Abstract
Digital Milton presents new scholarship on John Milton using digital methods and on his reception in digital media. The digital age presents major challenges as well as opportunities for the humanities. Miltonists have begun to address these in ways that take advantage of their particular disciplinary strengths. This critical juncture calls for a dynamic alliance of historicist, formalist, and computational kinds of scholarship under the aegis of philology, and for imaginative textual theories and editorial practices. The introduction moves from a historical review of precedent scholarly inquiries and initiatives to the presentation of the interdisciplinary relevance of this collection to Milton studies, early modern studies more broadly, textual studies, media history, multimedia theory, digital editing, online curation, reception studies, and the teaching of literature.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Julia Thompson Klein, Interdisciplining Digital Humanities: Boundary Work in an Emerging Field (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2015), 2.
- 2.
John Milton, Areopagitica (1644), in The Complete Prose Works of John Milton, ed. Don M. Wolfe et al., 8 vols. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953–82), 2: 515.
- 3.
Exceptions include Laura Lunger Knoppers and Gregory M. Colón Semenza, eds., Milton in Popular Culture (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), containing Bruno Lessard, “The Environment, the Body, and the Digital Fallen Angel in Simon Biggs’s Pandaemonium,” 213–24, and Thomas H. Luxon, “Milton and the Web,” 225–36; and Peter C. Herman, ed., Approaches to Teaching Milton’s Paradise Lost, 2nd ed. (New York: Modern Language Association, 2012), containing Peter C. Herman, “Audiovisual and Online Aids,” 9–11, and Thomas H. Luxon, “The John Milton Reading Room: Teaching Paradise Lost with an Online Edition,” 189–91.
- 4.
For an exception, see David L. Hoover’s chapter in the 2016 Debates in the Digital Humanities, which rebuts the framing and example (concerning Areopagitica) used by Stanley Fish in a New York Times piece that endeavored to cloister Milton from digital literary studies. David L. Hoover, “Argument, Evidence, and the Limits of Digital Literary Studies,” in Debates in the Digital Humanities, ed. Lauren F. Klein and Matthew K. Gold (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2016) <dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates/text/71>. Accessed 15 December 2017.
- 5.
See, for example, Alan Galey and Ray Siemens, eds., “Reinventing Digital Shakespeare,” spec. issue of Shakespeare 4, no. 3 (2008); Hugh Craig and Arthur F. Kinney, eds., Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009); Thomas Dipiero and Devoney Looser, eds., “The Digital Turn,” spec. issue of Journal of Early Modern Cultural Studies 13, no. 4 (2013); Christie Carson and Peter Kirwan, eds., Shakespeare and the Digital World: Redefining Scholarship and Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014); Brett D. Hirsch and Hugh Craig, eds. “Digital Shakespeares,” spec. issue of The Shakespearean International Yearbook 14 (2014); Laura Estill, Diane K. Jakacki, and Michael Ullyot, eds., Early Modern Studies after the Digital Turn (Toronto: Iter Press, 2016); Hugh Craig and Brett Greatley-Hirsch, eds., Style, Computers, and Early Modern Drama: Beyond Authorship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017); and a projected special issue of the journal Humanities on “Shakespeare and Digital Humanities.”
- 6.
Rachel Trubowitz, “Introduction,” in Milton and the Politics of Periodization, ed. Rachel Trubowitz, spec. issue of MLQ 78, no. 3 (2017): 291–99 (291).
- 7.
Trubowitz, “Introduction,” 291.
- 8.
Trubowitz, “Introduction,” 292. See also in this connection Tom Eyers’ provocative but reductive positing of digital humanities (dubbed “The New Positivism”) and Greenblattian New Historicism as secret intellectual bedfellows, at least in their model of history, against both of which he stages a return to formalism and deconstruction in Speculative Formalism: Literature, Theory, and the Critical Present (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2017), 42–48.
- 9.
Blaine Greteman, “Milton and the Early Modern Social Network: The Case of the Epitaphium Damonis,” Milton Quarterly 49, no. 2 (2015): 79–95; Whitney Anne Trettien, “A Deep History of Electronic Textuality: The Case of English Reprints Jhon Milton Areopagitica,” Digital Humanities Quarterly 7, no. 1 (2013), <digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/7/1/000150/000150.html>. Accessed 17 November 2017; Christopher Warren et al., Six Degrees of Francis Bacon (2017), Carnegie Mellon University Libraries, <sixdegreesoffrancisbacon.com>. Accessed 1 December 2017. See also Daniel Shore, Cyberformalism: Histories of Linguistic Forms in the Digital Archive (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018), which appeared as the current collection entered production.
- 10.
Jerome McGann, A New Republic of Letters: Memory and Scholarship in the Age of Digital Reproduction (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), 4.
- 11.
Jerome McGann, “Philology in a New Key,” Critical Inquiry 39, no. 2 (2013): 327–46.
- 12.
“Digital Humanities: The Expanded Field,” in Debates in the Digital Humanities, ed. Lauren F. Klein and Matthew K. Gold (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2016) <dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates/2>. Accessed 15 December 2017.
- 13.
In a keynote lecture reprinted as the preface to a major DH anthology, Ray Siemens elaborates upon the kinds of recurrent conversations within and about the DH community’s “Big Tent”: “Here, we talk about remediating old worlds and extant material artifacts, we talk about working with new ones that are created with the technologies we use, and we talk about embracing enlarging scope, privileging diversity within that embrace and privileging public outreach and engagement. Here we talk also about founding inclusive networks, bringing us together, encouraging us to collaborate, building method-centered communities of many kinds, and organizing at various levels to achieve common goals” (“Preface: Communities of Practice, the Methodological Commons, and Digital Self-Determination in the Humanities,” in Doing Digital Humanities: Practice, Training, Research, edited by Constance Crompton, Richard J. Lane, and Ray Siemens [London: Routledge, 2016], xxi-xxxiii [xxii–xxiii]).
- 14.
John Milton, Paradise Lost, ed. Alistair Fowler, 2nd ed. (Harlow, UK: Longman, 1997), 5.652–54. Quotations of Paradise Lost in this chapter are from this edition.
- 15.
William Kolbrener, Milton’s Warring Angels: A Study of Critical Engagements (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
- 16.
We share culpability for this pun with Ernest B. Gilman, who activated it as early as the 1990s, in an engaging early discussion of Milton and hypertext: “Nor is my title completely frivolous, as I hope to show in the end when I give in to the temptation of the Apple” (Ernest B. Gilman, “Milton and the Mac: ‘Inwrought with figures dim,’” in So Rich a Tapestry: The Sister Arts and Cultural Studies, ed. Ann Hurley and Kate Greenspan (Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, 1995), 336–55 (336).
- 17.
Franco Moretti, “Conjectures on World Literature,” New Left Review, n.s. 1 (2000): 54–68 (57). On Moretti’s rhetoric, see Matthew Wickman, “Theology Still?” PMLA 132, no. 3 (2017): 674–80.
- 18.
On distant reading and macroanalysis, see Franco Moretti, Distant Reading (London: Verso, 2014); Matthew L. Jockers, Macroanalysis: Digital Methods and Literary History (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2013); and the pamphlet publications of the Stanford Literary Laboratory, available at <litlab.stanford.edu/pamphlets>. Accessed 1 January 2018.
- 19.
McGann, New Republic, 4. The passage continues helpfully: “But the work of the humanist scholar has not changed with the advent of digital devices. It is still to preserve, to monitor, to investigate, and to augment our cultural life and inheritance. That simple truth is why, as we seek to exploit electronic environments, we want to think about them in traditional philological terms” (4).
- 20.
C. P. Snow, The Two Cultures: and A Second Look (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964). This text includes Snow’s 1959 Rede Lecture (first published in the same year) as well as his reflections and clarifications based on its reception. Snow first used the title for a 1956 New Statesman essay.
- 21.
As Rachel Trubowitz puts it towards the conclusion of her study of Milton’s and Isaac Newton’s conception of both poetry and mathematics as intellectual means towards spiritual insight, “The clean break between science and poetry that we date to this historically specific moment thus might not be as unsullied as we have been accustomed to believe. This is not a negligible issue since our still-very-sturdy sense of this clean break makes any attempt to compare Milton and Newton seem to be impossible” (“Reading Milton and Newton in the Radical Reformation: Poetry, Mathematics, and Religion.” ELH 84, no. 1 [2017]: 33–62 [55]). For Milton’s intellectual and poetic involvement in the scientific zeitgeist, see also Joanna Picciotto, Labors of Innocence in Early Modern England (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010); Dennis Danielson, Paradise Lost and the Cosmological Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014); Claire Preston, The Poetics of Scientific Investigation in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 18; and the closing section of Hugh Macrae Richmond’s Chap. 10. Milton’s own projected reformed course of studies, set out in his Of Education (1644), militated against over-specialization, albeit rhetoric and poetry crowned a curriculum that incorporated “Arithmetic, Geometry, Astronomy, and Geography with a generall compact of Physicks,” as well as “the instrumental science of Trigonometry” and exposure to topics in engineering and natural history at an earlier stage (Complete Prose Works, 2: 391–92).
- 22.
See Klein, Interdisciplining, 31.
- 23.
David Golumbia, “Death of a Discipline,” differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 25, no. 1 (2014): 156–76.
- 24.
Johanna Drucker, “Why Distant Reading Isn’t,” PMLA 132, no. 3 (2017): 628–35 (629–30).
- 25.
Eyers, Speculative Formalism, 42–48.
- 26.
See Johanna Drucker, SpecLab: Digital Aesthetics and Projects in Speculative Computing (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009).
- 27.
Blair Worden, Literature and Politics in Cromwellian England: John Milton, Andrew Marvell, Marchamont Nedham (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 1.
- 28.
McGann admonishes: “Nor does anyone have a good idea about how online scholarly works will be sustained beyond a twenty-year horizon. And while that may be an entrepreneur’s horizon, it is not a scholar’s. We don’t have the necessary knowledge” (New Republic, 27). We take some heart from the fact that, as Zukerman notes in Chap. 2, The John Milton Reading Room, begun in 1996, has passed that horizon. Moreover, as so often in considering the new intertwinings of print and digital, intimations of mortality cut both ways. McGann dryly notes in his acknowledgments that an early version of the very chapter that addresses the sustainability of work in digital environments, and of the environments themselves, is “still available freely online” while “the print-on-demand version became inaccessible when Rice University Press went out of business” (232).
- 29.
Trettien, “Deep History,” ¶1, 14.
- 30.
Trettien, “Deep History,” ¶26, 28.
- 31.
McGann, New Republic, 14.
- 32.
See Joseph Raben, “A Computer-Aided Study of Literary Influence: Milton to Shelley,” in Literary Data Processing Conference Proceedings, ed. Jess B. Bessinger, Jr., Stephen M. Parrish, and Harry F. Arader (New York: Modern Language Association, 1964), 230–74.
- 33.
Thomas N. Corns, The Development of Milton’s Prose Style (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982); and Milton’s Language (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990).
- 34.
Corns, Milton’s Prose Style, xi.
- 35.
Gordon Campbell, Thomas N. Corns, John K. Hale, and Fiona J. Tweedie, Milton and the Manuscript of De Doctrina Christiana (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 159.
- 36.
“John Milton’s Paradise Lost” (2008), The Morgan Library and Museum, <themorgan.org/collection/John-Miltons-Paradise-Lost>. Accessed 1 December 2017.
- 37.
Katharine Fletcher, et al., eds., Darkness Visible, Christ’s College, Cambridge University (2008–), <darknessvisible.christs.cam.ac.uk/index.html>. Accessed 1 December 2017.
- 38.
Cf. Milton, Areopagitica, in Complete Prose Works 2: 514. For a salutary discussion of some of these issues that includes an illuminating case study of “bibliodiversity” within library holdings, erased through their replacement by unitary digital scans, see Andrew Stauffer, “My Old Sweethearts: On Digitization and the Future of the Print Record,” in Debates in the Digital Humanities, ed. Lauren F. Klein and Matthew K. Gold (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2016) <dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates/text/70>. Accessed 15 December 2017. On Google Books and the Google Books Settlement, see McGann, New Republic, 133–34. On Google’s influence upon knowledge production, see, indicatively, Brody Mullins and Jack Nicas, “Paying Professors: Inside Google’s Academic Influence Campaign,” The Wall Street Journal, 14 July 2017; and Jonathan Taplin, “Google’s Disturbing Influence over Think Tanks,” The New York Times, 30 August 2017. For the notion of “primitive digital accumulation,” see Brian A. Brown, “Primitive Digital Accumulation: Privacy, Social Networks, and Biopolitical Exploitation,” Rethinking Marxism: A Journal of Economics, Culture, and Society 25, no. 3 (2013): 385–403.
- 39.
Geraghty’s 32 scanned documents are most conveniently accessed via an advanced search on the string “John Geraghty” within the “creator” field on the Internet Archive <archive.org>. Accessed 1 December 2017.
- 40.
Kevin J. T. Creamer, “About,” John Milton: The Milton-L Home Page (2007–) <johnmilton.org/about>. Accessed 1 December 2017. The home page migrated to its present site from The Milton-L Home Page (1991–2009) <facultystaff.richmond.edu/~creamer/milton>, at which earlier posts and links (not all functional) remain available (accessed 1 December 2017).
- 41.
“The Milton-L Archives” (2003–), University of Richmond, <lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l>. Accessed 1 December 2017.
- 42.
The Milton Society of America (2018), CUNY Academic Commons, <miltonsociety.commons.gc.cuny.edu>. Accessed 1 January 2018.
- 43.
Compare Marvell’s “On Paradise Lost,” printed in the second edition of Milton’s poem: “While the town-Bayes writes all the while and spells, / And like a pack-horse tires without his bells: / Their fancies like our bushy-points appear, / The poets tag them, we for fashion wear” (ll. 47–50, quoted from Paradise Lost, ed. Fowler, 54). “Bayes” is an allusive hit at the laureate Dryden, whose unperformed operatic adaptation of Paradise Lost used rhyming couplets.
Works Cited
Brown, Brian A. “Primitive Digital Accumulation: Privacy, Social Networks, and Biopolitical Exploitation.” Rethinking Marxism: A Journal of Economics, Culture, and Society 25, no. 3 (2013): 385–403.
Campbell, Gordon, Thomas N. Corns, John K. Hale, and Fiona J. Tweedie. Milton and the Manuscript of De Doctrina Christiana. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Carson, Christie and Peter Kirwan, eds. Shakespeare and the Digital World: Redefining Scholarship and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Corns, Thomas N. The Development of Milton’s Prose Style. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982.
———. Milton’s Language. Oxford: Blackwell, 1990.
Craig, Hugh and Arthur F. Kinney, eds. Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Craig, Hugh and Brett Greatley-Hirsch, eds. Style, Computers, and Early Modern Drama: Beyond Authorship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Creamer, Kevin J. T. 2007–. “About.” John Milton: The Milton-L Home Page. <johnmilton.org/about>. Accessed 1 December 2017.
———. 1991–2009. The Milton-L Home Page. <facultystaff.richmond.edu/~creamer/milton>. Accessed 1 December 2017.
Danielson, Dennis. Paradise Lost and the Cosmological Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Dipiero, Thomas and Devoney Looser, eds. The Digital Turn. Special issue of Journal of Early Modern Cultural Studies 13, no. 4 (2013).
Drucker, Johanna. SpecLab: Digital Aesthetics and Projects in Speculative Computing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009.
———. “Why Distant Reading Isn’t.” PMLA 132, no. 3 (2017): 628–35.
Estill, Laura, Diane K. Jakacki, and Michael Ullyot, eds. Early Modern Studies After the Digital Turn. Tempe, AZ: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2016.
Eyers, Tom. Speculative Formalism: Literature, Theory, and the Critical Present. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2017.
Fletcher, Katharine, et al., eds. 2008–. Darkness Visible. Christ’s College, Cambridge University. <darknessvisible.christs.cam.ac.uk/index.html>. Accessed 1 December 2017.
Galey, Alan and Ray Siemens, eds. “Reinventing Digital Shakespeare.” Special issue of Shakespeare 4, no. 3 (2008).
Gilman, Ernest B. “Milton and the Mac: ‘Inwrought with Figures Dim.’” In So Rich a Tapestry: The Sister Arts and Cultural Studies, edited by Ann Hurley and Kate Greenspan. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, 1995. 336–55.
Golumbia, David. “Death of a Discipline.” Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 25, no. 1 (2014): 156–76.
Greteman, Blaine. “Milton and the Early Modern Social Network: The Case of the Epitaphium Damonis.” Milton Quarterly 49, no. 2 (2015): 79–95.
Herman, Peter C., ed. Approaches to Teaching Milton’s Paradise Lost. 2nd ed. New York: Modern Language Association, 2012.
Hirsch, Brett D., and Hugh Craig, eds. “Digital Shakespeares.” Special issue of The Shakespearean International Yearbook 14 (2014).
Hoover, David L. “Argument, Evidence, and the Limits of Digital Literary Studies.” In Debates in the Digital Humanities, edited by Lauren F. Klein and Matthew K. Gold. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2016. <dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates/text/71>. Accessed 15 December 2017.
Jockers, Matthew L. Macroanalysis: Digital Methods and Literary History. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2013.
“John Milton’s Paradise Lost.” 2008. Online Exhibition. The Morgan Library and Museum. <themorgan.org/collection/John-Miltons-Paradise-Lost>. Accessed 1 December 2017.
Klein, Julie Thompson. Interdisciplining Digital Humanities: Boundary Work in an Emerging Field. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2015.
Klein, Lauren F. and Matthew K. Gold. “Digital Humanities: The Expanded Field.” In Debates in the Digital Humanities, edited by Lauren F. Klein and Matthew K. Gold. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2016. <dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates/2>. Accessed 15 December 2017.
Knoppers, Laura Lunger and Gregory M. Colón Semenza, eds. Milton in Popular Culture. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
Kolbrener, William. Milton’s Warring Angels: A Study of Critical Engagements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Lessard, Bruno. “The Environment, the Body, and the Digital Fallen Angel in Simon Biggs’s Pandaemonium.” In Milton in Popular Culture, edited by Laura Lunger Knoppers and Gregory M. Colón Semenza. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. 213–24.
Luxon, Thomas H. “Milton and the Web.” In Milton in Popular Culture, edited by Laura Lunger Knoppers and Gregory M. Colón Semenza. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. 225–36.
———. “The John Milton Reading Room: Teaching Paradise Lost with an Online Edition.” In Approaches to Teaching Milton’s Paradise Lost, edited by Peter C. Herman. 2nd ed. New York: Modern Language Association, 2012. 189–91.
McGann, Jerome. A New Republic of Letters: Memory and Scholarship in the Age of Digital Reproduction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014.
———. “Philology in a New Key.” Critical Inquiry 39, no. 2 (2013): 327–46.
Milton, John. The Complete Prose Works of John Milton, edited by Don M. Wolfe et al. 8 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953–82.
———. Paradise Lost, edited by Alistair Fowler. 2nd ed. Harlow, UK: Longman, 1997.
The Milton Society of America. 2018. CUNY Academic Commons. <miltonsociety.commons.gc.cuny.edu>. Accessed 1 January 2018.
“The Milton-L Archives.” 2003–. University of Richmond. <lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l>. Accessed 1 December 2017.
Moretti, Franco. “Conjectures on World Literature.” New Left Review, n.s. 1 (2000): 54–68.
———. Distant Reading. London: Verso, 2014.
———. Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for a Literary Theory. London: Verso, 2005.
Mullins, Brody and Jack Nicas. “Paying Professors: Inside Google’s Academic Influence Campaign.” The Wall Street Journal. 14 July 2017.
Picciotto, Joanna. Labors of Innocence in Early Modern England. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010.
Preston, Claire. The Poetics of Scientific Investigation in Seventeenth-Century England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Raben, Joseph. “A Computer-Aided Study of Literary Influence: Milton to Shelley.” In Literary Data Processing Conference Proceedings, edited by Jess B. Bessinger, Jr., Stephen M. Parrish, and Harry F. Arader. New York: Modern Language Association, 1964. 230–74.
Shore, Daniel. Cyberformalism: Histories of Linguistic Forms in the Digital Archive. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018.
Siemens, Ray. “Preface: Communities of Practice, the Methodological Commons, and Digital Self-Determination in the Humanities.” In Doing Digital Humanities: Practice, Training, Research, edited by Constance Crompton, Richard J. Lane, and Ray Siemens. London: Routledge, 2016. xxi–xxxiii.
Snow, C. P. The Two Cultures: And A Second Look. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964.
Stauffer, Andrew. “My Old Sweethearts: On Digitization and the Future of the Print Record.” In Debates in the Digital Humanities, edited by Lauren F. Klein and Matthew K. Gold. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2016. <dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates/text/70>. Accessed 15 December 2017.
Taplin, Jonathan. “Google’s Disturbing Influence Over Think Tanks.” The New York Times. 30 August 2017.
Trettien, Whitney Anne. “A Deep History of Electronic Textuality: The Case of English Reprints Jhon Milton Areopagitica.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 7, no. 1 (2013). <digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/7/1/000150/000150.html>. Accessed 17 November 2017.
Trubowitz, Rachel. “Introduction.” In Milton and the Politics of Periodization, edited by Rachel Trubowitz. Special issue of MLQ 78, no. 3 (2017): 291–99.
———. “Reading Milton and Newton in the Radical Reformation: Poetry, Mathematics, and Religion.” ELH 84, no. 1 (2017): 33–62.
Warren, Christopher, et al. 2017. Six Degrees of Francis Bacon. Carnegie Mellon University Libraries. <sixdegreesoffrancisbacon.com>. Accessed 1 December 2017.
Wickman, Matthew. “Theology Still?” PMLA 132, no. 3 (2017): 674–80.
Worden, Blair. Literature and Politics in Cromwellian England: John Milton, Andrew Marvell, Marchamont Nedham. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Currell, D., Issa, I. (2018). Milton! Thou Shouldst Be Living in These Media. In: Currell, D., Issa, I. (eds) Digital Milton. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90478-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90478-8_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-90477-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-90478-8
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)