Talk:John Milton

message: Says he moved to London in the 16th century - before he was born. andylaw31 1:17, 9 June 2009 (BST)
:On closer inspection, it is probably referring to his father, but it is not made clear enough. andylaw31 (talk) 1:21, 9 June 2009 (BST)
: The 16th century refers to dates between 1500 and 1599 -- just as the 20th century refers to dates between 1900 and 1999.  Dates have origin zero.  So this passage was not an error.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The first century CE begins with year 1 and ends with year 100 and so on.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So, we are on to that old entertainment.  Logically, if you count a century of numbers in any sensible system, it starts with 1 and ends with 100.  But then logic does not count for much against the power of usage.  --Martin Wyatt (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Life Section 

message: The existing version states that PL "...reflects his personal despair at the failure of the Revolution, yet affirms an ultimate optimism in human potential". The first statement is controversial, and, I'd say, implies a heavily allegorical reading of the poem, and especially of Books 1 and 2. The second statement is a horrible generalisation, and sounds like the sort of thing you'd right on an junior manager's HR appraisal form. Unless anyone objects. I'll rewrite it in a day or two.Bedesboy 17:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paradise Lost and Milton's view

message: Hello. I added a "reqphoto" tag to this article because I expected full color portraits. OK from my point of view in advance to remove or change this tag. -Susanlesch (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note about images

message: The first section seems to take sides in the debate between those who hold up Milton as the greatest ever poet and those who question his high status.  I think it should be more neutral, and that the final sentence of that section in particular seems a little strong.  I also believe that claiming a renewed interest in Milton due to Pullman and Brown is a little farfetched.Thecopybook (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: Would it be a valid section to expand the 'influences' section to include the obvious influences which Milton's early defense of free speech had on John Stuart Mill? In his autobiography Mill makes reference to the Areopagitica and one need only briefly look upon the texts to see inherent similarities. With John Stuart Mill being such an important source for modern liberalism that seems a key idea. --Showa58taro (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milton and his influence on Mill 

message: Two different conventions are used on this page. I strongly recommend that the international convention should be used, particularly as Milton is more closely associated with England than the US. See the Wikipedia style page on dates and number Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating Conventions 

message: Considering how jaunty is Milton's elegy V (a celebration of free love, written in fine Latin style), I'm thinking of adding this observation to the article:
:"It is the opinion of some experts that Milton probably made love to his wife in Latin and only preached to her in English. If however he had been a Catholic, he would probably have made love to her in English and preached to her in Latin."
Anyone second this edit? Lucretius (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin poetry 

message: There is a new book: "John Milton: Life, Work and Thought by Gordon Campbell and Thomas N Corns 512pp, OUP.
This is well reviewed by the Daily Telegraph, Review: October 25, 2008, p 22.
It analyses how and when Milton was radicalised, suggesting that the tipping point was in 1637.
Also suggests he had "close-angle glaucoma" and died suddenly probably from "a massive gastro-intestinal haemorrhage".
Campbell wrote the DNB entry. Book may be worth using? Budhen (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Book 

message: I'm puzzled by this sentence and I quote:
The Romantics' simulataneous acceptance of Milton's poetics and rejection of his theological concerns may have encouraged later readers to neglect the theological content of his long poems while admiring his often thunderously musical lines.
Simulataneous I can live with as a curiosity but may have and thunderously musical? I don't think so. This sentence suggests an impressionable critic groping for the right words and not finding them. He may have neglected objectivity while admiring his own thunderously musical something or other but that's mere speculation on my part. I'll delete it if nobody objects. Lucretius (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Puzzling

message: Going along with the sentiment expressed above about getting back to how to fix this page, what we should do is start building up the sections to around 60-70k. Then we need to decide if we have Harvnb references or not. After that, we should probably break down the weight by this: biography (about 1/5), characteristics (marriage, blindness, personality, friends, philosophy including religious and political views etc( (about 1/5), politics involvement (his occupation as a propagandist, his pamphlet writing) (about 1/5) and his poetry (early and late) (about 2/5, so 1/5 for each but more on his big three). Broken into 1/5s, that leaves about 12k per section. We also need to start introducing more images. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot about legacy, that would take up whatever was left over, and most likely until 10k. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the images, the attractive Christ's college portrait is easily available on the internet, but only in vertically stretched versions (as is sometimes the case). Can anyone scan it from a book?  I replaced the dreadful Victorian drawing in the lead with the NPG portrait. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm always against fancy referencing styles. We need referencing styles invented for the Web, not academia. I'm not convinced by the outline. One thing that seems missing is his sources: there must surely be something to say about how his reading fed into his works, even though there is the "standard" line that he was highly original. Given enough articles hanging off this one, it is not so hard to invoke summary style and move material around, but 40% on the poetry seems a little high. We don't seem to have got that far with the politics and its consequences, either. Not much here about Levellers, Ranters or antinomianism, all of which would be useful to define in relation to Milton. I would suggest, also, that we should be quite careful about his reputation. Proper citations of his supposed European reputation in his lifetime would be very valuable. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that a lot of his reading can be covered in poetry and political sections, especially in discussing the various allusions. Discussing Epic, the fusion of the Bible, Augustinian beliefs, etc would surely appear. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear me, William Blake nowhere mentioned. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And the information about Keats is wretched (more on Keats found on my subpage). I'm going to build up the reception history page, and we can work off of that somewhat. I like how "Victorian" is only Hardy. : ) I would defend that to the death if I could. LOL. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milton expansion, rework 

message: I think it would cause there to be too many headings if we gave Romantics their individual place, and by favoring Blake, we deny the equal impact on Wordsworth and Keats, and to a lesser extent on Coleridge and Shelley. I would be comfortable with 4 lines or so devoted to Blake, but no more than a full paragraph for the big three combined. The others could be combined in a paragraph with Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and James Fennimore Cooper's The Last of the Mohicans, which derive their plot structure from Milton. We will also need a note about how the view of Milton changed after the discovery of De Doctrina Christiana, which followed after these works were already published (so, at the beginning of a discussion on the Victorians). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that sounds too prescriptive to me, really and truly. All the connections to Romantic poetry deserve at least a summary treatment. So far I'm just troubleshooting what is there. If the section as developed gets out of hand, then we can split out a separate page, and summarize. Blake is certainly worth a heading. Wordsworth needs more, and there is the general point about Milton being the "Bard" in the mind of the Romantics, for which I'm searching for a good reference in M. H. Abrams. Bear in mind, also, that this is really just a first pass through to fact-check the older content in the article, find references and fill some obvoius gaps. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The literary influence page would be such a page for such an information. I'm mostly planning ahead for the next step, i.e. building this to FA. I only mentioned that the individuals shouldn't have headings because it would make the table of contents way too large and possibly give preferential treatment. For instance, Milton's and Hobbes's relationship, Milton's and Marvell's, etc, are just as important as Blake's use of Milton. We have to be mindful of weight, because once other people start showing up, they will probably bring such concerns. A good plan is better than no plan. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are ways to massage the ToC, if that is your concern. I think we should have something about Hobbes (there is a little about Marvell already). Just picking up the Cambridge Companion to Milton (1989) and looking in the index, there are six references to Blake, two to Hobbes, six to Marvell. It seems we are doing OK, really. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Much to ponder. It is mostly an aesthetic ToC concern. I would prefer a sub division having at least three paragraphs in it. We should probably not go further than 70k before pictures and the rest are added. Right now, we have about 20k to work with. That boils down to what, 3000 words or so? We might be able to deal with that. We could combine Wordsworth and Keats together, as Keats is responding to both Milton and Wordsworth (or responding to Milton through Wordsworthian ideas). I don't know. It seems that a lot of people have a lot of things written about them and their connection to Milton. Johnson, for instance. I'll have to think this over more. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Milton is obviously worth an FA. My current approach is broad-based: I want to bring up more 17th-century articles to about A standard, and add secondary topics to fill in redlinks. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was dragged into Milton. I know Milton through my studies on Keats and epic as a genre. I want Milton up to FA so I can have a strong basis for putting forth a page on Keats's Hyperion as an epic (there is a lot of information on it, just a complex issue to talk about and would need other Wikilinks to help fill it out). But yeah, Milton deserves an FA and I think we could easily work to achieve such a thing. I will dump information on the talk page when I get a chance, and build the other pages in addition. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romantics 

message: If Milton was reading Paradise Lost to his duaghters, I don't know if this would be right, because John wrote Paradise Lost after he was blind. 
I do know his daughters read to him after glaucoma took his sight.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carterky (talk • contribs) 13:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The image shows his blindness. He could be "reading" from memory, or simply reciting. The german title is "Milton diktiert seinen Töchtern das »Paradise Lost«" Ottava Rima (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Diktiert' means 'dicate,' and considering that the painting shows the daughter holding a manuscript and a pen, and Milton without a book, I think it's safe to say he's dictating the poem just as he is traditionally reported to have done.  Who translated 'diktiert' as 'reads'?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.91.243 (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Caption for Milton reading to his daughters 

message: This is the most poorly constructed sentence in all of Wikipedia:
He is in no sense a representative thinker of his time, across a range of issues where he was his own man: it is, though, one of his less original and more representative positions, in Areopagitica, where he was anticipated by Henry Robinson and others, that has lasted best of his works as engaged intellectual.
I'm going to reword it, if no one objects.129.59.47.19 (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 04:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm biased: my sentence. You do exaggerate. Most sentences can be improved. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, "I'm biased: my sentence" is imperfectible. Mes homages, mon ami! Funfree (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reword 

message: In Catch-22 John Milton's name is briefly used on signed documents as a phony signature: after Washington Irving's got old.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.194.24 (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catch-22 

message: Who believes this? Some believe he was a Muggletonian (Harold Bloom in Jesus and Yahweh mentions this theory). Apparently he kept his beliefs close to his chest. I think it safe to say Protestant, but Calvinist needs a cite.  Nitpyck (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a useful term in this context, certainly. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Believed to have been a Calvinist 

message: Since the coverage in John Milton is in some way more detailed than that in Early life of John Milton, I'm going to be doing some swaps until the balance seems more reasonable. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't imagine which "efforts" could have affected "Milton's critical stature", or what might have motivated them. Is it just that reading their works left "critical" children too little free time to get around to Milton? As for Harold Bloom, I agree that some time frame ought to be introduced to separate that statement from the previous one, referring as it does to the early 20th century. I also can't imagine why Eliot and Pound would want to undermine the "stature" of a long-dead fellow poet, especially one whom they both must have appreciated dearly. Funfree (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Exchange of material

message: ...he [Milton] returned to England during the summer of 1639 because of... "sad tidings of civil war in England."
1639 is the First Bishops' War: Covenaters against Royalists in Scotland. The English civil war began only in 1642
Top.Squark (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it obvious that Milton had no notion of "The English Civil Wars", or that any wars might break out and be called such, after the fact, by historians yet to come? Milton is referring to civil war other than the one or several you are familiar with. You don't doubt, do you, that the First Bishops' War, or whatever tidings Milton had received, merited the characterization of "civil"? Funfree (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milton quote doesn't make sense: "sad tidings of civil war in England" 

message: In June 1643 Milton paid a visit... and returned with a 16-year-old bride, Mary Powell. A month later... Mary returned to her family. Because of the outbreak of the Civil War, she did not return until 1645
However, the English Civil War began in 1642, before the marriage. Maybe the delay did have to do with the civil war, but the current text is at best misleading.
Top.Squark (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious: outbreak of civil war prevented prevented Mary Powell's return 

message: Would it be true to say that the Gregorian calendar equivalent of Milton's vital dates are 19 December 1608 and 18 November 1674?  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  00:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Dating style

message: Milton's remarks, made about his meeting with Galileo, seem to avoid clearly supporting any one theory, such as geostaticism or heliostaticism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.70.65 (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remarks 

message: I notice that there seems to be dispute over the dating of L'Allegro, Il Penseroso and Lycidas.  My edition of Milton's poems (partially facsimile) shows that Edward King died in 1637 and Lycidas was published, along with other poems, in 1638.  Is it necessary to assign an unequivocal date? --Martin Wyatt (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Dating of poems

message: Another editor started an article on the Milton scholar, C. A. Patrides. We lack resource to the The Milton Quarterly, alas. 
Please help by reading the 3 2 page memorials to him in 1987, which are linked in the Patrides article. We especially want a double check on his death from AIDS. 
Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Constantinos Patrides|C. A. Patrides]] and ''[[The Milton Quarterly]]'' 

message: An unreferenced statement has been added under the heading of Philosophy.  The conjecture it reports is highly improbable, and the whole paragraph could well be removed.  But then the Philosophy section, along with much of the article, is not very satisfactory, and needs competent work on it.  --Martin Wyatt (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it could be removed, and so could most or all of the "Views" section since that part is under sourced and not even particularly necessary to a biography article.  01:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy 

message: I honestly have no idea what the requirements are or what processes are involved in something becoming a featured page, but I do nonetheless wonder if this one has such potential. Mere Mortal (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that it has potential to become featured. I would suggest that you go for a Good article as a first stage which will pick up any obvious problems with the article. Keith D (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Page 

message: The article neglects to mention a crucial fact, that all English laws in Milton's day were written in Latin, and since he was considered the greatest Latin expert in the land, it was he upon whose expertise the nation relied. He wrote, edited, and interpreted all English law. This ought not to be hard to confirm. Funfree (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Latin

message: And the sources section are a huge problem. Hope someone can get on this. Liar's Lair (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  external links 

message: Using the same source for comparison, I have changed the value of the Paradise Lost rights sale to be as purchasing power equivalent, as it's a better benchmark for ordinary people than one based on GDP. Sasha (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monetary Value of 'Paradise Lost' sale 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on John Milton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130704170506/http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/ddd/book_1/notes.shtml to http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/ddd/book_1/notes.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110124090835/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7014/is_1_16/ai_n28450154/pg_5/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7014/is_1_16/ai_n28450154/pg_5
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/ideasv42/blasi4.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.christs.cam.ac.uk/darknessvisible/imitation.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2007/071217a.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There are paragraphs scattered throughout the Biography section that are lacking any citations. —howcheng  {chat} 03:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  section needs more references 

message: There are a lot of problems with the sentence asserting that 
Isaac Watts preferred his lines distinct from each other, as did Oliver Goldsmith, Henry Pemberton, and Scott of Amwell, whose general opinion it was that Milton's frequent omission of the initial unaccented foot was "displeasing to a nice ear".[120]
1.) The citation is ostensibly to Saintsbury, but the sentence as a whole seems to be adapted from Havens, who specifically mentions "Goldsmith, Pemberton, and Scott of Amwell" and who uses the exact phrase "frequent omission of the initial unaccented foot" which doesn't appear in any of Saintsbury's works as far as I can see.
2.) Even if the attribution to Saintsbury were right, the citation of "Saintsbury 1916" would still be faulty, since the bibliography at the end of the article doesn't mention a work by Saintsbury from 1916, only ones from 1908 and 1946.
3.) I suspect that Havens's reference to "frequent omission of the initial unaccented foot" is an inadvertent error for "frequent omission of the initial unaccented syllable"; though there is such a thing as an unaccented foot (a pyrrhic) in some schemes of prosody, it's hard to see in what sense Milton omitted entire feet, or how one would be able to tell that the omitted feet in question were pyrrhics.
4.) But it appears to me that in any case Havens was misleading the reader when he implied that the "displeasing to a nice ear" quote was originally written in reference to Milton. Saintsbury himself makes it clear that that same quote comes from Scott of Amwell's discussion of John Dyer's "Grongar Hill," not from Scott's (or Goldsmith's or Pemberton's) discussion of Milton.
Given all these problems, I'd like to delete the sentence altogether. Would anyone object? 206.208.104.20 (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "displeasing to a nice ear"