Milton and the Sons of God: The Divine Image in Milton’s Epic Poetry by Hugh MacCallum

Abstract

correlation between the width of the stage in Jones’s drawing and the width of the frontispiece for The Siege of Rhodes (designed by Webb in the late 1650s) makes rather more convincing evidence (68-74).3 The point of all this, then, is certainly not that Orrell’s identification of the Worcester College drawings ought to be rejected; on the contrary, the point is only that the identification cannot be considered proven and that it ought not — at this stage — to be made the basis of any further consideration of Jones’s in­ fluence on the development of English theatre-design. Orrell’s reconstruction of the theatre at Christ Church, Oxford, 1605 — to look at only one of several entirely satisfactory chapters in this book — shows how brilliantly scholarly detective work of a very high order can be dovetailed with a wide and subtle familiarity with Renaissance theatredesign . Every piece of this puzzle — the plan and section discovered by Orrell, the dimensions of the hall at Christ Church, the various accounts of the Oxford performances, the theoretical models available to the set-designer and to the theatre-designer — fits together precisely. Each element in Or­ rell’s reconstruction is illuminated clearly and in its turn sheds light upon the other elements. This is exemplary scholarship. Orrell’s book will make a valuable and lasting contribution to Renaissance theatre history. Its expository grace and scholarly daring will provide a model to those students of theatre history who — like John Orrell — prefer “expectant inquiry” over “present satisfaction.” NOTES 1 D. F. Rowan, “ A Neglected Jones/Webb Theatre Project: ‘Barber-Surgeons’ Hall Writ Large,” ’ Shakespeare Survey, 23 (1970), 128. 2 Ibid. 3 It should be noted that the plan and section of the stage and the frontispiece dis­ agree with respect only to height of the stage. This, however, may reasonably be ascribed to minor oversight on Webb’s part (the absence of horizontal markings on the stage itself in the frontispiece drawing suggests that the designer was not paying attention to this detail). Pa u l y a c h n in / Wilfrid Laurier University Hugh MacCallum, Milton and the Sons of God: The Divine Image in Milton’s Epic Poetry (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986). x, 325. $35.00 “Those Dioscuri of Milton studies in Canada, A. S. P. Woodhouse and Arthur E. Barker,” Hugh MacCallum writes in the preface to his book, “ first taught me how to read Milton, and made me aware of his develop331 merit, his thought, and his art. Whatever virtue the present study may have derives in the end from their learning and insight; its limitations are my own” (x). This is a son speaking, by merit more than birthright assuming the responsibilities of what it means to be a son, a son of sons of God. The “Dioscuri” here take the place of “That Shepherd, who first taught the chosen Seed, / In the Beginning” (Paradise Lost 1.8-9) J and whether the virtue of this son “derives in the end” or in the beginning from the father, it is everywhere confirmed through acts of filial obedience performed in answerable or responsible style. MacCallum’s book thus claims for itself the status of “chosen Seed,” continuator of a great Canadian tradition of Milton studies. It perhaps merits its pedigree less on doctrinal than on stylistic grounds, in the numerous echoes of Dioscurian trope and cadence, not least in the experience of induc­ ing the reader to respond to the developing pattern of each poem discussed. Yet the doctrine too is important: this is a book, first, about Milton’s theology of sonship and, second, about his poetry of sonship. Methodologi­ cally, MacCallum gives priority to the doctrine over the poetry, to theology over aesthetics; the theology is the ground, from which the poetry “ develops further the human implications of doctrinal issues” (7). And even when MacCallum states, for example, that while Milton’s De Doctrina Christiana “directs us towards a right reading” of Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained, it “cannot be substituted for the poetry’s significance” (8), the critical valorization of Logos over lexis remains undisturbed. The unequal collaboration of theology and...