verifiable" proof that John Milton was Daniel Boone's great great grandfather. I am a Boone descendant and much as I would love to claim John Milton as another distinguished ancestor, nothing can be proved about their connection. There is no proof that Mary Milton was the daughter of John Milton. The Boone Society should be more careful about posting such spurious nonsense because there is enough confusion about the Boone ancestry as it is. If The Boone Society has proof that the Mary Milton who married John Maugridge was John Milton's daughter, then let's see that, not just some citation from their in-house newsletter.

On this subject, did Milton write Paradise Lost when he got married? If so, did he write Paradise Regained when he got divorced? 98.200.63.58 04:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

I am skeptical about some of the external links listed. The only called "Essay on John Milton’s On Shakespear" (spamlisted URL redacted here) does not seem very useful. It is a web site full of poems "rewritten" by a person who claims to be "better than Walt Whitman". Although it is amusing, it contains little original information about Milton. The other link that I object to is "Frankenstein: A New Reality", which only mentions Milton once, as an inspiration for Mary Shelley. I am going to remove these two links. I'm sure there are a lot more authoritative/pertinent sites that we could link to. Lesgles 04:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jr. and Sr.

I have removed the 'Jr.' from 'John Milton, Jr.', which to my (English) ear sounds rather ridiculous. I shouldn't think that anyone, British or American, would ever call him that. I have made sure not to leave any ambiguity in the rest of the article. Oliverkroll 1.20 pm, 28 October 2005

To my reading, the opening paragraph about the two John Miltons still seems to be a bit confusing and not very well written, especially when leading from father to son only. Maybe this could be improved? Gwyndon 00:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to correct this. --Flex 13:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too condensed?

This article was originally based on the Schaff-Herzog entry, which was greatly redacted by an apparently non-active user Red Darwin (see the previous version). I would suggest that it is now too condensed and that some of that information should be reinserted, albeit re-edited. At the very least the footnotes that are referenced in the current text should be reinstated (or the superscripts deleted). I would do all this myself, but I also see that the content of that old version was disputed. Does anyone have any thoughts on the matter? --Flex 13:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disinherited why?

The article says Milton's father was disinherited by his devout Catholic father for concealing his Protestantism. Isn't this far more likely to be intended to read revealing his Protestantism? --Haruo 22:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence is unclear and needs to be reworked

"The first was entitled The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, in which he attacked the English marriage law as it had been taken over almost unchanged from medieval Catholicism, sanctioning divorce on the grounds of incompatibility or childlessness only." Was John Milton advocating that divorces be restricted to these two cases from what it was previously? Or were those the only reasons reasons for divorce and therfore Milton was advocating more grounds for divorce? In either case, I'm not sure why the word "only" is there, "incompatibility" sounds just as vague as "irreconcilable differences" to me. If it meant something more specific, it needs stated. Joncnunn 15:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neologisms?

"in Paradise Lost readers were confronted by neologisms like dreary, pandæmonium, acclaim, rebuff, self-esteem, unaided, impassive, enslaved, jubilant, serried, solaced, and satanic."

Pandaemonium is certainly a neologism, but at least some of the others seem only to be the first recorded use, with an etymology that implies that they were in use before he wrote them down. Can anyone clarify? --Ruyn 13:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 They are Loanwords from Latin and French. Satan is Hebrew. --12.72.150.45 16:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not loanwords. They are words created by adding derivational morphology to Latin and French roots. The roots were in use previously, but these particular words formed from them had not been used before. Or so the quoted sentence claims; I can't speak for its truth. So yes, they were neologisms. 91.105.60.254 (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Novelist?

Why is Milton categorised under Category:Christian novelists? Did he write any novels? --Mais oui! 17:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions of John Milton

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 16:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to Earlier Version

I am a graduate student studying the works of Milton. After fiddling with the page for a few days I realize many of the major changes I'd like to see made exist in an earlier version (see the previous version). If no one objects, I propose reverting back to this earlier entry, albeit somewhat condensed down and with the factual inaccuracies stripped (like the part about Daniel Boone being Milton's descendant). I think this would clean up the current overlap between the "life" and "career" sections, flesh out Milton's religious and political beliefs, and provide appropriate context for his poetry, which has separate entries of its own. Esquilax8 20:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Esquilax[reply]

Milton's Unitarianism/Socinianism

The Religion section of this article suggests that Milton was Unitarian/Socinian in his religious views. This is a controversial interpretation of Milton's theological views, not an outright fact. Christopher Ricks' introduction to the Signet Classics edition of the poem, for instance, mentions this interpretive stance and argues briskly against it. I have placed a neutrality flag on that section as a result. User:josephx23 20:22 6 February 2007

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:John Milton/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Decent length, some language problems, not enough inline references, too many red links. Badbilltucker 21:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 21:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)