text:
Talk:John Milton

/Archive 1

Early Life Section
Says he moved to London in the 16th century - before he was born. andylaw31 1:17, 9 June 2009 (BST)
 * On closer inspection, it is probably referring to his father, but it is not made clear enough. andylaw31 (talk) 1:21, 9 June 2009 (BST)
 * The 16th century refers to dates between 1500 and 1599 -- just as the 20th century refers to dates between 1900 and 1999. Dates have origin zero.  So this passage was not an error.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The first century CE begins with year 1 and ends with year 100 and so on.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So, we are on to that old entertainment. Logically, if you count a century of numbers in any sensible system, it starts with 1 and ends with 100.  But then logic does not count for much against the power of usage.  --Martin Wyatt (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

/* Poetry and drama */ Corrected 1631 Title, ('Patent Nonsense'?: "On Arriving at the Age of Twenty-Three" or it is something he wrote earlier I am ignorant of - I am more concerned this is hostile editing, actually?) ; Or his birth year b.1602... NOW here, b.1608? has NOT? been altered throughout, here - I certainly know 1631 produced 'Announces his Intentions on Writing an epic' - Was Milton not precisely 28/29 years old at this point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralegh1973 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Defended Popular government?
The statement "The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates (1649) defended popular government" is wrong.

Milton was not concerned about "popular" government in the slightest. He was no different from the rest of the English cultural elite when it came to fears about mob rule. In Paradise Regained he imagines Jesus calmly telling Satan

And what the people but a herd confused, A miscellaneous rabble, who extol Things vulgar, and, well weighed, scarce worth the praise? They praise and they admire they know not what, And know not whom, but as one leads the other; And what delight to be by such extolled, To live upon their tongues, and be their talk? Of whom to be dispraised were no small praise-- His lot who dares be singularly good. The intelligent among them and the wise Are few, and glory scarce of few is raised. Milton was an elitist- at the eve of the Restoration of Monarchy he did not care about what was popular or even 'representative'- he did all he could to stop the return of monarchy. His political ideal was the early Roman Republic.

"popular government" could be changed for "representative government" but the rump parliament has dubious claims to such a title even if Milton felt that particular group of individuals represented what England most needed.

In the Tenure, Milton is defending the right to resist tyranny by all possible means. When the tract does concern itself with systems of government it should be seen within the conciliarist tradition and as a precursor to the Locke's contractual theories of government. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.38.64.39 (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

 * I wrote the sentence about the Tenure and I agree that Milton's understanding of popular goverment is not at all synonymous with modern democracy (but neither was that of the Founding Fathers). In 1648/1649 Milton was far more optimistic about the potential of the English people at large than in 1660 or 1671, when the texts you cite date from. In the Tenure Milton writes:

 * that the power of kings and magistrates is nothing else but what is only derivative, transferred, and committed to them in trust from the people to the common good of them all, in whom the power yet remains fundamentally and cannot be taken from them without a violation of their natural birthright

 * and later: it follows, lastly, since the king or magistrates holds his authority of the people, both originally and naturally for their good in the first place, and not his own, then may the people, as oft as they shall judge it for the best, either choose him or reject him, retain him or depose him, though no tyrant, merely by the liberty and right of freeborn men to be governed as seems to them best.

 * Support for popular goverment, in the basic sense of "deriving from the people" (however "people" might be defined), seems explicit here. But your concerns with Milton's later elitism are certainly real, and placing the Tenure in the Lockean tradition is also valuable. Perhaps the Tenure deserves its own article?Esquilax8 13:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Milton was more far optimistic about what could be achieved by the English ‘people’ in the initial years after the regicide than my original comments suggest. However, the Tenure is not the best example of this mood and certainly not the dominant subject of the work. In Tenure, I would argue that Milton is particularly intent on attacking those Presbyterians who once sanctioned active resistance to Charles I but then baulked at regicide. While it is true that Milton engages with origins of political power (as ably demonstrated by your citations) the most prominent discussion is about when and why it is legitimate to resist kings and magistrates: Do you not find it significant that Milton does not refer to any political mechanism by which ‘the people’ can assert the ‘liberty and right of freeborn men?’ Professing the underlying principles of resistance to tyranny by persons/people is not the same as defending a system of government. The fact that the Tenure impressed- as I'm sure you're aware it led to the eikon and defence commissions- the new English Republican government led by Cromwell, a man whose thoughts about the electoral franchise and property qualifications are well recorded (Putney debates etc), does not suggest that Milton's allusions to "the people" and "common good" were troublesome. In fact I would say that it is Milton's vagueness over the question of "the people" and legitimate resistance that was so very appealing to them.

I also agree with you that Milton’s understanding of ‘popular government’ bears little resemblance to modern notions of democracy. This is my point entirely. Surely it is misleading for the general reader to be informed that the Tenure ‘defends popular government?’ And how useful is this expression any way? President Bush’s victory over Gore or Blair’s third term could be considered manifestations of popular governance but obvious qualifications can be produced about mandate etc. Furthermore, the phrase ‘defends…’ implies that the idea of ‘popular government’ was under considerable attack, or even that the regicide was blamed on the defects of such a political system. Most Royalist commentators condemned the regicide as the act of religious zealots and only the levellers were really discussing any thing approaching popular government at the time.

The uncertainty you express as to what Milton meant by “the people” strikes at the most difficult aspect of the Tenure. It seems perverse to imply that Milton believed that the regicide was perpetrated by ‘popular government,’ as Milton well knew, the regicide was forced by a Parliamentary Army who purged the parliament (an elected body of the people) of objectors. We should not forget that Milton was more than aware that a large section of ‘the people’ (including his then wife) were against the regicide. Although Milton unquestionably believed the regicide was for the ‘common good,’ the insinuation that the parliamentary army are defended by Milton because they were the ‘popular government’ is difficult to swallow. I would hazard that Milton envisaged the army as a group of private individuals whose legitimate resistance, as laid out by copious allusions to biblical and historical acts of tyrannicide by individuals, expressed the will of ‘good men.’ In the third sentence of the Tenure, Milton states ‘none can love freedom heartlie, but good men, the rest love not freedom.’  Where does this leave popular governance or the general reader?

Perhaps "advocates popular sovereignity" would be a good compromise?

 * Given what Milton had in mind for the government of the English people in 1659, it is nonsensical to make him a defender of popular government or popular sovereignity.
 * It is also unfair and misleading to say "this differs from our view of democracy but so did the founding fathers". Apart from being Americanocentric, the founding fathers with all their flaws and concerns about mob rule (not all without foundation) were still basically in agreement with what we today call representative democracy. Milton was not. Str1977 (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny how you can say such a thing, even though the government of the Civil War was from an uprising of the common people. You also show an extreme lack of insight to what Milton actually understood about politics. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * An uprising of the common people? You obviously don't know much about the English civil war. It was a conflict between King and the majority of a elitist parliament. And have you actually read the "Ready and Easy Way"? You might be surprised! Str1977 (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If by "the majority of a elitist parliament" means "oppressed Calvinists who desired to overthrown the strict Anglican system combined with Anglicans who were afraid that Catholics were taking over the country, representing the vast majority of English Middle and Lower classes", then you are correct. However, I am sure that you don't actually mean this, just as I am sure that you aren't relying on actual studies in Miltonic studies. And one of my most favorite articles to write was on the religious and political relationship between Milton and Hobbes, so I will be prepared to fight on this very topic. Now, lets look at what Keeble has to say about the Readie and Easie Way - "In The Readie and Easie Way (1660), only a month before the Restoration, Milton foresaw a reactionary tyranny of decadent indulgence as its inevitable consequence... with a culture of servile deference to a king who 'must be ador'd like a Demigod'... while he has little to do but 'to pageant himself up and down in progress among the perpetual bowings and cringings of an abject people'" Yeah, that definitely doesn't read as popular, especially with its emphasis on the dangers of people worshipping a sole individual who will tyrannize the people and abuse his power. Oh wait, this is very definition of popular! Ottava Rima (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keeble, N. H. "Milton and Puritanism" in A Companion to Milton. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. p. 133. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Oh yes, I am relying on actual Milton studies though I don't have them at end but I can remember well enough. Oh, yes all these poor oppressed and downtrodden people, e.g. the Earl of Warwick. And yes, Catholics definitely were taking over!
 * The word tyranny smells bad out of the mouth of a guy like Milton who for years worked for an actual tyrant. And even if one considered the monarchy to be bad, it was what most people wanted at the time but Milton could not accept this.
 * In any case, your posting indicate that you have vast POV problems and hence cannot see how utterly POV the "politics" section is. Str1977 (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If I may say so, it seems to me that Str1977's interpretation of the English Civil War is not very well-informed. "It was a conflict between King and the majority of a elitist parliament" is hardly accurate, in that it ignores the extent to which the general population felt allegiances to one side or the other, and were prepared to be mobilised in support of their preferred faction.  If it had just been a conflict between a King and a parliament, it could have been described as a coup, but the King/parliament antagonism was part of a larger split in English society at the time.  A statement like "And even if one considered the monarchy to be bad, it was what most people wanted at the time but Milton could not accept this" is evidence that Str1977 is hardly free of "POV problems".  The fact is, there were enough people in England who didn't want the monarchy for there to be a full-blown civil war about it.  I imagine that you will argue that anybody who took parliament's side in the Civil War was by default part of an "elite".  Lexo (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This would be a moment to recall talk page guidelines. Debating points bad, discussion of what we do to improve the article today good. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Paradise Lost and Milton's view
The existing version states that PL "...reflects his personal despair at the failure of the Revolution, yet affirms an ultimate optimism in human potential". The first statement is controversial, and, I'd say, implies a heavily allegorical reading of the poem, and especially of Books 1 and 2. The second statement is a horrible generalisation, and sounds like the sort of thing you'd right on an junior manager's HR appraisal form. Unless anyone objects. I'll rewrite it in a day or two.Bedesboy 17:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Note about images
Hello. I added a "reqphoto" tag to this article because I expected full color portraits. OK from my point of view in advance to remove or change this tag. -Susanlesch (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Bias
The first section seems to take sides in the debate between those who hold up Milton as the greatest ever poet and those who question his high status. I think it should be more neutral, and that the final sentence of that section in particular seems a little strong. I also believe that claiming a renewed interest in Milton due to Pullman and Brown is a little farfetched.Thecopybook (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Milton and his influence on Mill
Would it be a valid section to expand the 'influences' section to include the obvious influences which Milton's early defense of free speech had on John Stuart Mill? In his autobiography Mill makes reference to the Areopagitica and one need only briefly look upon the texts to see inherent similarities. With John Stuart Mill being such an important source for modern liberalism that seems a key idea. --Showa58taro (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Dating Conventions
Two different conventions are used on this page. I strongly recommend that the international convention should be used, particularly as Milton is more closely associated with England than the US. See the Wikipedia style page on dates and number Manual of Style (dates and numbers) Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Latin poetry
Considering how jaunty is Milton's elegy V (a celebration of free love, written in fine Latin style), I'm thinking of adding this observation to the article:
 * "It is the opinion of some experts that Milton probably made love to his wife in Latin and only preached to her in English. If however he had been a Catholic, he would probably have made love to her in English and preached to her in Latin."

Anyone second this edit? Lucretius (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

New Book
There is a new book: "John Milton: Life, Work and Thought by Gordon Campbell and Thomas N Corns 512pp, OUP. This is well reviewed by the Daily Telegraph, Review: October 25, 2008, p 22. It analyses how and when Milton was radicalised, suggesting that the tipping point was in 1637. Also suggests he had "close-angle glaucoma" and died suddenly probably from "a massive gastro-intestinal haemorrhage". Campbell wrote the DNB entry. Book may be worth using? Budhen (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Puzzling
I'm puzzled by this sentence and I quote:

The Romantics' simulataneous acceptance of Milton's poetics and rejection of his theological concerns may have encouraged later readers to neglect the theological content of his long poems while admiring his often thunderously musical lines.

Simulataneous I can live with as a curiosity but may have and thunderously musical? I don't think so. This sentence suggests an impressionable critic groping for the right words and not finding them. He may have neglected objectivity while admiring his own thunderously musical something or other but that's mere speculation on my part. I'll delete it if nobody objects. Lucretius (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC) I deleted it anyway whether anyone objects or not. Lucretius (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added lots of 'citation needed' tags to the section Legacy and influence. It takes real scholarship to identify a writer's legacy and influence and this section needs CITATIONS in support of the points it makes. Lucretius (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Edits
My edits have been blanket reverted under the pretense of them violating WP guidelines. No specific guideline is mentioned and my edits do not violate anything. Especially they did not remove "cited information". If this is to refer to the POV tag, one should keep in mind that merely citing information is not enough to ensure NPOV. Actually I didn't change much content making Ottava's screaming all the more surprising. But I did improve readibility in one instance. Str1977 (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As per this. You add a POV tag in a section with cited information. POV tags are not for that. NPOV only means that something is given weight and must be cited. This is cited. Thus, a POV tag is completely unnecessary and seen as extremely improper. Your changing of a section to a bullited list also violates many MOS standards. The fact template is completely unnecessary as there is no talk page dispute to it making it controversial. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ottava,
 * the POV tag indicates not that something is uncited but that NPOV is in some way not met. You can cite a whole of sources and emerge with a onesided picture. Here, this is the case: it is not even much that is cited but merely to statements:
 * "Milton's fervent commitment to republicanism in an age of absolute monarchies" - correct
 * "was both unpopular and dangerous." - discount this as poetry to celebrate the hero
 * "In coming centuries, Milton would be claimed as an early apostle of liberalism." - probably true.
 * But there is so much more that could be said about Milton's politics - positive things but also things that don't seem so "liberal".
 * Ottava, please go and read the NPOV policy. WP:NPOV not WP:V. Str1977 (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. If things are missing, the policy is to add, not tag, especially when a page is undergoing revisions. 2. POV tags are always used for uncited material that is controversial. 3. Rely on sources, not your own judgment about what is right or wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Yes, add. But there is so much to add and the underlying problem is clear: this is two sentences masquerading as a section. If you are really that great a Milton scholar, it should be easy to add stuff. But the things you wrote above are hardly neutral, so don't come up with this.
 * 2. Nonsense. POV tags are used to tag a section or an article that does not fit with the neutral point of view. You could have neutral section without citations (in which case, of course, citations should be added) and you can also have a POV section with citations.
 * As for last sentence, I for my part reserve the right to use my brain, even if literary ayatollahs like Mr Milton would not approve of that.
 * Str1977 (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying that there is a lot of work needed is no excuse to spam up a page with templates. Its just that simple. And the things I wrote above aren't neutral? Too bad. NPOV says that points of view should be used based on their weight, which means that highly respected scholars deserve to have their say and view, and that people like you with fringe view are basically ignored. It does not mean "no POV". POV is an opinion that is not cited to a credible source and based on weight only. WP:NPOV - have a look. "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Thus, this source, given exactly as its portrayed, cannot be labeled as POV. If you want more sources added, then add them or request them. Don't improperly add templates. And if you want to say that Milton wouldn't allow you to use your brain, then you are soapboxing and your edits should be questioned as being biased and going against NPOV, especially when you attack cited information. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what's simple here but this is not. The section does not give a neutral picture of Milton's politics (which means several views being mentioned) and hence my tagging was proper. Spamming it is certainly not as you are well aware - spamming would be running around placing tags into numerous articles. I am not doing this.
 * It's not Milton who doesn't allow me. You talk like this. But Milton would certainly agree, preferring to have us commonors ruled by wise man like himself. And if you can't see that I was half-joking, I can't help you. And again, you are using my comments to attack me and discredit my edits - apparently you have nothing substantial to say against my edits. Str1977 (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Milton is dead. Gesh. Templates are unnecessary. Plus, there is a big editing set planned for Miltonic pages in preparation for his birthday, so if you just held your horses the page will change. As I said before, the page is undergoing various revisions. Normally if there is a problem, people just post a note on a talk page asking for help and users come by. It isn't very helpful to just template up a page. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is something ahead that will change things, I would be happy. Still, that is no reason not to raise the problem and a tag (not a template) is a valid way to do it. It isn't very helpful to try to shout others down as you did in the beginning, with hysterical accusations of vandalism and invented guidelines. Str1977 (talk) 08:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Str1977, if you want to say something like "Milton's views on who should hold power in the Commonwealth were minority opinions", you can do that, based on citation, so that "according to (scholar) Milton's views ...". There were no polls, were there? So the interesting point of where Milton stood on the political spectrum in 1650, or whenever, has to be addressed by citing various authorities, to give a reasonable view of the business. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles, your edits improved the section greatly. However, there is still no indication that at least in 1659 Milton argued against popular government (see Ready and Easy Way). Since this is a fact going against the impression created by the other facts mentioned. Merely saying he was opposed towards the trend towards Stuart restoration is not enough. Str1977 (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

 * OK, for 1659 we have various things: Richard Cromwell fell, and by the end of the year Milton had been imprisoned. So in between he was advocating for some kind of ruling council, I think? Certainly for some sort of undemocratic institution, and therefore against the popular trend towards the restoration of the monarchy. I'm a bit Miltoned out right now, frankly, but I can certainly fill in more about that as a crux, if that is what you want to see there. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, in Ready and Easy Way he argued for the rule of an unelected council that coopted any new members. The section can still be improved on this but your latest edits at least lifted it above the NPOV threshold. Especially it should be clarified what "undemocratic" here means as there have been not unreasonable charges that no English government of the period was democratic. There is a difference between undemocratic via census elections and undemocartic via no elections at all. But thanks for your effort. Str1977 (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I'll work on it. Ch. 14 of Worden that I cite is thirty pages long, and so there will be enough detail if I read it! You are right about "undemocratic", of course: it's just a stopgap term. I believe his council would have been Long Parliament members back again, so they would have been appointed. Thanks for your input. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. No need to hurry this.
 * I don't believe he thought of the Long Parliament (which in the end was restored to his dislike), more like a sort of Rump Parliament (maybe a different selection) with no further elections. But that's mere speculation, since his suggestion was fortunately not implemented. Str1977 (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Milton expansion, rework
Going along with the sentiment expressed above about getting back to how to fix this page, what we should do is start building up the sections to around 60-70k. Then we need to decide if we have Harvnb references or not. After that, we should probably break down the weight by this: biography (about 1/5), characteristics (marriage, blindness, personality, friends, philosophy including religious and political views etc( (about 1/5), politics involvement (his occupation as a propagandist, his pamphlet writing) (about 1/5) and his poetry (early and late) (about 2/5, so 1/5 for each but more on his big three). Broken into 1/5s, that leaves about 12k per section. We also need to start introducing more images. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I forgot about legacy, that would take up whatever was left over, and most likely until 10k. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On the images, the attractive Christ's college portrait is easily available on the internet, but only in vertically stretched versions (as is sometimes the case). Can anyone scan it from a book? I replaced the dreadful Victorian drawing in the lead with the NPG portrait. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm always against fancy referencing styles. We need referencing styles invented for the Web, not academia. I'm not convinced by the outline. One thing that seems missing is his sources: there must surely be something to say about how his reading fed into his works, even though there is the "standard" line that he was highly original. Given enough articles hanging off this one, it is not so hard to invoke summary style and move material around, but 40% on the poetry seems a little high. We don't seem to have got that far with the politics and its consequences, either. Not much here about Levellers, Ranters or antinomianism, all of which would be useful to define in relation to Milton. I would suggest, also, that we should be quite careful about his reputation. Proper citations of his supposed European reputation in his lifetime would be very valuable. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that a lot of his reading can be covered in poetry and political sections, especially in discussing the various allusions. Discussing Epic, the fusion of the Bible, Augustinian beliefs, etc would surely appear. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Dear me, William Blake nowhere mentioned. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And the information about Keats is wretched (more on Keats found on my subpage). I'm going to build up the reception history page, and we can work off of that somewhat. I like how "Victorian" is only Hardy. : ) I would defend that to the death if I could. LOL. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Romantics
I think it would cause there to be too many headings if we gave Romantics their individual place, and by favoring Blake, we deny the equal impact on Wordsworth and Keats, and to a lesser extent on Coleridge and Shelley. I would be comfortable with 4 lines or so devoted to Blake, but no more than a full paragraph for the big three combined. The others could be combined in a paragraph with Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and James Fennimore Cooper's The Last of the Mohicans, which derive their plot structure from Milton. We will also need a note about how the view of Milton changed after the discovery of De Doctrina Christiana, which followed after these works were already published (so, at the beginning of a discussion on the Victorians). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, that sounds too prescriptive to me, really and truly. All the connections to Romantic poetry deserve at least a summary treatment. So far I'm just troubleshooting what is there. If the section as developed gets out of hand, then we can split out a separate page, and summarize. Blake is certainly worth a heading. Wordsworth needs more, and there is the general point about Milton being the "Bard" in the mind of the Romantics, for which I'm searching for a good reference in M. H. Abrams. Bear in mind, also, that this is really just a first pass through to fact-check the older content in the article, find references and fill some obvoius gaps. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The literary influence page would be such a page for such an information. I'm mostly planning ahead for the next step, i.e. building this to FA. I only mentioned that the individuals shouldn't have headings because it would make the table of contents way too large and possibly give preferential treatment. For instance, Milton's and Hobbes's relationship, Milton's and Marvell's, etc, are just as important as Blake's use of Milton. We have to be mindful of weight, because once other people start showing up, they will probably bring such concerns. A good plan is better than no plan. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

 * There are ways to massage the ToC, if that is your concern. I think we should have something about Hobbes (there is a little about Marvell already). Just picking up the Cambridge Companion to Milton (1989) and looking in the index, there are six references to Blake, two to Hobbes, six to Marvell. It seems we are doing OK, really. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Much to ponder. It is mostly an aesthetic ToC concern. I would prefer a sub division having at least three paragraphs in it. We should probably not go further than 70k before pictures and the rest are added. Right now, we have about 20k to work with. That boils down to what, 3000 words or so? We might be able to deal with that. We could combine Wordsworth and Keats together, as Keats is responding to both Milton and Wordsworth (or responding to Milton through Wordsworthian ideas). I don't know. It seems that a lot of people have a lot of things written about them and their connection to Milton. Johnson, for instance. I'll have to think this over more. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Milton is obviously worth an FA. My current approach is broad-based: I want to bring up more 17th-century articles to about A standard, and add secondary topics to fill in redlinks. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was dragged into Milton. I know Milton through my studies on Keats and epic as a genre. I want Milton up to FA so I can have a strong basis for putting forth a page on Keats's Hyperion as an epic (there is a lot of information on it, just a complex issue to talk about and would need other Wikilinks to help fill it out). But yeah, Milton deserves an FA and I think we could easily work to achieve such a thing. I will dump information on the talk page when I get a chance, and build the other pages in addition. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The Caption for Milton reading to his daughters
If Milton was reading Paradise Lost to his duaghters, I don't know if this would be right, because John wrote Paradise Lost after he was blind. I do know his daughters read to him after glaucoma took his sight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carterky (talk • contribs) 13:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The image shows his blindness. He could be "reading" from memory, or simply reciting. The german title is "Milton diktiert seinen Töchtern das »Paradise Lost«" Ottava Rima (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Diktiert' means 'dicate,' and considering that the painting shows the daughter holding a manuscript and a pen, and Milton without a book, I think it's safe to say he's dictating the poem just as he is traditionally reported to have done. Who translated 'diktiert' as 'reads'?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.91.243 (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Reword
This is the most poorly constructed sentence in all of Wikipedia:

"He is in no sense a representative thinker of his time, across a range of issues where he was his own man: it is, though, one of his less original and more representative positions, in Areopagitica, where he was anticipated by Henry Robinson and others, that has lasted best of his works as engaged intellectual."

I'm going to reword it, if no one objects.129.59.47.19 (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 04:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm biased: my sentence. You do exaggerate. Most sentences can be improved. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

 * On the other hand, "I'm biased: my sentence" is imperfectible. Mes homages, mon ami! Funfree (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Catch-22
In Catch-22 John Milton's name is briefly used on signed documents as a phony signature: after Washington Irving's got old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.194.24 (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Believed to have been a Calvinist
Who believes this? Some believe he was a Muggletonian (Harold Bloom in Jesus and Yahweh mentions this theory). Apparently he kept his beliefs close to his chest. I think it safe to say Protestant, but Calvinist needs a cite. Nitpyck (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

 * It's not a useful term in this context, certainly. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Information in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography's entry on him also seems to cast doubt on classifying him as a Calvinist. This is backed up by private research which seems to demonstrate his views on free will and grace to be more akin to the Arminian classification. I would therefore think it prudent to change his category classification to English Dissenter from English Congregationalist (the latter being, on the whole, comprised of vaguely Calvinistic churches or of that heritage). Homagetocatalonia (talk)

Exchange of material
Since the coverage in John Milton is in some way more detailed than that in Early life of John Milton, I'm going to be doing some swaps until the balance seems more reasonable. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

''By contrast, the early 20th century, with the efforts of T. S. Eliot and Ezra Pound, witnessed a reduction in Milton's critical stature. Harold Bloom, in The Anxiety of Influence, could still write that "Milton is the central problem in any theory and history of poetic influence in English [...]".[76]''

This doesn't make much sense to me. It makes it sound like Harold Bloom was writing at the same time Eliot & Pound were (which made me LOL), & since he wasn't, the quote seems kind of random. Also, "the efforts of T. S. Eliot and Ezra Pound" is kind of ambiguous, I think--did they actively try to reduce Milton's stature, or did their poetic efforts simply precipitate a change in thought? The whole "later legacy" section is kind of weird, anyway... esp as it begins & ends with Eliot. Not exactly a linear progression.

I've never edited a wikipedia article, & don't really feel like starting now, but maybe someone else wants to deal with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.22.203.218 (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I can't imagine which "efforts" could have affected "Milton's critical stature", or what might have motivated them. Is it just that reading their works left "critical" children too little free time to get around to Milton? As for Harold Bloom, I agree that some time frame ought to be introduced to separate that statement from the previous one, referring as it does to the early 20th century. I also can't imagine why Eliot and Pound would want to undermine the "stature" of a long-dead fellow poet, especially one whom they both must have appreciated dearly. Funfree (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Milton quote doesn't make sense: "sad tidings of civil war in England"
"...he [Milton] returned to England during the summer of 1639 because of... 'sad tidings of civil war in England.'"

1639 is the First Bishops' War: Covenaters against Royalists in Scotland. The English civil war began only in 1642

Top.Squark (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Isn't it obvious that Milton had no notion of "The English Civil Wars", or that any wars might break out and be called such, after the fact, by historians yet to come? Milton is referring to civil war other than the one or several you are familiar with. You don't doubt, do you, that the First Bishops' War, or whatever tidings Milton had received, merited the characterization of "civil"? Funfree (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Dubious: outbreak of civil war prevented prevented Mary Powell's return
"In June 1643 Milton paid a visit... and returned with a 16-year-old bride, Mary Powell. A month later... Mary returned to her family. Because of the outbreak of the Civil War, she did not return until 1645"

However, the English Civil War began in 1642, before the marriage. Maybe the delay did have to do with the civil war, but the current text is at best misleading.

Top.Squark (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Dating style
Would it be true to say that the Gregorian calendar equivalent of Milton's vital dates are 19 December 1608 and 18 November 1674? --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   00:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Remarks
Milton's remarks, made about his meeting with Galileo, seem to avoid clearly supporting any one theory, such as geostaticism or heliostaticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.70.65 (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Milton's vague term "otherwise" falls short of endorsing Copernicanism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.70.65 (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Dating of poems
I notice that there seems to be dispute over the dating of L'Allegro, Il Penseroso and Lycidas. My edition of Milton's poems (partially facsimile) shows that Edward King died in 1637 and Lycidas was published, along with other poems, in 1638. Is it necessary to assign an unequivocal date? --Martin Wyatt (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

C. A. Patrides and The Milton Quarterly
Another editor started an article on the Milton scholar, C. A. Patrides. We lack resource to the The Milton Quarterly, alas.

Please help by reading the 3 2 page memorials to him in 1987, which are linked in the Patrides article. We especially want a double check on his death from AIDS.

Thanks, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Philosophy
An unreferenced statement has been added under the heading of Philosophy. The conjecture it reports is highly improbable, and the whole paragraph could well be removed. But then the Philosophy section, along with much of the article, is not very satisfactory, and needs competent work on it. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree, it could be removed, and so could most or all of the "Views" section since that part is under sourced and not even particularly necessary to a biography article. 01:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Featured Page
I honestly have no idea what the requirements are or what processes are involved in something becoming a featured page, but I do nonetheless wonder if this one has such potential. Mere Mortal (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would think that it has potential to become featured. I would suggest that you go for a Good article as a first stage which will pick up any obvious problems with the article. Keith D (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Latin
The article neglects to mention a crucial fact, that all English laws in Milton's day were written in Latin, and since he was considered the greatest Latin expert in the land, it was he upon whose expertise the nation relied. He wrote, edited, and interpreted all English law. This ought not to be hard to confirm. Funfree (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Monetary Value of 'Paradise Lost' sale
Using the same source for comparison, I have changed the value of the Paradise Lost rights sale to be as purchasing power equivalent, as it's a better benchmark for ordinary people than one based on GDP. Sasha (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on John Milton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130704170506/http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/ddd/book_1/notes.shtml to http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/ddd/book_1/notes.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110124090835/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7014/is_1_16/ai_n28450154/pg_5/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7014/is_1_16/ai_n28450154/pg_5
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/ideasv42/blasi4.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.christs.cam.ac.uk/darknessvisible/imitation.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2007/071217a.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

section needs more references
There are paragraphs scattered throughout the Biography section that are lacking any citations. — howcheng  {chat} 03:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

"displeasing to a nice ear"
There are a lot of problems with the sentence asserting that

Isaac Watts preferred his lines distinct from each other, as did Oliver Goldsmith, Henry Pemberton, and Scott of Amwell, whose general opinion it was that Milton's frequent omission of the initial unaccented foot was "displeasing to a nice ear".[120]

1.) The citation is ostensibly to Saintsbury, but the sentence as a whole seems to be adapted from Havens, who specifically mentions "Goldsmith, Pemberton, and Scott of Amwell" and who uses the exact phrase "frequent omission of the initial unaccented foot" which doesn't appear in any of Saintsbury's works as far as I can see.

2.) Even if the attribution to Saintsbury were right, the citation of "Saintsbury 1916" would still be faulty, since the bibliography at the end of the article doesn't mention a work by Saintsbury from 1916, only ones from 1908 and 1946.

3.) I suspect that Havens's reference to "frequent omission of the initial unaccented foot" is an inadvertent error for "frequent omission of the initial unaccented syllable"; though there is such a thing as an unaccented foot (a pyrrhic) in some schemes of prosody, it's hard to see in what sense Milton omitted entire feet, or how one would be able to tell that the omitted feet in question were pyrrhics.

4.) But it appears to me that in any case Havens was misleading the reader when he implied that the "displeasing to a nice ear" quote was originally written in reference to Milton. Saintsbury himself makes it clear that that same quote comes from Scott of Amwell's discussion of John Dyer's "Grongar Hill," not from Scott's (or Goldsmith's or Pemberton's) discussion of Milton.

Given all these problems, I'd like to delete the sentence altogether. Would anyone object? 206.208.104.20 (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:John Milton


text:
Ranunculus

Ranunculus is a large genus of about 1700 to more than 1800 species  of flowering plants in the family Ranunculaceae. Members of the genus are known as buttercups, spearworts and water crowfoots.

The genus is distributed worldwide, primarily in temperate and montane regions. The familiar and widespread buttercup of gardens throughout Northern Europe (and introduced elsewhere) is the creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens, which has extremely tough and tenacious roots. Two other species are also widespread, the bulbous buttercup Ranunculus bulbosus and the much taller meadow buttercup Ranunculus acris. In ornamental gardens, all three are often regarded as weeds.

Buttercups usually flower in the spring, but flowers may be found throughout the summer, especially where the plants are growing as opportunistic colonizers, as in the case of garden weeds.

The water crowfoots (Ranunculus subgenus Batrachium), which grow in still or running water, are sometimes treated in a separate genus Batrachium (from Greek βάτραχος, "frog"). They have two different leaf types, thread-like leaves underwater and broader floating leaves. In some species, such as R. aquatilis, a third, intermediate leaf type occurs.

Ranunculus species are used as food by the larvae of some Lepidoptera species including the Hebrew character and small angle shades. Some species are popular ornamental flowers in horticulture, with many cultivars selected for large and brightly coloured flowers.

Distribution
Buttercups are found in both hemispheres on all continents aside from Antarctica, and are primarily found in temperate or montane habitats. They likely originated in northern Eurasia during the late Eocene or Oligocene and rapidly radiated up to the present, dispersing worldwide. Fossil evidence suggests that despite no longer occurring there, they inhabited Antarctica up to the mid-late Pliocene, even while glaciations were rapidly altering the landscape.

Fossil record
Ranunculus gailensis and Ranunculus tanaiticus seed fossils have been described from the Pliocene Borsoni Formation in the Rhön Mountains, central Germany. Achenes labelled ''Ranunculus cf. tachiroei'' is known from the Pliocene of the Hengduan Mountains of China. Indeterminate achenes have been found from Neogene strata from the Meyer Desert Formation biota in the Transantarctic Mountains, which appear to have inhabited a periglacial environment. The oldest potential fossil is from the Late Eocene (initially identified as Miocene) Florissant Formation of Colorado, identified by Theodore Dru Alison Cockerell in 1922.

Plant
Buttercups are mostly perennial, but occasionally annual or biennial, herbaceous, aquatic or terrestrial plants, often with leaves in a rosette at the base of the stem. In many perennial species runners are sent out that will develop new plants with roots and rosettes at the distanced nodes.

The leaves lack stipules, have petioles, are palmately veined, entire, more or less deeply incised, or compound, and leaflets or leaf segments may be very fine and linear in aquatic species.

Flowers
The hermaphrodite flowers are single or in a cyme, have usually five (but occasionally as few as three or as many as seven) sepals and usually, five yellow, greenish or white petals that are sometimes flushed with red, purple or pink (but the petals may be absent or have a different, sometimes much higher number).

At the base of each petal is usually one nectary gland that is naked or may be covered by a scale. Anthers may be few, but often many are arranged in a spiral, are yellow or sometimes white, and with yellow pollen. The sometimes few but mostly many green or yellow carpels are not fused and are also arranged in a spiral, mostly on a globe or dome-shaped receptacle.

Reflective petals
The petals of buttercups are often highly lustrous, especially in yellow species, owing to a special coloration mechanism: the petal's upper surface is very smooth causing a mirror-like reflection. The flash aids in attracting pollinating insects and temperature regulation of the flower's reproductive organs.

Fruit
The fruits (in this case called achenes) may be smooth or hairy, winged, nobby or have hooked spines.

Naming
The genus name Ranunculus is Late Latin for "little frog", the diminutive of rana. This probably refers to many species being found near water, like frogs.

The common name buttercup may derive from a false belief that the plants give butter its characteristic yellow hue (in fact it is poisonous to cows and other livestock). A popular children's game involves holding a buttercup up to the chin; a yellow reflection is supposed to indicate a fondness for butter. In ancient Rome, a species of buttercup was held to the skin by slaves attempting to remove forehead tattoos made by their owners.

In the interior of the Pacific Northwest of the United States, the buttercup is called "Coyote's eyes"—ʔiceyéeyenm sílu in Nez Perce and spilyaynmí áčaš in Sahaptin. In the legend, Coyote was tossing his eyes up in the air and catching them again when Eagle snatched them. Unable to see, Coyote made eyes from the buttercup.

Splitting of the genus
Molecular investigation of the genus has revealed that Ranunculus is not monophyletic with respect to a number of other recognized genera in the family—e.g. Ceratocephala, Halerpestes, Hamadryas, Laccopetalum, Myosurus, Oxygraphis, Paroxygraphis and Trautvetteria. A proposal to split Ranunculus into several genera has thus been published in a 2010 classification for the tribe Ranunculeae. The split (and often re-recognized) genera include Arcteranthis Greene, Beckwithia Jeps., Callianthemoides Tamura, Coptidium (Prantl) Beurl. ex Rydb., Cyrtorhyncha Nutt. ex Torr. & A.Gray, Ficaria Guett., Krapfia DC., Kumlienia E. Greene and Peltocalathos Tamura. Not all taxonomists and users accept this splitting of the genus, and it can alternatively be treated in the broad sense.

Pharmacological activity
The most common uses of Ranunculus species in traditional medicines are as an antirheumatic, as a rubefacient, and to treat intermittent fever. The findings in some Ranunculus species of, for example, protoanemonin, anemonin, may justify the uses of these species against fever, rheumatism and rubefacient in Asian traditional medicines.

Toxicity
All Ranunculus (buttercup) species are poisonous when eaten fresh, but their acrid taste and the blistering of the mouth caused by their poison means they are usually left uneaten. Poisoning in livestock can occur where buttercups are abundant in overgrazed fields where little other edible plant growth is left, and the animals eat them out of desperation. Symptoms of poisoning include bloody diarrhea, excessive salivation, colic, and severe blistering of the mouth, mucous membranes and gastrointestinal tract. When Ranunculus plants are handled, naturally occurring ranunculin is broken down to form protoanemonin, which is known to cause contact dermatitis in humans and care should therefore be exercised in extensive handling of the plants. The toxins are degraded by drying, so hay containing dried buttercups is safe.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Ranunculus


text:
Lorraine Bracco

Lorraine Bracco (born October 2, 1954) is an American actress best known for her performances as psychiatrist Jennifer Melfi on the HBO crime drama series The Sopranos (1999–2007) and for her breakthrough role portraying Karen Hill in the Martin Scorsese film Goodfellas (1990). Bracco began her career modeling in France and appeared in Italian-language films in the 1980s. Her English-language debut came in The Pick-up Artist (1987), which was followed by roles in Someone to Watch Over Me (1987), Sing (1989), and The Dream Team (1989). She has been nominated for an Academy Award, four Emmy Awards, four Golden Globe Awards, and three Screen Actors Guild Awards.

Early life
Bracco was born on October 2, 1954, in the Bay Ridge neighborhood of the Brooklyn borough of New York City, New York. She is the daughter of Eileen (née Molyneux) and Salvatore S. Bracco Sr. She has a sister, actress Elizabeth Bracco, and a brother, Salvatore Jr. Her father was of Italian descent, while her mother was born in England, and had some French ancestry. Her parents met during World War II, marrying in Andover in 1946; Eileen came with Salvatore to the United States as a war bride. Bracco grew up in Hicksville, New York, on Long Island, from fourth grade, and graduated from Hicksville High School in 1972.

1974–1989: Rise to prominence
Bracco moved to France in 1974, where she became a fashion model for Jean-Paul Gaultier. She lived there for about a decade. While still modeling, Bracco was approached by Marc Camoletti, who offered her a major role in the film adaptation of one of his plays, Duos sur canapé (1979). Bracco did not imagine that she could be an actress, and initially refused. She eventually made the film, but found the experience "boring" and her performance "terrible." Nevertheless, she played supporting roles in two other French films "for the money."

After one of her friends suggested that she might enjoy acting if she took some training, she took seminars with John Strasberg. Although she loved the lessons, she was still unsure of her talents. During the 1980s, she worked as a disc jockey for Radio Luxembourg. She also appeared as Paul Guilfoyle's hostage in the first season of the series Crime Story, in the episode "Hide and Go Thief". Her sister Elizabeth played a coffee shop waitress in the series pilot.

Eventually, Italian director and novelist Lina Wertmüller gave Bracco a small part in the film Camorra. "She dressed me up like an Italian woman of no means. A street woman clad in disheveled clothes, hair unkempt and all that, and threw me on the set. She was so creative. I mean, Lina accentuated my eyes with dark make-up, the way Sophia Loren used to appear in those epic roles in the '60s. And talk about talent. She's so bright and perceptive. I mean, she's just fantastic. And yes, I learned a lot from her. She's a master of her profession, and I've been blessed not only with her, but also with so many masters," recounted Bracco to Daniel Simone during a 2007 interview. The experience inspired Bracco to pursue acting.

1990–2007: Goodfellas and The Sopranos
Bracco received her big career break when she was offered the role of mobster wife Karen Hill in the Martin Scorsese directed crime drama Goodfellas (1990). Her performance earned her an Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actress and a Golden Globe nomination for Best Supporting Actress – Motion Picture. She won the Los Angeles Film Critics Association Award for Best Supporting Actress and the Chicago Film Critics Association Award for Best Supporting Actress. Her other films include Someone to Watch Over Me (1987), Switch (1991), Medicine Man (1992), Radio Flyer (1992), Hackers (1995), The Basketball Diaries (1995), and Riding in Cars with Boys (2001).

During the audition process for The Sopranos, David Chase wanted Bracco to audition for the lead female role of Carmela Soprano. However, Bracco had read the script and was drawn to the part of psychiatrist Jennifer Melfi as she wanted to try something different and felt that the part of the highly educated Dr. Melfi would be more of a challenge for her. Bracco felt so strongly about her ability and desire to play the part that she arranged a meeting with Chase and talked him into letting her have a chance as Melfi. The role netted her three consecutive nominations for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series at the Emmy Awards in 1999, 2000, and 2001, and at the Golden Globe awards for Best TV Actress in a Drama in 2000, 2001, and 2002. She lost out at the Emmys in 1999 and 2001, and at the Golden Globes in 2000 to her co-star Edie Falco. She was nominated again at the 2007 Emmy Awards for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series, and thus was pitted against her The Sopranos co-star Aida Turturro for the award.

2008–present
Bracco is the owner of Bracco Wines, in association with Straight-Up Brands LLC. Her line of wines was featured on the Season 1 finale of Bravo's show Top Chef in 2006. She appeared as a guest judge for the show's two-episode finale and as a special judge on Top Chef: All-Stars, in the episode titled "An Offer They Can't Refuse", which featured Italian cuisine. Bracco also appeared on a season 6 episode of Throwdown! with Bobby Flay, as a guest judge for the ravioli throwdown. From 2010 to 2016, Bracco co-starred on the TNT crime drama Rizzoli & Isles as Angela Rizzoli, mother of Jane Rizzoli, portrayed by Angie Harmon. She appeared in all 105 episodes of the series over its seven-season run. Beginning in 2016, Bracco had a recurring role as Toni on the Showtime comedy series Dice. In 2017–2018, she had a five-episode recurring role as Mayor Margaret Dutton in the CBS police drama series Blue Bloods.

Also in 2020, Bracco starred in the HGTV documentary television series My Big Italian Adventure. Shot in Sambuca di Sicilia, it chronicled her renovation of a 200-year-old house she purchased for €1 at Via Guglielmo Marconi. In 2022, Bracco worked in the Robert Zemeckis remake of Pinocchio where she voiced Sofia the Seagull. In 2023, Bracco starred in Waheed AlQawasmi's debut film Jacir as Meryl, an opioid addicted next-door neighbor of a Syrian refugee living in poverty in Memphis, Tennessee, delivering an emotionally charged performance that was dubbed "her best performance since Goodfellas."

Personal life
Bracco married Frenchman Daniel Guerard in 1979; they divorced in 1982. They have one daughter, actress Margaux Guerard.

Bracco was in a 12-year relationship with actor Harvey Keitel, whom she met while living in Paris. They have one daughter, Stella Keitel (born 1985). Bracco and Keitel fought a lengthy custody battle over Stella, resulting in Bracco's depression and $2 million in legal fees.

Bracco's second marriage was to actor Edward James Olmos in 1994; they divorced in 2002.

Bracco is a practitioner of Shotokan Karate. In 2015, she wrote a self help book, To the Fullest: The Clean Up Your Act Plan to Lose Weight, Rejuvenate, and Be the Best You Can Be.

title: Lorraine Bracco


text:
Megakaryocyte

A megakaryocyte (mega- + karyo- + -cyte, "large-nucleus cell") is a large bone marrow cell with a lobated nucleus that produces blood platelets (thrombocytes), which are necessary for normal clotting. In humans, megakaryocytes usually account for 1 out of 10,000 bone marrow cells, but can increase in number nearly 10-fold during the course of certain diseases. Owing to variations in combining forms and spelling, synonyms include megalokaryocyte and megacaryocyte.

Structure
In general, megakaryocytes are 10 to 15 times larger than a typical red blood cell, averaging 50–100 μm in diameter. During its maturation, the megakaryocyte grows in size and replicates its DNA without cytokinesis in a process called endomitosis. As a result, the nucleus of the megakaryocyte can become very large and lobulated, which, under a light microscope, can give the false impression that there are several nuclei. In some cases, the nucleus may contain up to 64N DNA, or 32 copies of the normal complement of DNA in a human cell.

The cytoplasm, just as the platelets that bud off from it, contains α-granules and dense bodies.

Development
Megakaryocytes are derived from hematopoietic stem cell precursor cells in the bone marrow. They are produced primarily by the liver, kidney, spleen, and bone marrow. These multipotent stem cells live in the marrow sinusoids and are capable of producing all types of blood cells depending on the signals they receive. The primary signal for megakaryocyte production is thrombopoietin or TPO. TPO is sufficient but not absolutely necessary for inducing differentiation of progenitor cells in the bone marrow towards a final megakaryocyte phenotype. Other molecular signals for megakaryocyte differentiation include GM-CSF, IL-3, IL-6, IL-11, chemokines (SDF-1, FGF-4), and erythropoietin. The megakaryocyte develops through the following lineage:

CFU-Me (pluripotential hemopoietic stem cell or hemocytoblast) → megakaryoblast → promegakaryocyte → megakaryocyte.

The cell eventually reaches megakaryocyte stage and loses its ability to divide. However, it is still able to replicate its DNA and continue development, becoming polyploid. The cytoplasm continues to expand and the DNA amount can increase up to 64n in humans and 256n in mice. Many of the morphological features of megakaryocyte differentiation can be recapitulated in non-hematopoietic cells by the expression of Class VI β-tubulin (β6) and they provide a mechanistic basis for understanding these changes.

Platelet release
Once the cell has completed differentiation and become a mature megakaryocyte, it begins the process of producing platelets. The maturation process occurs via endomitotic synchronous replication whereby the cytoplasmic volume enlarges as the number of chromosomes multiplies without cellular division. The cell ceases its growth at 4N, 8N or 16N, becomes granular, and begins to produce platelets. Thrombopoietin plays a role in inducing the megakaryocyte to form small proto-platelet processes. Platelets are held within these internal membranes within the cytoplasm of megakaryocytes. There are two proposed mechanisms for platelet release. In one scenario, these proto-platelet processes break up explosively to become platelets. It is possible to visualize the spontaneous release of platelets using holotomographic live-cell imaging. Alternatively, the cell may form platelet ribbons into blood vessels. The ribbons are formed via pseudopodia and they are able to continuously emit platelets into circulation. In either scenario, each of these proto-platelet processes can give rise to 2000–5000 new platelets upon breakup. Overall, 2/3 of these newly produced platelets will remain in circulation while 1/3 will be sequestered by the spleen.

Thrombopoietin (TPO) is a 353-amino acid protein encoded on chromosome 3p27. TPO is primarily synthesized in the liver but can be made by kidneys, testes, brain, and even bone marrow stromal cells. It has high homology with erythropoietin. It is essential for the formation of an adequate quantity of platelets.

After budding off platelets, what remains is mainly the cell nucleus. This crosses the bone marrow barrier to the blood and is consumed in the lung by alveolar macrophages.

Effects of cytokines
Cytokines are signals used in the immune system for intercellular communication. There are many cytokines that affect megakaryocytes. Certain cytokines such as IL-3, IL-6, IL-11, LIF, erythropoietin, and thrombopoietin all stimulate the maturation of megakaryocytic progenitor cells. Other signals such as PF4, CXCL5, CXCL7, and CCL5 inhibit platelet formation.

Clinical significance
Megakaryocytes are directly responsible for producing platelets, which are needed for the formation of a thrombus, or blood clot. There are several diseases that are directly attributable to abnormal megakaryocyte function or abnormal platelet function.

Essential thrombocythemia
Essential thrombocythemia (ET) is a disorder characterized by elevated numbers of circulating platelets. The disease occurs in 1–2 per 100,000 people. The 2016 WHO requirements for diagnosis include > 450,000 platelets/μL of blood (normal 150,000–400,000) and characteristic findings in a bone marrow biopsy. Some of the consequences of having such high numbers of platelets include thrombosis or clots in blood vessels. Thrombi form more frequently in arteries than veins. It seems ironic that having platelet counts above 1,000,000 platelets/μL can lead to hemorrhagic events. Approximately half ET cases are due to a mutation in the JAK2 protein, a member of the JAK-STAT signaling pathway. This mutation induces an unregulated proliferative signal from the thrombopoietin (TPO) receptor in the absence of TPO causing clonal expansion of bone marrow cells, especially megakaryocytes. There is a low risk of transformation to leukemia with this disorder. The primary treatment consists of anagrelide or hydroxyurea to lower platelet levels.

Congenital amegakaryocytic thrombocytopenia
Congenital amegakaryocytic thrombocytopenia (CAMT) is a rare inherited disorder. The primary manifestations are thrombocytopenia and megakaryocytopenia, i.e. low numbers of platelets and megakaryocytes. There is an absence of megakaryocytes in the bone marrow with no associated physical abnormalities. The cause for this disorder appears to be a mutation in the gene for the TPO receptor, c-mpl, despite high levels of serum TPO. In addition, there may be abnormalities with the central nervous system including the cerebrum and cerebellum that could cause symptoms. The primary treatment for CAMT is bone marrow transplantation.

Bone marrow/stem cell transplant is the only remedy for this genetic disease. Frequent platelet transfusions are required to keep the patient from bleeding to death until transplant has been completed, although this is not always the case.

There appears to be no generic resource for CAMT patients on the web and this is potentially due to the rarity of the disease.

History
In 1906, James Homer Wright provided evidence that megakaryocytes give rise to blood platelets.

Kelemen first coined the term "thrombopoietin" to describe the humoral substance responsible for the production of platelets.

title: Megakaryocyte


text:
Mississippi River (Ontario)

The Mississippi River is a tributary of the Ottawa River in Eastern Ontario, Canada which has no relation with the Mississippi River in the United States. It is 200 km in length from its source at Mackavoy Lake, has a drainage area of 4450 km2, and has a mean discharge of 40 m3/s. There are more than 250 lakes in the watershed.

Communities along the river include the village of Lanark, the towns of Carleton Place, Mississippi Mills (including towns of Almonte and Pakenham), and Galetta. Here it enters the Ottawa River.

Etymology
The origin of the river's name is likely derived from its proximity to the nearby Kichisìpi, meaning "Great River" in Anicinàbemowin, the Algonquin language. The Misi-ziibi (Big River) is a minor tributary of Kichisìpi (Ottawa River) and the largest river in the area. Alternatively, the name may originate from "Mazinaa[bikinigan]-ziibi", Algonquian for '[painted] image river', referring to the pictographs found on Mazinaw Lake, though this is by no means proven.

Description
From its headwaters at Mackavoy Lake to its confluence at the Ottawa River near Fitzroy Harbour, the river drops 200 m in elevation. It begins on the Canadian Shield (mostly gneiss and marble), and then, after Carleton Place, flows through limestone and clay plains. At Carleton Place, there are rapids with limestone cliffs. This area supports the largest stand of hackberry trees in the region.

Most of the upper landscape is temperate deciduous forest dominated by sugar maple, American beech, and red oak. At one time, the forests had much more eastern hemlock, but this was logged out to produce bark for the tanning industry. Now, large hemlock stands are uncommon. Most forests are less than a century old.

The irregular terrain of the upper watershed is produced by the remnants of an ancient mountain chain, the Grenville Mountains, which arose on the supercontinent of Rodinia more than a billion years ago. These mountains have since been eroded to mostly gneiss and marble hills, with occasional outcrops of granite. Lower in the watershed, there are younger limestone rocks. Most of these are covered by clay deposited when this area was covered by the Champlain Sea.

Occasional large wetlands occur along the river. One of the largest is the Innisville Wetlands, a provincially significant wetland that is also designated an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest. Another large wetland is the Appleton Silver Maple Swamp. These wetlands depend upon the seasonal cycles of the river. High water periods in the spring flood large areas creating wetland soils and large areas of marsh. As water levels slowly fall, conditions suitable for swamp forests occur. This natural seasonal alternation between high and lower water levels is essential for creating the natural diversity of wetlands along the river.

Upstream, in Lanark County, there are two sections of the river that are important for their plant communities. The first section of interest includes the east end of Dalhousie Lake and the swamp- and marsh-lined portion of the Mississippi River from the lake almost to Sheridans Rapids. Shallow lakes and adjacent river make up the provincially significant McCullochs Mud Lake Wetland. The second portion of interest is the rocky, rapid-filled section of the river from Sheridans Rapids down to just past Playfairville. Here there are small populations of unusual species including Parnassia glauca (Grass-of-parnassus), Platanthera flava (Tubercled Orchid) and Spiranthes lucida (Shining Ladies'-tresses).

Downstream, where the Mississippi enters the Ottawa River, there are several important shorelines and wetlands, including the Mississippi Snye, which has a rich aquatic flora over marble bedrock, and has recorded observations for the musk turtle.

The river originally powered textile mills. Today, it provides hydroelectric power. Such power dams, however, have all but eliminated American eels from the river. These eels were once an abundant source of food for aboriginal populations, as well as providing a source of food for great blue herons, otters, and other animals.

There are many important natural areas along the river. Purdon Conservation Area supports Canada's largest native colony of showy lady slipper orchids, comprising about 16,000 plants. The Carleton Place Hackberry stand, and the Innisville Wetlands, have both been mentioned above. In drier areas, there are several provincially significant alvars, limestone plains with exposed rock and many rare plants. These include the Burnt Lands Alvar and the Panmure Alvar.

The river has a surprising diversity of turtles, including painted turtles, snapping turtles, Blanding's turtles, musk turtles and map turtles. The last four are considered species at risk, probably because nesting beaches have been degraded by human settlement.

Tributaries

 * Clyde River
 * Indian River
 * Fall River
 * Bell's Creek

title: Mississippi River (Ontario)


text:
La Bottine Souriante

La Bottine Souriante is a folk band from Canada. The band specializes in traditional Québécois music, often with a modern twist.

Formed in 1976 by Yves Lambert, Andre Marchand, and Mario Forest, they have toured extensively through Europe and North America. In 1990, the band integrated a four-piece horn section with traditional instruments such as accordion, fiddle, guitar, piano and double bass, in order to add an element of jazz to their music. In 1998, they contributed a song to the Canadian Celtic music compilation by The Chieftains, Fire in the Kitchen.

The group's name means "the smiling boot", which refers to the appearance of a work boot with worn-out soles.

Members
The line-up for LBS has changed numerous times (not unusual for folk groups), and its sound has evolved accordingly. The band started out with a very French Canadian feel with guitar, accordion and fiddle, but has expanded to include other styles and instruments. Although all of the founders have left the group, LBS continues to perform, and a new wave of young musicians joined the group in 2002.

LBS's current line-up is:
 * Éric Beaudry (vocals, guitar, bouzouki, mandolin, podorythmie) 2002-
 * David Boulanger (vocals, violin, podorythmie, percussion)2007-
 * Louis-Simon Lemieux (vocals, accordion, harmonica, podorythmie) 2022-
 * Robert "Bob" Ellis (bass trombone, tuba, percussion) 1990-
 * Jean Fréchette (saxophone, flute, penny whistle, clarinet, percussion, vocals) 1990-
 * Jean-François Gagnon-Branchaud (fiddle, guitar, voice) 2011-
 * Jocelyn Lapointe (trumpet, flugelhorn) 1993-
 * Sandy Silva (percussive dance)
 * André Verreault (trombone) 1990-
 * Mathieu Gagné (electric bass, acoustic bass guitar) 2022-
 * Olivier Salazar (keyboards, piano) 2022-

Past members include:
 * (accordion, jaw harp, harmonica, melodeon, (solo) vocals) 1976-2002 (founding member)
 * André Marchand (guitar, feet, (solo) vocals) 1976–1988 (founding member)
 * Mario Forest (spoons, harmonica, vocals) 1976–1979, 1980–1984 (founding member)
 * Gilles Cantin (guitar, feet, (solo) vocals) 1977–1981 (deceased)
 * Jacques Landry (bones, bodhrán, fiddle) 1977
 * Pierre Laporte (fiddle, (solo) vocals) 1977–1981
 * Lisa Ornstein (piano, fiddle) 1979
 * Guy Bouchard (spoons, guitar, fiddle, vocals) 1980
 * Martin Racine (guitar, mandolin, feet, fiddle, vocals) 1980–1997
 * Daniel Roy (flageolet, jaw harp, bones, bodhrán, (solo) vocals) 1982–1985
 * Bernard Simard (guitar, (solo) vocals) 1984–1986
 * Michel Bordeleau (snare drum, guitar, mandolin, feet, fiddle, (solo) vocals) 1987-2002
 * Régent Archambault (double bass, electric bass, vocals) 1988-?
 * Denis Fréchette (piano accordion, flugelhorn, piano, trumpet, vocals) 1988–1999 (deceased)
 * Laflèche Doré (flugelhorn, trumpet) 1990–1993 (deceased)
 * André Brunet (violin, guitar, vocals, podorythmie, percussion) 1997-2006
 * Pierre-Luc Dupuis (vocals, accordion, harmonica) 2002-2008
 * Pierre "Pedro" Bélisle (keyboards, piano accordion, piano, trumpet) 2000-2022
 * Benoît Bourque (accordion, bones, podorythmie, vocals) 2009-2022
 * François Marion (electric bass, acoustic bass guitar)2007-2022

Guest players

 * Dominique D'Haiti (fiddle) on Je voudrais changer de chapeau
 * Ron di Lauro (trumpet, flugelhorn) on La Mistrine
 * Michel Dupire (percussion) on La Mistrine
 * Jacques Landry (bodhrán, bones) on La traverse de l'Atlantique
 * Danielle Martineau (piano) on La traverse de l'Atlantique
 * Dominique Messier (drums) on La Mistrine
 * Lisa Ornstein (fiddle, piano) on Les Épousailles, Chic & Swell and Je voudrais changer de chapeau
 * Anne Perrot (cello) on Je voudrais changer de chapeau
 * Daniel Plamondon (viola) on Je voudrais changer de chapeau
 * Daniel Roy (spoon) (bones) on Les Épousailles

Discography

 * Albums
 * Y'a ben du changement (1978) – (Gold)
 * Les Épousailles (1980)
 * Chic 'n Swell (1982)
 * La Traversée de l'Atlantique (1986)
 *  (1987) – (Platinum)
 *  (1988)
 * Jusqu'aux p'tites heures (1992) – (Platinum)
 * La Mistrine (1994)
 * En spectacle (1996)
 * Xième (1998, also released in the United States as Rock 'n Reel) – (Gold)
 * Cordial (2001)
 * Anthologie (2001) – (Gold)
 * J'ai jamais tant ri (2003)
 * Anthologie II, 1976-2005 (2006)
 *  Appellation d'origine contrôlée (2011)
 *  danse (2019)

 * Contributing artist
 * The Rough Guide to the Music of Canada (2005)

Awards and achievements
La Bottine Souriante has received the Canadian Juno award for Best Roots & Traditional Album on three occasions for Je voudrais changer d'chapeau in 1989, Jusqu'aux p'tites heures in 1992, and Cordial in 2002. They have also received several Félix Awards from the Quebec recording industry: four Best Folk Album of the Year awards for Jusqu'aux p'tites heures in 1992, La Mistrine in 1995, En spectacle in 1997, and Xième in 1999, two Best Traditional Album awards for Cordial in 2002 and J'ai jamais tant ri in 2004, and one Best Sound (Technical) of the Year award in 1993. Furthermore, they have received four gold records for Y'a ben du changement, En spectacle, Xième, and Anthologie and three platinum records for Tout comme au jour de l'An, Jusqu'aux p'tites heures, and La Mistrine. They are known for their high energy live performances and in 2000 were voted Best Live Act at the BBC Radio 2 Folk Awards. BBC Radio 3 has also played their music in mainstream programmes.

title: La Bottine Souriante


text:
Species diversity

Species diversity is the number of different species that are represented in a given community (a dataset). The effective number of species refers to the number of equally abundant species needed to obtain the same mean proportional species abundance as that observed in the dataset of interest (where all species may not be equally abundant). Meanings of species diversity may include species richness, taxonomic or phylogenetic diversity, and/or species evenness. Species richness is a simple count of species. Taxonomic or phylogenetic diversity is the genetic relationship between different groups of species. Species evenness quantifies how equal the abundances of the species are.

Calculation of diversity
Species diversity in a dataset can be calculated by first taking the weighted average of species proportional abundances in the dataset, and then taking the inverse of this. The equation is:

 * $${}^q\!D={1 \over \sqrt[q-1]}$$

The denominator equals mean proportional species abundance in the dataset as calculated with the weighted generalized mean with exponent q - 1. In the equation, S is the total number of species (species richness) in the dataset, and the proportional abundance of the ith species is $$p_{i}$$. The proportional abundances themselves are used as weights. The equation is often written in the equivalent form:

 * $${}^q\!D=\left ( {\sum_{i=1}^S p_i^q} \right )^{1/(1-q)}$$

The value of q determines which mean is used. q = 0 corresponds to the weighted harmonic mean, which is 1/S because the $$p_{i}$$ values cancel out, with the result that 0D is equal to the number of species or species richness, S. q = 1 is undefined, except that the limit as q approaches 1 is well defined:

 * $$\lim_{q \rightarrow 1} {}^q\!D = \exp\left(-\sum_{i=1}^S p_i \ln p_i\right),$$

which is the exponential of the Shannon entropy.

q = 2 corresponds to the arithmetic mean. As q approaches infinity, the generalized mean approaches the maximum $$p_{i}$$ value. In practice, q modifies species weighting, such that increasing q increases the weight given to the most abundant species, and fewer equally abundant species are hence needed to reach mean proportional abundance. Consequently, large values of q lead to smaller species diversity than small values of q for the same dataset. If all species are equally abundant in the dataset, changing the value of q has no effect, but species diversity at any value of q equals species richness.

Negative values of q are not used, because then the effective number of species (diversity) would exceed the actual number of species (richness). As q approaches negative infinity, the generalized mean approaches the minimum $$p_{i}$$ value. In many real datasets, the least abundant species is represented by a single individual, and then the effective number of species would equal the number of individuals in the dataset.

The same equation can be used to calculate the diversity in relation to any classification, not only species. If the individuals are classified into genera or functional types, $$p_{i}$$ represents the proportional abundance of the ith genus or functional type, and qD equals genus diversity or functional type diversity, respectively.

Diversity indices
Often researchers have used the values given by one or more diversity indices to quantify species diversity. Such indices include species richness, the Shannon index, the Simpson index, and the complement of the Simpson index (also known as the Gini-Simpson index).

When interpreted in ecological terms, each one of these indices corresponds to a different thing, and their values are therefore not directly comparable. Species richness quantifies the actual rather than effective number of species. The Shannon index equals log(1D), that is, q approaching 1, and in practice quantifies the uncertainty in the species identity of an individual that is taken at random from the dataset. The Simpson index equals 1/2D, q = 2, and quantifies the probability that two individuals taken at random from the dataset (with replacement of the first individual before taking the second) represent the same species. The Gini-Simpson index equals 1 - 1/2D and quantifies the probability that the two randomly taken individuals represent different species.

Sampling considerations
Depending on the purposes of quantifying species diversity, the data set used for the calculations can be obtained in different ways. Although species diversity can be calculated for any data-set where individuals have been identified to species, meaningful ecological interpretations require that the dataset is appropriate for the questions at hand. In practice, the interest is usually in the species diversity of areas so large that not all individuals in them can be observed and identified to species, but a sample of the relevant individuals has to be obtained. Extrapolation from the sample to the underlying population of interest is not straightforward, because the species diversity of the available sample generally gives an underestimation of the species diversity in the entire population. Applying different sampling methods will lead to different sets of individuals being observed for the same area of interest, and the species diversity of each set may be different. When a new individual is added to a dataset, it may introduce a species that was not yet represented. How much this increases species diversity depends on the value of q: when q = 0, each new actual species causes species diversity to increase by one effective species, but when q is large, adding a rare species to a dataset has little effect on its species diversity.

In general, sets with many individuals can be expected to have higher species diversity than sets with fewer individuals. When species diversity values are compared among sets, sampling efforts need to be standardised in an appropriate way for the comparisons to yield ecologically meaningful results. Resampling methods can be used to bring samples of different sizes to a common footing. Species discovery curves and the number of species only represented by one or a few individuals can be used to help in estimating how representative the available sample is of the population from which it was drawn.

Trends
The observed species diversity is affected not only by the number of individuals but also by the heterogeneity of the sample. If individuals are drawn from different environmental conditions (or different habitats), the species diversity of the resulting set can be expected to be higher than if all individuals are drawn from a similar environment. Increasing the area sampled increases observed species diversity both because more individuals get included in the sample and because large areas are environmentally more heterogeneous than small areas.

title: Species diversity