Notes to Chapter 170 Masson, VI, 328.
71 [Anon.], A Treatise of the Execution of Justice: wherein is clearly proved, that the execution of
Judgment and Justice, is as well the Peoples as the Magistrates duty: And that if Magistrates
pervert Judgment, the People are bound by the Law of God to execute Judgment without them,
and upon them (London, 1663, October?).
72 See Paul Slack, The Impact of Plague in Tudor and Stuart England (London, 1985); for
Cripplegate, p. 151.
73 The Cripplegate figures are from Daniel Defoe, The Journal of the Plague Year, ed. J. H.
Plumb (New York, 1960), 24. Pepys notes that the plague bills listed over 1,700 deaths
overall (the official figure was 1,843) in the week ending July 25, and 2,020 the week
ending August 1 (Diary VI, 173, 180).
74 Pepys, Diary VI, 133.
75 Slack, Impact of Plague, 246, 286.
76 Pepys, Diary VI, 128–208.
77 Defoe, Journal of the Plague Year, 66.
78 Ellwood, Life, 233.
79 CPW IV. 1, 675.
80 The classic account of De Doctrina Christiana (DDC) is Maurice Kelley’s introduction to
his edition of that work in CPW VI; Kelley’s This Great Argument: A Study of Milton’s
De Doctrina Christiana as a Gloss upon Paradise Lost (Princeton, NJ, 1941) may overstate
some parallels with Paradise Lost, but most instances are persuasive.
81 See chapter 11, note 115.
82 For an analysis of copyists’ hands, see Kelley, This Great Argument, 40–1. Picard’s cor-
rections and additions are of course evident only after page 196, in the part of the
manuscript not recopied by Skinner. The amanuensis designated by Kelley as Hand A
recopied Picard’s pages 549–52, evidently after revision; Kelley thinks one scribe’s hand
also appears in the Commonplace Book.
83 The challenge was posed by William B. Hunter, “The Provenance of the Christian
Doctrine,” Studies in English Literature 33 (1992) 129–42, with responses by Lewalski and
John Shawcross, 143–66. Hunter expanded upon his argument in Visitation Unimplor’d:
Milton and the Authorship of De Doctrina Christiana (Pittsburgh, 1998). Substantial an-
swers include Christopher Hill, “Professor William B. Hunter, Bishop Burgess, and
John Milton,” Studies in English Literature 54 (1994), 165–93; Lewalski, “Milton and De
Doctrina Christiana: Evidences of Authorship,” MS 36 (1999), 203–28; and the intro-
duction and several essays in Milton and Heresy ed. Stephen Dobranski and John P.
Rumrich (Cambridge, 1998). In l971, Hunter, C. A. Patrides, and J. B. Adamson ac-
cepted Milton’s authorship in their joint publication Bright Essence (Salt Lake City,
1971), but sought either to downplay its heterodoxy (Hunter) or to disparage its theol-
ogy as unworthy of Milton and irrelevant to his supposedly orthodox epic poems
(Patrides).
84 The manuscript (SP 9/61), now in the Public Record Office, Kew, was mounted onto
the stubs of pages in three volumes and rebound in 1934; pages 626–36 were mistak-
enly renumbered so the manuscript contains ten pages more than the pagination indi-
cates. As Maurice Kelley noted in “Considerations Touching the Right Editing of
John Milton’s De Doctrina Christiana,” Editing Seventeenth-Century Prose, ed. D. I. B.
Smith (Toronto, 1972), 31–51, the somewhat regularized text in CM gives a mislead-
Notes to Chapter 12