Milton and the Rhetoric of Zeal

Notes

Notes to Pages 00–00 215 215 NOTES Notes to Preface 1. The findings of the Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom and the recommendations of President Raymond B. Allen were published in Communism and Academic Freedom: The Record of the Tenure Cases at the University of Washington (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1949). There is a retrospective look at these events in Nancy Wick, “Seeing Red,” Columns, The University of Washington Alumni Magazine 17, no. 4 (December 1997), 16–21. Notes to Chapter One All works cited are published in London unless otherwise noted. All references to Milton’s prose are taken from The Complete Prose Works of John Milton, 8 vols., ed. Don M. Wolfe et al. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953–1982). All biblical citations are from the Authorized King James Version (KJV). 1. Stephen Marshall, A Divine Project to Save the Kingdome (1644), 5; hereafter Divine Project. 2. For an overview, see Elizabeth Eisenstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). For a description of the period’s “revolution in reading,” see the introduction to Sharon Achinstein, Milton and the Revolutionary Reader (see note 72 for full citation). See also Nigel Smith, Literature & Revolution in England, 1640–1660 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), esp. chaps. 1 and 2. 3. Quoted in William Haller, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and The Elect Nation (London: Jonathan Cape, 1963), 110. 4. See my The Fierce Equation: A Study of Milton’s Decorum (The Hague: Mouton, 1965), chap. 1. 216 Notes to Pages 00–00 5. Walter J. Ong, S.J., Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983), 16. 6. As indicated above, all biblical citations are from the KJV, though I have consulted other editions, especially William Tyndale’s New Testament (1534) and the Geneva Bible, 1560 edition. 7. CPW, 6:697. Where there are numerous contiguous citations from volume 1 and a clear common source of text, I will cite only page numbers or volume and page numbers. I am aware of the important challenges of the provenance of the Latin treatise, especially the work of W. B. Hunter Jr., Visitation Unimplor’d: Milton and the Authorship of “De Doctrina Christiana” (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1998). Despite the arguments of the foremost scholar of the work, I remain, with a number of other Miltonists, uneasy about the “deaccessioning.” In some of the chapters to come, I will point out passages in the early prose that at least reflect the attitudes of the De Doctrina. 8. The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary: Complete Text Reproduced Micrographically, vol. 2 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971), 3868. 9. I use the terms Anglican and Puritan brazenly, despite John N. King’s warning about the “anachronistic terms Anglicanism and Anglican.” See his English Reformation Literature: The Tudor Origins of the Protestant Tradition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982), 3, and his suggestion that the more accurate terms are Formalist and Nonconformist. I’m aware of the multiple overlaps in theological and political views during this period. My distinction between rhetorics should help reinforce the ordinary and unsophisticated, but nevertheless clear and useful, view of two opposed camps that disagreed on serious fundamentals, a disagreement which obscured many of the positions they had in common. Anglican in this study will refer to supporters of the Established Church of England as constituted in 1640 and as administered by the canons of that year, its doctrine and discipline as established, however fluidly, since the time of Elizabeth I; Puritan will refer to those Protestants who opposed that church at that time because they rejected major portions of its doctrine and/or discipline. I hope these designations will serve the subject as well as they have served Barbara K. Lewalski in her The Life of John Milton: A Critical Biography (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001). Archbishop William Laud and John Milton stand near the poles of the arguments. Bishop Joseph Hall, a serious case in point, is initially a mediator in doctrine who moves toward the right in matters of discipline during the period I discuss. I treat him as Anglican and as opposed to Puritan. I am emphasizing discipline over doctrine in my ascriptions and therefore working outside of a good part of the important research of recent years by, among others, Georgia Christopher, Joan Bennett, Dennis Danielson and John N. King. 2–4 [3.14.70.203] Project...