Notes to Chapter 1
ing impression of the manuscript. Recently, the manuscript has been analyzed by a
British consortium: Gordon Campbell, Thomas Corns, John K. Hale, David Holmes,
and Fiona Tweedie, “The Provenance of De Doctrina Christiana,” MQ 31 (1997), 67–
- They conclude, on the basis of a stylistic comparison with Milton’s Latin Defences,
that some portions of DDC (especially the preface) are more “Miltonic” than other
parts; but the validity of that exercise is compromised by the generic incomparability
between the polemic Defenses (which the preface resembles) and the biblical exegesis
that comprises much of the treatise. For a critique of their arguments and conclusions,
including their suggestion that Milton may have been revising a text by some other
author, see Lewalski, “Milton and De Doctrina Christiana,” 203–28, and the introduc-
tion to Dobranski and Rumrich, eds, Milton and Heresy.
85 See chapter 14, pp. 506–7; Bodleian, Rawlinson Ms A 185, ff. 271–4. Skinner sent the
manuscripts to Elzevier in Amsterdam late in 1675. In a letter to his sometime patron
Samuel Pepys, November 9/19, 1676, he claims that he “happen’d to be acquainted
with Milton in his lifetime, (which out of mere love to learning I procur’d.. .),” but he
insists that he was not at all “tainted” by Milton’s views. This suggests that he was
probably one of the young men who at various times exchanged their services in read-
ing and writing for Milton’s teaching, and that he was now concerned to downplay the
extent of the association. If, as Hunter suggests, he only looked at Milton’s papers after
his death, it would behoove him to say so and remove himself yet further from the
Miltonic taint. An unidentified informant described Skinner to the secretary of state as
“a scholar and a bold young man who has cull’d out [from Milton’s papers] what he
thought fitt” (Campbell, et al., “Provenance of De Doctrina Christiana,” 71–3). Skinner
hoped to profit from publishing Milton’s manuscripts, but the attempt seriously de-
railed his career.
86 See Kelley’s narrative in CPW VI, 3–10, and the series of letters exchanged between
Elzevier, Daniel Skinner, Skinner’s father, and Williamson, reprinted in Campbell, et
al., “Provenance.” Elzevier’s letter (February 9/19, 1677) to Skinner senior, who had
intervened to try to extricate his son from his difficulties, explains that he has returned
the two manuscripts he received: “les deux manuscriptes de Milton à scavoir ses ouvres
en Theologie et ses lettres au Principes.” Elzevier’s earlier letter to Williamson (No-
vember 10/20, 1676) admits that he had agreed to publish “the Letters of Milton and
another manuscript on Theology,” but assures Williamson that he has since found in
them things “fitter to be suppressed than published” and has determined to publish
neither (Campbell, et al., “Provenance,” 69, 84–5, 77–9; SP 84/203, ff. 106–7; SP 84/
204, ff. 123–4).
87 Milton’s name was added in two places: Joannes Miltonus Anglus is inscribed before
the preface addressed to all the Churches of Christ, added perhaps in 1825 at the time
of publication. The first three words added to the volume title before Book 1, Joannis
Miltoni Angli De Doctrina Christiana ex sacris duntaxat libris petita disquisitionum libri duo.
Posthumi may be in Skinner’s hand, along with the initials I. M. following the pref-
ace. The word “posthumi” seems to have been added to that title after a still legible
period – perhaps when Skinner offered the volume to Elzevier for posthumous pub-
lication.
88 CPW VI, 117. See above, chapter 11, p. 360. Citations in text and notes, and English
translations, are from CPW VI (trans. John Carey), unless specified as taken from the
Notes to Chapter 12
