A Reexamination of the Spelling Revisions in the Paradise Lost Book I Manuscript Cameron Hunt McNabb Southeastern University
[email protected] Curran McQuade With Milton studies’ increasing interest in material culture, it is not surprising that attention has recently been devoted to Milton’s manuscripts, such as in Thomas Fulton’s Historical Milton: Manuscript, Print, and Political Culture in Revolutionary England, John Creaser’s ‘Editing Lycidas: The Authority of Minutiae’, and William Poole’s ‘The Genres of Milton’s Commonplace Book’.1 Such studies ipso facto also investigate Milton’s composition and revision practices. All of the works above, though, focus heavily on the Trinity Manuscript and Milton’s Commonplace Book, both of which date early in his career, and they often treat the poet’s composition and revision practices within those witnesses as relevant only in the service of editorial decisions for constructing received texts and not necessarily valuable in and of themselves. One of Milton’s manuscripts has been largely overlooked in these studies – the extant copy of Book I of Paradise Lost – and we contend that it provides strong evidence, as of yet underanalyzed, of Milton’s later composition and revision practices, in particular regarding Milton’s spelling. Our analysis suggests that etymology may have played a more significant role in Milton’s spelling than has been previously acknowledged and We extend our deepest thanks to Dr. William Hackett, Provost of Southeastern University, for his funding and support of this research. 1 See Thomas Fulton, Historical Milton: Manuscript, Print, and Political Culture in Revolutionary England (Amherst, MS: University of Massachusetts Press, 2010); John Creaser, ‘Editing Lycidas: The Authority of Minutiae’, Milton Quarterly 44.