صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

Milton was ordered to prepare an answer to it, which was published by authority, and entitled Enzovoz.COTTIS, or the image-breaker, the famous surname of many Greek emperors, who in their zeal against idolatry broke all superstitious images to pieces. This piece was translated into French, and two replies to it were published, one in 1651, and the other in 1692, upon the reprinting of Milton's book at Amsterdam. In this controversy a heavy charge hath been alleged against Milton. Some editions of the King's book have certain prayers added at the end, and among them a prayer in time of captivity, which is taken from that of Pamela in Sir Philip Sidney's Arcadia: and it is said, that this prayer was added by the contrivance and artifice of Milton, who together with Bradshaw prevailed upon the printer to insert it, that from thence he might take occasion to bring a scandal upon the King, and to blast the reputation of his book, as he hath attempted to do in the first section of his answer. This fact is related chiefly upon the authority of Henry Hills the printer, who had frequently affirmed it to Dr. Gill and Dr. Bernard his physicians, as they

· These replies were called the mons, in a pamphlet entitled Esxan axrasos, (1651.) and the Eixo i nuoty. And these pieces Vindiciæ Carolinæ, (1692.) Mil were the precursors of a violent ton in the Iconoclastes frequently controversy, upon the question intimated his suspicions that the of the genuineness of the Icon Icon 'Basilike was not the pro- Basilike ; the credit of that work duction of the King; and the being claimed, and with great Eirw Aanborn was published in shew of reason, by Dr. Gauden, 1649 to enforce the charge of afterwards Bishop of Worcester. spuriousness against the “King's The public is at this moment exBook," as it was then called. pecting a work on this subject This piece was answered the from the pen of Dr. Wordsworth, same year by a very inferior Master of Trinity College, Camwriter, according to Dr. Sym- bridge. E. **

themselves have testified. But Hills was not himself the printer, who was dealt with in this manner, and consequently he could have the story only from hearsay: and though he was Cromwell's printer, yet afterwards he turned papist in the reign of James. II, in order to be that king's printer, and it was at that time that he used to relate this story; so that, I think, little credit is due to his testimony. And indeed I cannot but hope and believe, that Milton had a soul above being guilty of so mean an action to serve so mean a purpose; and there is as little reason for fixing it upon him, as he had to traduce the King for profaning the duty of prayer

“ with the polluted trash of ro"mances." For there are not many finer prayers in the best books of devotion; and the King might as lawfully borrow and apply it to his own occasions, as the Apostle might make quotations from Heathen poems and plays: and it became Milton the least of all men to bring such an accusation against the King, as he was himself particularly fond of reading romances, and has made use of them in some of the best and latest of his writings d.

[ocr errors]

* Du Gard, printer to the Par. prayer. Peck, it is true, assures liament, was the person said to us that he had seen the earliest have been prevailed on by Milton English edition without the to interpolate an edition of the prayer. And Mr. Todd found Icon which he was printing with that it was not contained in Dr. the prayer from the Arcadia. Earle's Latin translation of the But Royston, who was reported Icon, printed in 1649. But Dr. to have received the manuscript Symmons asserts, that he had in from the King, and whose press his possession the first edition of was not suspected of any con the Icon printed in 1649, for R. nection with Milton or Bradshaw, Royston, and to which this prayer did in fact, as Toland remarked, is attached'; and this seems to publish the edition which origi- establish the point that the charge nally contained the controverted of interpolation was an upfounded

But his most celebrated work in prose is his Defence of the people of England against Salmasius, Defensio pro populo Anglicano contra Claudii Anonymi, alias Salmasii, Defensionem Regiam. Salmasius, by birth a Frenchman, succeeded the famous Scaliger as honorary Professor of the University of Leyden, and had gained great reputation by his Plinian Exercitations on Solinus, and by his critical remarks on several Latin and Greek authors, and was generally esteemed one of the greatest and most consummate scholars of that age: and is commended by Milton himself in his Reason of Church Governinent, and called the learned Salmasius. Besides his great learning, he had extraordinary talents in railing. “ This prince of scholars, as somebody said “ of him, seemned to have erected his throne upon a “ heap of stones, that he might have them at hand to “ throw at every one's head who passed by.” He was therefore courted by Charles II, as the most able man to write a defence of the late King his father, and to traduce his adversaries, and a hundred Jacobuses were given him for that purpose, and the book was published in 1649 with this title, Defensio Regia pro Carolo I. ad Carolum II. No sooner did this book appear in England, but the Council of State unanimously appointed Milton, who was then present, to answer it: and he performed the task with amazing spirit and vigour, though his health at that time was such, that he could hardly endure the fatigue of writing, and being weak in body, he was forced to write by

calumny against Milton. See son's Life of Milton, p. 67-82. also a sufficient refutation of this ed. 1780. E. calumny in the Remarks on John

piece-meal, and to break off almost every hour, as he says himself in the introduction. This necessarily occasioned some delay, so that his Defence of the people of England was not made public till the beginning of the year 1651: and they who cannot read the original, may yet have the pleasure of reading the English Translation by Mr. Washington of the Temple, which was printed in 1692, and is inserted among Milton's Works in the two last editions. It was somewhat extraordinary, that Salmasius, a pensioner to a republic, should pretend to write a defence of monarchy; but the States showed their disapprobation by publicly condemning his book, and ordering it to be suppressed. On the other hand Milton's book was burnt at Paris, and at Toulouse by the hands of the common hangman; but this served only to procure it the more readers: it was read and talked of every where, and even they who were of different principles, yet could not but acknowledge that he was a good defender of a bad cause; and Salmasius's book underwent only one impression, while this of Milton passed through several editions. On the first appearance of it, he was visited or invited by all the foreign ministers at London, not excepting even those of crowned heads; and was particularly honoured and esteemed by Adrian Paaw, ambassador from the States of Holland. He was likewise highly complimented by letters from the most learned and ingenious persons in France and Germany; and Leonard Philaras, an Athenian born, and ambassador from the Duke of Parma to the French king, wrote a fine encomium of his Defence, and sent him his picture, as appears from Milton's

letter to Philaras, dated at London in June 1652. And what gave him the greatest satisfaction, the work was highly applauded by those, who had desired him to undertake it; and they made him a present of a thousand pounds, which in those days of frugality was reckoned no inconsiderable reward for his performance®. But the case was far otherwise with Salmasius. He was then in high favour at the court of Christina Queen of Sweden, who had invited thither several of the most learned men of all countries: but when Milton's Defence of the people of England was brought to Sweden, and was read to the Queen at her own

e Mr. Todd cites a passage

From a passage in the Second from the Appendix to Bishop Defence, Dr. Symmons is led to Watson's Sermon before the express some doubt of the corHouse of Lords, Jan. 30, 1793, rectness of Toland's assertion, in which Milton is accused of that Milton's performance was gross falsehood, in imputing the rewarded by the presentof £1000. seditious principles of the Brown. Yet upon the whole he seems ists to the most eminent of the willing to admit it, in concurfirst Reformers. Dr. Symmons rence with the other Biographers indignantly cites the passage from of Milton. In the passage althe Defence, which had occa- luded to, after speaking of the sioned the charge, as a complete reproaches which his services to refutation of it

. But whoever the state had brought upon him, would judge fairly of the question Milton adds, nec præmii et comshould compare the attack of Sal modorum inde provenientium masius with the answer of Mil- partem longe minimam, ignomi. ton, (both passages being ex niæ longe maximam pervenisse tracted by Mr. Todd;) and he ad me queror; contentus quæ will probably be of opinion that honesta factu sunt, ea propter se Milton's real offence consists in solum appetisse, et gratis persethe usual sophistry of controver- qui: id alii viderint, tuque scito, sialists. His adversary having me illas “opimitates": atque spoken of sedition, he speaks of “opes" quas mihi exprobas, non liberty, and contends, that in ad- attigisse, neque eo nomine quo vocating the principles of civil maxime accusas, obolo factum liberty the Brownists agreed with ditiorem." Pr. W. ii. p. 378. the most orthodox of the first Re- Mr. Hayley conjectures that the formers. See the Lives of Milton, reward was conferred upon him by Todd, p. 78--81. ed. 2. and subsequently. E. by Symmons, p. 372, 373. ed. 2.

« السابقةمتابعة »