صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

is not for the king, but the king for them. We bear with the father, though he be harsh and severe, and so we do with a king. But we do not bear with a father if he be a tyrant. If a father murder his son, he himself must die for it; and why should not a king be subject to the same law, which certainly is a most just one? Especially considering that a father cannot, by any possibility, divest himself of that relation, but a king may easily make himself neither king nor father of his people. If this action of ours be considered according to its quality, as you call it, I who am both an Englishman born, and was an eye-witness of the transactions of these times, tell you who are both a foreigner and an utter stranger to our affairs, that we have put to death neither a good, nor a just, nor a merciful, nor a devout, nor a godly, nor a peaceable king, as you style him; but an enemy, that has been so to us almost ten years to an end: nor one that was a father, but a destroyer of his country. . .

That it is lawful to depose a tyrant, and to punish him according to his desserts-nay, that this is the opinion of very eminent divines, and of such as have been most instrumental in the late reformation, do you deny it if you dare. You confess that many kings have come to an

unnatural death: some by the sword, some poisoned, some strangled, and some in a dungeon; but for a king to be arraigned in a court of judicature, to be put to plead for his life, to have sentence of death pronounced against him and that sentence executed; this you think a more lamentable instance than all the rest, and make it a prodigious piece of impiety. Tell me, thou superlative fool, whether it be not more just, more agreeable to the rules of humanity, and the laws of all human societies, to bring a criminal, be his offence what it will, before a court of justice, to give him leave to speak for himself; and, if the law condemn him, then to put him to death as he has deserved, so as he may have time to repent, or recollect himself; than, presently, as soon as ever he is taken, to butcher him without more ado? Do you think there is a malefactor in the world, that if he might have his choice, would not choose to be thus dealt withal? And if this sort of proceeding against a private person be accounted the fairer of the two, why should it not be accounted so against a prince? Nay, why should we not think that himself liked it better? You would have had him killed privately, and none to have seen it, either that future ages might have lost the influence

of so good an example, or that they that did this glorious action might seem to have avoided the light, and to have acted contrary to law and justice. You aggravate the matter by telling us, that it was not done in an uproar; or brought about by any faction amongst great men; or, in the heat of a rebellion, either of the people, or the soldiers: but there was no hatred, no fear, no ambition, no blind precipitate rashness in the case, but that it was consulted on, and done with deliberation. If there were great difficulty in the enterprise, they did well in not going about it rashly, but upon advice and consideration."

The "Defence" is an analysis of the rights of kings over their subjects, or of subjects over their kings. It instantly elevated Milton to the highest reputation throughout Europe. It is said to have broken the heart of Salmasius. The Queen of Sweden, Christina, withdrew her patronage from him, and he soon after died. His work was published at the request of Charles II., but although it was not deficient in many points, it has long been buried in oblivion. Doctor Symmonds draws a parallel between Salmasius writing against the people of England, and Burke writing against the people of France: but in fact there is no pa

rallel. Burke was a statesman-Salmasius, a vain and empty pedagogue: the Revolution of England was a noble rousing of the spirit of a great people to preserve their laws: the Revolution of France was a vehement burst of wild and lawless violence; the unchaining of a people's worst passions in murder and bloodshed. Salmasius, in his attack, employed only vile and scurrilous abuse; Burke adorned his subject with temper, and some of the noblest flights of poetry and eloquence.

CHAPTER XII.

THE SONNETS OF MILTON.

"MILTON, madam, was a genius that could cut a Colossus from a rock, but could not carve heads upon cherry-stones." So said Dr. Johnson to Mrs. Hannah More, when the lady expressed her surprise that he who had written "Paradise Lost" should write such poor sonnets. In his Life he says, "They deserve no particular criticism; of the best, it can only be said, they are not bad; and only the eighth

and the twenty-first are truly entitled to this slender commendation." Johnson thought, it appears, little of the sonnet and less of Milton. Neither of his criticisms have been adopted by men of better taste. One could almost believe

that Wordsworth's fine sonnet upon "The Sonnet" was a reply to Johnson.

"Scorn not the sonnet, critic! you have frowned
Mindless of its past honours; with this key
Shakspear unlocked his heart; the melody
Of this small lute gave ease to Petrarch's wound;
A thousand times this pipe did Tasso sound;
With it Camoens soothed an exile's grief;
The sonnet glittered a gay myrtle leaf
Amid the cypress with which Dante crowned
His visionary brow: a glow-worm lamp,

It cheered mild Spenser, called from Fairy land
To struggle through dark rays; and when a damp
Fell round the path of Milton, in his hand
The thing became a trumpet; whence he blew
Soul-animating strains-alas! too few."

Indeed, Wordsworth has for ever set the question of the literary dignity of the English sonnet at rest. This is a walk of Poetry in which he far transcends Milton himself. The sonnets of Wordsworth are so numerous, and breathe tones of such varied softness and majesty, that they have redeemed the character of that mode of composition from the neglect and

« السابقةمتابعة »