In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

, I REVIEWS 255 than lucid, and his businesslike notes prove him a master of aU the "literature." (From them, by the way, we learn that a few years ago one passionate microscopist saw fit to bestow on mankind apaper some thirty pages long about aThoihas More der Heitere." If even the blitheness of the great must quiver on our operatingtables , why are there no "studies" or "aspects" of Erasmus' , remarks on the English superiority in kissing?)' What comfort, what inspiration, may the Hellenist of our time draw from chance sentences in Erasmus' letters written in days when Europe was realizing anew not only the charm and splendour of Greek, but its indispensabiJity also! HExperience tells me that in all literary pursuits we are nothing without Greek scholarship." HAs soon as I get hold of money, I shall buy first some Greek authors, and then some clothes"-a striking parallel to a famous sentence of Chaucer. He has now ceased to translate Lucian because "knowledge of Greek begins to spread everywhere." One reason for this eagerness was the very scarcity of books and , teachers. Nowadays tQO many of us, commanding marvellous facilities, appear to think that if we read without compulsion so much as a single book o(Xenophon we should receive a gilt-edged certificate. He who was perhaps the greatest classica~ scholar that ever lived, J oseph Justus Scaliger, carried out his immense reading on the march and beside camp-fires during the French wars of religion. G.N. This Great Argument: A Study oj Milton's De Doctrina Christiana as a Gloss upon ~aradise Lost. By MAURICE KELLEY. (Princeton Studies in Engli~h, volume XXII.) Princeton: Princeton . University Press. 194:1. ($5.00) THE relationship between De Doctrina Christiana and Paradise ' Lost has been)n 4ispute since the treatise was discovered in 1823, largely because it has been variously assigned to the years before 1640, to those between 1643 and 1645, to those immediately preceding the epic, and to the closing years of Milton's life. This diversity has arisen from the condition of the manuscript-a fair copy made by an amanuensis (apparently from an earlier version) which has been much revised in the same and other hands, and of which the first fourteen chapters (and some other passages) were entirely recopied after Milton's death. The first and most im- 256 THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO QUARTERLY portant step towards dating the treatise was taken when Professor Hanford showed in 1920 that the fair copy was made by Jeremy Picard between about 1658 and 1660, and ~rgued (from this and other evidence) that in the treatise Milton ,was working out the. docfrinal basis of his epic. But there remained the revisions by Picard and others. ' In two articles and a study (1934-9) Professor Sewell argued from these revisions and from certain doctrinal differences he discerned between the treatise and the epic that Milton's opinions became more heterodox after Picard's copy and after Paradise Lost, that the revisions belonged to his later years, and that consequently the treatise could not satisfactorily explain the problems of the epic. Some aspects of Sewell's doctrinal interpretations were questioned; but what was clearly needed was a thorough exam!riation of the revisions, an exact evaluation of their doctrinal significance, and, if possible, the identification and dating of the revising hands. Professor Kelley's first three chapters (with his appendices) fully supply the first two requisites and make the third less significant for the epic. It was almost inevitable that part of his study should become a refutation of Sewell, though.more of the sniping and skirmishing (here and elsewhere) might have been confined to the notes. Even the author of the Areopagitica_perceived the.difference between great arguments arid "petty disputations." Yet Kelley's exact and learned a-ccount of the manuscript and its revlsions puts Milton students heavily in his debt) for he makes the facts accessible in detail and abundantly demonstrates that · the disputed revisions merely clarify and elaborate the argument, improve the style, add proof texts, and so qn, that they serve to reinforce rather than to modify the original Picard doctrines, and that they do...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 255-258
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.