Harper Dissertation 20129.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Copyright by David Andrew Harper 2012 The Dissertation Committee for David Andrew Harper Certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Curb’d Enthusiasms: Critical Interventions in the Reception of Paradise Lost, 1667-1732 Committee: John Rumrich, Supervisor Lance Bertelsen Douglas Bruster Jack Lynch Leah Marcus Curb’d Enthusiasms: Critical Interventions in the Reception of Paradise Lost, 1667-1732 by David Andrew Harper, B.A.; M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin December, 2012 Curb’d Enthusiasms: Critical Interventions in the Reception of Paradise Lost, 1667-1732 David Andrew Harper, Ph.D. The University of Texas at Austin, 2012 Supervisor: John Rumrich Although recent critics have attempted to push the canonization of Paradise Lost ever further into the past, the early reception of Milton’s great poem should be treated as a process rather than as an event inaugurated by the pronouncement of a poet laureate or lord. Inevitably linked to Milton’s Restoration reputation as spokesman for the Protectorate and regicides, Paradise Lost’s reception in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries is marked by a series of approaches and retreats, repressions and recoveries. This dissertation examines the critical interventions made by P.H. (traditionally identified as Patrick Hume), John Dennis, Joseph Addison, and Richard Bentley into the reception history of a poem burdened by political and religious baggage. It seeks to illuminate the manner in which these earliest commentators sought to separate Milton’s politics from his poem, rendering the poem “safe” by removing it from contemporary political discourse. Constituting the earliest sustained criticism of any English poem, the efforts of P.H., Dennis, and Addison contribute to our understanding of the development of English literary criticism as a genre. Within the more narrow bounds of Milton scholarship, this dissertation highlights the relationship between the work of the often-neglected critic John Dennis and Addison’s popular Spectator essays. Although Addison and his Spectator essays are often credited with having rediscovered iv or popularized Paradise Lost, Addison’s suppression of Dennis’s groundbreaking criticism set the tone for much of the later eighteenth-century criticism on Milton. This first critical conflict between a vision of Milton as heterodox and exceptional and one that cast him as orthodox and conservative provides insight into ongoing debates within the field. Addison’s retreat from Dennis’s theory of the enthusiastic sublime into the safer havens of neoclassicism, viewed in concert with newly discovered annotations by Richard Bentley in copies of Paradise Lost and the Spectator essays, helps contextualize Bentley’s infamous 1732 edition of Paradise Lost as more than an aberration in editing history and Milton criticism. While recent criticism has tried to put Bentley’s edition in context as a response to John Toland and an attempt to wrest Milton from the hands of radical Whigs, Joseph Addison had already made that move by neutralizing Dennis’s more radical theories decades prior to Bentley’s edition. Despite attempts by the wits of the day to lump Dennis and Bentley together as common members of a species of dull pedants, it is Addison who stands behind Bentley’s most outrageous interventions in Paradise Lost. In recovering the relationship between Milton’s earliest commentators this dissertation sheds new light upon long and deep-seated currents within Milton criticism. v Table of Contents List of Figures ...................................................................................................... viii Introduction ..............................................................................................................1 Chapter Summaries .........................................................................................7 Chapter 1: The Profan’d Pen..................................................................................13 Milton’s Reputation: Re-examining Cultural Contexts ................................20 Early Unpublished Responses to Paradise Lost ...........................................38 Early Published Responses to Paradise Lost ................................................43 Addison’s Early Comment on Paradise Lost: A Case Study .......................50 Chapter 2: “The Merit of Being the First:” Jacob Tonson’s 1695 Paradise Lost and P.H.’s Annotations ........................................................................................58 “His Name May Lead Us to Some Knowledge:” Finding P.H. ....................65 Textual Matters: Hume and the 1695 Text ...................................................72 What Author? Removing Milton From Paradise Lost .................................81 Making a Classic: Exegesis, Classical Scholarship, and the Annotations ....90 “Towring Fancy”: P.H.’s Deployment of the Sublime .................................95 Chapter 3: “So Bold in the Design:” Dennis, Addison, and the Sublime Paradise Lost .....................................................................................................................103 “Milton in my Eye”: Dennis’s Theory of the Sublime ..............................110 “Something Like An Epick”: Dennis’s Critique of Paradise Lost .............125 “Addison That Milton Shall Explain”.........................................................138 Chapter 4: “Such Scorn of Enemies:” Bentley’s Paradise Lost ..........................156 Bentley’s Life of Milton .............................................................................165 Bentley & Pope ...........................................................................................170 The Candid Critick and the Petulant Carper : Bentley & Addison .............182 vi Conclusion: Surprised by Nothing .......................................................................202 Appendix A: Timeline .........................................................................................209 Bibliography ........................................................................................................211 vii List of Figures Figure 1: Poor Robin an Almanack, November 1667...........................................32 Figure 2: Eikonoklastes Marginalia Referring to Paradise Lost ...........................42 Figure 3: Dennis's Theory of the Passions ...........................................................120 Figure 4: Bentley's Annotations of Addison's Spectator Essays .........................191 Figure 5: Bentley's Annotations to the 1674 Edition, Sig. F6r ............................194 Figure 6: Bentley Annotation to the 1674 Edition, sig. C2v ................................195 viii Introduction We should be wary… how we spill that seasoned life of man preserved and stored up in books; since we see a kind of homicide may be thus committed, sometimes a martyrdom; and if it extend to the whole impression, a kind of massacre, whereof the execution ends not in the slaying of an elemental life, but strikes at that ethereal and fifth essence, the breath of reason itself, slays an immortality rather than a life. - John Milton, Areopagitica1 In Paradise Lost, John Milton offers us two distinct birth narratives for Eve. The first, told by Eve herself to Adam (Book IV.449-91), traces Eve’s faltering first steps in the world as she seeks self-knowledge. Throughout these lines there are multiple moments of attraction and repulsion following Eve’s initial Narcissus-like infatuation with her reflection. The verse enacts the theme of approach and retreat as it is continually mirrored and modified until Eve finally nears Adam only to turn back once again. She finds Adam: less fair, Less winning soft, less amiably mild Than that smooth wat’ry image; back I turned Thou following cri’d’st aloud, Return fair Eve (IV.478-81) Eve’s desire to return to the pool and her own image is interrupted by Adam’s plea that she stay and by the stay of his “gentle hand” as it “seiz’d” Eve’s. To his later advantage, this is the narrative of Eve’s creation that Satan overhears as he spies on the couple from his perch in the Tree of Life. In the second version, related by Adam to Raphael (VIII.452-539), Adam provides a different reason for Eve’s initial recoil from him. 1 John Milton, Areopagitica. In John Milton Complete Poems and Major Prose, Merritt Y. Hughes, ed. (New York: Prentice Hall, 1957), 720. References to Milton’s poetry and prose will be from this edition unless otherwise cited. 1 Having seen Eve’s creation in a fugue state, Adam already desires her and mourns their separation until she reappears, led by the divine voice. As she turns to fly back to the more attractive image in the pool, Adam interprets her reluctance as part of a courting ritual: Yet Innocence and Virgin Modesty, Her virtue and the conscience of her worth, That would be woo’d, and not unsought be won, Not obvious, not obtrusive, but retir’d, The more desirable, or to say all, Nature herself, though pure of sinful thought, Wrought in her so, that seeing me, she turn’d (VIII.501-7) Even though Eve has recently told him the real reason for her turning away, Adam’s preference for this revision is understandable. Having “hindsight” as it were and knowing that he and Eve had once been (quite literally) one flesh, and also