Talk:The Pilgrim's Progress

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Novels Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity: Reformed Christianity High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Reformed Christianity (assessed as High-importance).

I haven't read this book before, and I'm afraid of going to your detailed list of what happens throughout the story. Can someone make a summary for us readers? --24.20.136.246 07:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a seminal work in Western Civilization and deserves an illustration from one of its many editions over the years. drboisclair 23:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christian is not known as "Pilgrim"; however, in the film version made in recent years and in "Dangerous Journey" this is something that is stated. However, in the book we read the following: "THE PORTER [Watchful of House Beautiful]: What is your name?/CHRISTIAN: My name is now Christian, but my name at the first was Graceless: I came of the race of Japheth, whom God will persuade to dwell in the tents of Shem. Gen. 9:27."

At the beginning we read: "OBSTINATE: What, said Obstinate, and leave our friends and our comforts behind us! /CHRISTIAN: Yes, said Christian, (for that was his name,)"

The "conversion" comes about when Evangelist tells Christian about fleeing from the "wrath to come." At that point, right at the beginning of the narrative he is called "Christian": he is never called "Pilgrim" as he is in the movie version or in "Dangerous Journey". "Conversion experience" is not an accurate description for what happens to Christian, although, his being encountered by Evangelist, who tells him to "flee from the wrath to come" causes him to leave home, which is the Old Testament concept of repentance, i.e. "turning around" (Hebrew: "shuv"). drboisclair 23:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In one section of this article, there are quotes from a person who says "I have not read of a man who gave Jesus but one grote". I beg to differ with him. The New Testament gives the account of Jesus' disciples--they followed him wherever he went and did many things for him. Someone wasn't reading the Gospels--or any other books in the New Testament, for that matter--properly. Scorpionman 19:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpionman, I would also beg to differ, but this is what Bunyan thought. He might have a point in that as far as I know of the New Testament, it is only reported that the women like Mary Magdalene, et. al. gave Jesus and His disciples money to support them. Bunyan is making a point that it was not reported that men gave any money to Jesus while women did. drboisclair 21:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is too long and goes into too much depth about characters and locations, while only devoting a few paragraphs to basic plot summary. Wikipedia is not

The characters and locations are of interest because so many of them are used as allusions. Someone looking for Pilgrims Progress is often going to want Mister Stand-fast or the slough of despond or Vanity Fair. The plot is straight-forward; most of the information is in the characters and locations. Still, many of these characters and locations couldn't support an independent article. I think we have a good balance now. It's possible that the plot synopsis could be moved nearer the top of the page, if readers would find that more convenient. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 21:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second Mr. Harrison's suggestions. Length should be no problem to subjects that are of great historical moment. Wikipedia is also a source of information. Why decrease the information it offers to the reader? Why can't Wikipedia be what we the internet users in the world want to make of it. The openness with which people are invited to edit it suggests that people influenced by their culture are allowed to shape it for what it is--admittedly, within reason. drboisclair 10:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One "scholar's" idea of where place names "may have been gotten", which flies in the face of the explicit bible verses in the book on "where they were gotten", is ridiculous. It's lengthy, trite, off topic, and highly disputed. It seems the whole point is to put that in, instead of the bible references that were also included in the book that referred to where those names came from. You can remove them into "author's life" if you want, but I doubt they will take them either. You don't see exhaustive references to the real Hannibal in Wikipedia's pages on Tom Sawyer or Huckleberry Finn, and that town was explicitly mentioned in the book. No, Pilgrim's Progress doesn't mention that "the celestial city" is London, in fact it is a statement in complete contradiction to what the book says and its whole purpose. This section needs to be removed. The original poster's criticism as obviously true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fcc8:a552:8200:d93d:1f2e:4b81:d8cb (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I always find flies in the face quite annoying. But I think I know what you mean. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Oland gave his screen debut in an early adaption of "The Pilgrim's Progress". See imdb. --Stilfehler 14:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the editor's characterization of this act as unjust or with the characterization of John Bunyan's imprisonment as being unjust, it would be not NPOV to have it in the main text. I'm sorry that I felt it should be reverted.--Drboisclair 16:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added some photos from my 1778 London edition. The map is particularly fun. I've not seen that in any of the modern editions. Hope you enjoy them.

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 22:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not redundant to have these special quotations with an inter Wiki link. I ask that the link remain.--Drboisclair 05:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No real balance in this article, surely there is some criticism for this work! :) Zidel333 21:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1950s a survey found that readers thought that it was the most boring book they had ever read. It is considered to be a precursor to the novel. It was written by a poor, lower class "tinker." It is a timeless classic. Perhaps critiquing it would be like critiquing the Mona Lisa. The early literary critics had nothing but adulation for it. Finding some negative evaluation would be an interesting find. It is interesting that in 1913 a James Baldwin rewrote it without any allusions to religion in what he entitled John Bunyan's Dream Story.--Drboisclair 19:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Drboisclair -- critiquing this book would be very problematical. For one thing, it's more than 350 years old, and doesn't really fit into modern genres of fiction. It's format is totally different to a modern novel, and rather more like the script of a play than anything else. It was written for a very specific purpose, and within the much more religious world of its time. If you were to level negative criticisms against it, you'd basically be commenting on the mid 17th Century society of England and the way Protestants saw themselves. Modern readers might find the way the Catholic Church is portrayed as rather insensitive, and the roles of men, women, and children are very different to their roles nowadays. But it's a book of its time, like the Bible or Satyricon or Huckleberry Finn, and bound to be different to modern books. I'd suggest at best you could highlight the way different social groups were portrayed, and perhaps try to explain why Bunyan was critical of, for example, the Pope or the middle classes or the judiciary. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 23:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, there's an *allusion* to PP and its structure in C. S. Lewis's _The Allegory of Love._ He believes the image of Life As Progress is superior to The Moral Battle. (By the way, beyond _The Pilgrim's Regress_, there's clear influence in the travels of _The Horse and His Boy_ and _The Magician's Nephew_. Any critical comments? 128.147.38.10 16:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't it the great C.S. Lewis who wrote an essay "Lions in the path/roadway"? As a Christian theologian C.S. Lewis was greatly influence by St. Augustine, which we can see by the unicorn's declaration at the eschaton of Narnia, "Further up and further in." I guess the Lion/Aslan is a positive figure (Jesus) as opposed to Giant Grim's lions just before the House Beautiful. I don't see much influence. Lewis has better theology in my opinion than Bunyan.--Drboisclair 19:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Then said Evangelist, pointing with his finger over a very wide Field, Do you see yonder Wicket-gate? [Mat. 7] The Man said, No. Then said the other, Do you see yonder shining light? [Psalm 119.105; 2 Pet. 1.19.] He said, I think I do. Then said Evangelist, Keep that light in your eye, and go up directly thereto, so shalt thou see the Gate; at which when thou knockest, it shall be told thee what thou shalt do."

It is because of this information that I have indicated that Christian thinks he sees the "shining light."--Drboisclair 04:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided an image of the title page of Pilgrim's Progress's first edition, and I would like to begin improving this article for GA and A rating.--Drboisclair 13:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article is about a book by a British author who wrote using the British English of his time, I would like to suggest that it be amended to contain (current) British English and not American. Specifically, the following words should be amended: sepulcher [sepulchre], armor [armour], traveler/s [traveller/s] and neighbor [neighbour]. 90.207.178.62 (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to cite a Wikipedia policy that mandates that? I think that the argument is ridiculous. We should work toward making a uniform English language rather than perpetuating differences.--Drboisclair (talk) 06:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The manual of style has guidelines for when it is or isn't appropriate to use a particular variety of English in an article. The only essential question is whether or not there are "strong ties" to the desired variety, and I would posit that works of literature always have at least one obvious tie to a particular kind of English. ;-) If someone wants to go through and make such an update then I think it would be within the Manual of Style's recommendations. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will check the text of this work, and if the reference is to a word in it, and if it is spelled in this way, I will make the change. I think there is a point in using the spelling from the text.--Drboisclair (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the case of "sepulchre": Bunyan spells it "Sepulcher"! It should remain in the article as he has spelled it himself.--Drboisclair (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Armour" for "armor" is in accordance with Bunyan's spelling, so I have changed "armor" to "armour."--Drboisclair (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also changed "neighbor" to "neighbour" and "traveler" to "traveller" in accordance with Bunyan's spelling. If there are any other words, please post them here or change them if they are Bunyan's spelling. The 2003 Oxford, W.R. Owens edition is a reliable source for determining how Bunyan himself spelled words. On page 37 the text reads "Sepulcher" and on page 38, line 3 of the 60s Wharey/Sharrock edition it reads as "Sepulcher" as well.--Drboisclair (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff Drboisclair! I will take your word for it on the "sepulcher" point ;-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 18:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the 17th century a self-taught artisan like Mr. Bunyan dealt with an English that was not standard in any widespread way. That is the way with our glorious living language! I live to see English as the lingua franca of the world.--Drboisclair (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No way this book has been translated into 200 Languages. Even if that's what the Oxford edition says: that's a fantastic number, as in virtually impossible. I'd be surprised if the book has been translated into 50 languages. Does anyone have further proof/evidence? --woggly (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been long stated in earlier editions that it had been translated into 100 languages. This is documented by authorized editions, so proof is not necessary just because you may be skeptical. Are you disputing this because there are not 200 languages on earth or are you disputing this because you do not feel that The Pilgrim's Progress was translated into that many languages? Cf. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F.L. Cross, ed, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 1092: "The book, which circulated at first mainly in uneducated circles and whose supreme qualities were only gradually recognized, has appeared in a vast number of editions, and been translated into well over 100 languages."--Drboisclair (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can see this [1] to show that there are over 6,000 languages on earth. You see the evidence later in the article about the exotic languages into which this classic was translated.--Drboisclair (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll explain. While it is true there are thousands of languages (closer to 7,000), far fewer languages have a written corpus of literature. To the best of my knowledge, the Bible is the most widely translated book in the world, and has been

60 something languages) and "Hamlet" (50 something languages) and The Communist Manifesto. In other words, if "The Pilgrim's Progress" has indeed been translated into more than 200 languages, this would likely make it the single most translated novel in the history of literature, which I somehow doubt. Especially given the fact that the book has never been translated into Hebrew (as far as I have been able to glean from various sources, including the National Library in Israel). Hebrew is not that esoteric a language: it is number 32 on UNESCO's list of Top 50 target languages for translation [3]. --woggly (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I see you admit that the Bible has been widely translated. Well, next after the Bible The Pilgrim's Progress has been translated the most widely. In order to meet your challenge--for which I thank you--I have seen where it is reported that The Pilgrim's Progress has been translated into all the languages and dialects of Europe. It has been around since 1678/84, so it has had the time to make the rounds. It was translated into Native American languages because it was considered by missionaries to be a tool for their work of evangelization. The same is true for other languages. Check it out, you may be surprized that a novel as "musty and stuffy" as The Pilgrim's Progress used to be quite widely read throughout the world.--Drboisclair (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have seen that The Pilgrim's Progress has been translated into Hebrew. I guess I will look for that internet reference.--Drboisclair (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have found it catalogued that Pilgrim's Progress was translated into Hebrew:

British Museum Catalogue of Printed Books: Bunyan, London, 1884, column 30 [4]: See "Halicoth" "Sepher Halicoth Ourath": It was done in 1845 and 1851.--Drboisclair (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then Christian and Hopeful outwent them again, and went till they came at a delicate plain, called Ease, where they went with much content; but that plain was but narrow, so they were quickly got over it. Now at the farther side of that plain was a little hill, called Lucre ...

Now I saw that, just on the other side of this plain, the pilgrims came to a place where stood an old monument, hard by the highway-side, at the sight of which they were both concerned, because of the strangeness of the form thereof; for it seemed to them as if it had been a woman transformed into the shape of a pillar. Here, therefore, they stood looking and looking upon it, but could not for a time tell what they should make thereof. At last Hopeful espied, written above upon the head thereof, a writing in an unusual hand; but he being no scholar, called to Christian (for he was learned) to see if he could pick out the meaning: so he came, and after a little laying of letters together, he found the same to be this, "Remember Lot’s wife." ...

I saw then that they went on their way to a pleasant river, which David the king called "the river of God;" but John, "the river of the water of life." [Psa. 65:9; Rev. 22:1; Ezek. 47:1-9.] Now their way lay just upon the bank of this river: here, therefore, Christian and his companion walked with great delight; they drank also of the water of the river, which was pleasant and enlivening to their weary spirits. Besides, on the banks of this river, on either side, were green trees with all manner of fruit; and the leaves they ate to prevent surfeits, and other diseases that are incident to those that heat their blood by travel. On either side of the river was also a meadow, curiously beautified with lilies; and it was green all the year long. ...

Now I beheld in my dream, that they had not journeyed far, but the river and the way for a time parted, at which they were not a little sorry; yet they durst not go out of the way. Now the way from the river was rough, and their feet tender by reason of their travels; so the souls of the pilgrims were much discouraged because of the way. [Numb. 21:4.] Wherefore, still as they went on, they wished for a better way. Now, a little before them, there was on the left hand of the road a meadow, and a stile to go over into it, and that meadow is called By-path meadow.--Drboisclair (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A strict Novel it may not be, but narrative prose it certainly is. Which puts it in scope to the "Novels" wikiproject. So the banner is valid. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the first novel, though, was Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe; although Cervantes Don Quixote might also have been a novel. I would oppose its being considered a novel.--Drboisclair (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I excised this section:

==Catholicism==

John Bunyan's opinions about Catholicism would today make him an anti-catholic.

In The Pilgrims Progress, Catholicism is a vague, evil concept: "Now I saw in my dream...blood, bones, ashes, and mangled bodies.....I was reflecting on what the reason for this might be....their names were Pope and Pagan, and by their power and tyranny, those whose bones, blood, ashes, and other remains lay there had been put to death. I have since learned that the Pagan has been dead a long time. As for the other one (the Pope), though he is still alive".

In chapter 12 of Pilgrims Progress at vanity fair Rome is described as the king provider of "meaningless things" at the fair

because it was poorly written, and predominantly unsourced; however, a look that the article subsection on "Context in Christendom" shows that I have added the material and point made by this addition, which is an important element of this work.--Drboisclair (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the importance rating in "Christianity" and "Calvinism" for this entry because I feel that the former rating is inadequate relative to the importance of this work. I am astounded that anyone would question the significance of this work in English literature. Of course, that may be a sign of the times. The Pilgrim's Progress does not have the significance that it had in the 19th century that it does in the 21st century, and that significance will probably wain through time.--Drboisclair (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should any mention be made,like in the 'retellings' section, of the new movie which has recently come out as a modern live-action retelling of the Pilgrim's Progress? Invmog (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to Jane Eyre is essentially straight out of Madwoman in the Attic (which is fair as it is cited as such). However, the essay collection has fallen out of full repute, as the article on the book itself notes, and is often viewed by even some feminist critics as outdated. I would gladly accept this interpretation of the ending to be mentioned in the Jane Eyre article, but mentioning it here seems far too definite to be helpful. I would rather edit the article to mention the varying interpretations for Jane Eyre, as well as the presence of Pilgrim's Progress in Brontë's other works. I would suggest the following revision, using the other influential essay St. John's Way and the Wayward Reader as a source for Jane Eyre's interpretation.

Charlotte Brontë refers to Pilgrim's Progress in most of her novels, including Jane Eyre ^[1], Shirley^[2], and Villette^[3]. Her alterations to the quest-narrative have led to much critical interest, particular with the ending of Jane Eyre.^[4]--Artimaean (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added it. Feel free to delete this posting.--Artimaean (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My favourite edition of Pilgrim's Progress (part 1 only) was published on the 250th anniversary of John Bunyan's death, in 1938, in Bedford <John Bunyan - The Pilgrim's Progress - Sydney Press Limited (Bedford, 1938)>. This, the only edition from Bunyan's home town, retains his marginal notes and Bible references.

In the Wikipedia (WP) article about John Bunyan (JB), there is a short paragraph regarding three "images" of places known to him, that appear in Pilgrim's Progress (PP). One old book <Foster, Albert J. - Bunyan's Country - Studies in the Bedfordshire Topography of Pilgrim's Progress - H. Virtue & Co (London, 1911)> describes the natural features of Bedfordshire that show up in PP.

In her well-researched biography of JB, Vera Brittain <Brittain, V. - In the Steps of John Bunyan - Rich & Cowan (London, 1949)> cites seven locations which come into JB's allegory. I am sure that JB's dream was based on his journey from Bedford, on the main road that runs less than a mile behind his Elstow cottage, through Ampthill, Dunstable and St Albans to London.

This WP article could be improved by identifying 21 natural or man-made features which are incorporated into PP. While this proposed section might not add spiritual value, it would bring a new dimension of human interest and show how much JB was influenced by the environment that he saw on his many travels, on foot or horse-back.

In the same sequence as these subjects are mentioned in PP, I postulate the following (in note form):-

1) The Plain (across which Christian fled) = Bedford Plain - 15 miles across - Bedford town in middle. JohnRAbrams (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC) JohnRAbrams (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2) Slough of Despond (a major obstacle for Christian & Pliable - "a very miry slough . . that swallowed up 20,000 cart-loads of fill") = Large deposits of gray clay (supplied London Brick's large Stewartby works - closed 2008), on either side of Bedford-Ampthill road, exactly match JB's description. Wet, mossy area near JB's cottage far too small!

3) High Hill (on way to village of Morality - whose "side of it that was next the wayside did hang so much over") = red, sandy, cliffs just N. of Ridgmont (i.e. rouge mont).

4) Wicket Gate = gate at entrance to Elstow church <see WP article on Bunyan>.

5) Tower (from which arrows shot) = standalone tower - remnant of previous abbey - beside Elstow parish church.

6) House of Interpreter = rectory of St John's church, S. end of Bedford - where JB was mentored by pastor John Gifford.

7) Highway (fenced on either side with a wall) - red brick wall, over four miles long, beside Ridgmont-Woburn road, marks boundary of Duke of Bedford's estate.

8) Place somewhat ascending . . a Cross & Sepulchre = cross and well (by the church) on sloping main street of Stevington (5 miles W. of Bedford).

9) Hill Difficulty = Ampthill Hill, on main Bedford road - steepest hill in county. Sandy range of hills across Bedfordshire from Woburn through Ampthill to Potton - characterized by dark, dense & dismal woods.

10) Pleasant arbour = small "lay-by", part way up hill, on E. side < 1908 photo of cyclist resting in Underwood, A. - Ampthill in old picture postcards - European Library (Zaltbommel, Netherlands, 1989)>. JohnRAbrams (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

11) Narrow passage (lane to Palace Beautiful) = entrance cut into high bank by roadside, at top of Ampthill Hill (to the E.).

12) Palace Beautiful = Houghton (formerly Ampthill) House - built 1621 & ruin since 1800 - house faced N. - great view of Bedford Plain - trade entance on S. side.

13) Delectable Mountains = Chiltern Hills - seen from second floor of Houghton House - "Chalk hills, stretching 50 miles from the Thames to Dunstable Downs, have beautiful blue flowers and butterflies, with glorious beech trees" <Hadfield,J. - The Shell Guide to England - Michael Joseph (London, 1970)>. Much lighter and more open than sandy hills to N. On clear day can see London's buildings from Dunstable Downs, near Whipsnade Zoo.

14) Valley of the Shadow of Death = Millbrook Gorge, to W. of Ampthill.

15) Vanity Fair = only Stourbridge Fair, held in Cambridge, during late August and early September, fits JB's extravagant description of fair's antiquity & vast variety of goods sold <Smith,E. & Cook,O - Prospect of Cambridge - Batsford (London, 1965)>. Sermons were preached each Sunday at the "Doddery" in Stourbridge Fair. JB preached often in Toft (just 4 miles W. of Cambridge) <see photo of "Bunyan's Barn" in V. Brittain's book.> and must have visited Cambridge.

16) Statue of Lot's Wife = weather-beaten statue - looks much like person-sized salt pillar - on small island in river Ouse, just to N. of Turvey bridge, 8 miles W. of Bedford (near Stevington) JohnRAbrams (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is documented support for these possible models for Bunyan's topography in Pilgrim's Progress, I would encourage you to add such a section. Simple and plain man that he was, it is completely believable that he utilized things he saw as he went about his life.--Drboisclair (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the go-ahead - I'll key a new section in ASAP - JohnRAbrams (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

17) River,with trees along each bank = river Ouse, E. of Bedford, where JB, as a boy, fished with sister Margaret OR valley of river Flit, flowing through Flitton & Flitwick, S.of Ampthill.

18) Doubting Castle = Ampthill Castle - built early 15th century- often visited by King Henry VIII (cruel & corpulent king an obvious model for Giant Despair), as hunting lodge - used for "house arrest" of Queen Katharine of Aragon & her courtiers in 1535-36, before her execution at Kimbolton. Castle dismantled soon after 1660 - so JB would have seen its towers <Foster,A. J. - Ampthill Towers - Thomas Nelson (London, 1910)> in 1650's & known of empty castle plateau in 1670's. (JB had castle demolished & Giant killed in part 2 of PP.)

19) Country of Beulah = Middlesex county (N. & W. of London) had pretty villages, market gardens & estates (with beautiful parks & gardens) of rich aristocrats in JB's time - "woods of Islington to the green hills of Hampstead & Highgate" <Rutherfurd,E. - London - The Novel - Crown Publishers (New York, 1997)>.

20) Very Deep River = Thames - 1.000 feet wide at high tide (moved, in JB's imagination, to N. of the City).

21) Celestial City = London - centre of JB's world (most of his neighbours never travelled that far!) - in 1670's new, gleaming, city centre, with 40 churches, arising after Great Fire of 1666. Last decade of life JB had some of his best Christian friends there, including a Lord Mayor

JohnRAbrams (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine of Aragon was certainly not executed. She lived at Kimbolton and may have died there. Is the speculation that Henry VIII=Giant Despair pushing beyond what can be established documentarily?--Drboisclair (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the material that was inserted into the article, especially correcting the abbreviations like "JB" and "PP": they should be written out.--Drboisclair (talk) 04:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and the improvements to my text. JohnRAbrams (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John, you may want to provide specific pages in the references to the pages of those recently published works about Bunyan's environment. One of the problems that we may get over this is that it is SPECULATION on the part of scholars; however, if you read The Pilgrim's Progress as many times as I have, you will get the feel that Bunyan was making the journey himself with the specific images that came to his mind from his own surroundings. Bunyan, although capable of abstract thought, was not given to fanciful fabrication of places and people. He may have had certain people in mind: Lord Hate-good of Vanity Fair was probably based upon the judge that sentenced him to imprisonment for 12+ years.--Drboisclair (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tag about the article reading like an essay is somewhat unfounded as is the concern about the lead paragraph. The second of these concerns is corrected by simply incorporating the next section on composition into the lead article. The two sections about the appearance of The Pilgrim's Progress in other literature and in contemporary culture DOES have problems, so I have tagged them.--Drboisclair (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the late 1960s I was transfixed by a spooky version of Pilgrim's Progress shown on British television, usually at Christmas. It featured surreal puppets with voiceovers. It may or may not have been a series. I don't know if it was shown by the BBC or the ITV. The recordings have probably been destroyed given the philistine nature of the tv companies, along with many other performances recorded in the UK. Imageofreality (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pilgrims Progress is a straight forward book about a christian's journey through life. All the characters are based on all the obstacles a true christian faces in life and how they are overcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hybridnat1972 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly don't use these on talk pages. — LlywelynII 02:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]