صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

desire, he sunk immediately in her esteem and the opinion of every body; and though he talked big at first, and vowed the destruction of Milton and the Parliament, yet finding that he was looked upon with coldness, he thought proper to take leave of the court; and he who came in honour, was dismissed with contempt'. He died some time afterwards at Spa in Germany, and it is said more of a broken heart than of any distemper, leaving a posthumous reply to Milton, which was not published till after the Restoration, and was dedicated to Charles II. by his son Claudius ; but it has done no great honour to his memory, abounding with abuse much more than argument.

Isaac Vossius was at Stockholm, when Milton's book was brought thither, and in some of his letters to Nicolas Heinsius, published by Professor Burman in the third tome of his Sylloge Epistolarum, he says

that he had the only copy of Milton's book, that the Queen borrowed it of him, and was very much pleased with it, and commended Milton's wit and manner of writing in the presence of several persons, and that Salmasius was very angry, and very busy in preparing his answer, wherein he abused Milton as if he had been one of the vilest catamites in Italy, and also criticised his Latin poems. Heinsius writes again to Vossius from Holland, that he wondered that only one copy of Milton's book was brought to Stockholm, when three were sent thither, one to the Queen, another to Vossius which

Christina must have com

ever he was dismissed not with mended the Defence of the People any mark of contempt, but with in order to torment Salmasius; a train of attendance scarcely and this might incline him to less than regal. Johnson. leave Sweden, from which how.

he had received, and the third to Salmasius; that the book was in every body's hands, and there had been four editions in a few months besides the English one; that a Dutch translation was handed about, and a French one was expected. And afterwards he writes from Venice, that Holstenius had lent him Milton's Latin poems; that they were nothing, compared with the elegance of his Apology; that he bad offended frequently against prosody, and here was a great opening for Salmasius's criticism: but as to Milton's having been a catamite in Italy, he says, that it was a mere calumny; on the contrary he was disliked by the Italians, for the severity of his manners, and for the freedom of his discourses against popery. And in others of his letters to Vossius and to J. Fr. Gronovius from Holland, Heinsius mentions how

angry

Salmasius was with him for commending Milton's book, and says that Graswinkelius had written something against Milton, which was to have been printed by Elzevir, but it was suppressed by public authority.

. Dr. Joseph Warton also cites“ sam pessime egit Scribonius.the following passages in N. “ Inter Regicidas si locum mihi Heinsius's Letters, inserted in “ dat, at omni procul dubio daBurman's Sylloge, tom. üi. p. 270. “ turus, videbis brevi pro meritis He says, in a Letter to Grono “ ornatum depexum." In a letter vius; “Miser iste Senecio (Sal. from Is. Vossius to Heinsius, are “masius) prorsus delirat et in- the following words, iji. 620. « sanit: Misit duas in hanc ur. “Ex animo gaudet Salmasius, “bem (Amstelod.) epistolas, ra « Librum Miltoni Lutetiæ pub“ biei sycophanticæ non inanes, “ lice a Carnifice esse combustum “ quibus omne se virus in me “ --interim hoc scio fatum esse

conversurum minatur, quod “bonorum librorum, ut hoc modo “ Miltoni scriptum probari a me “ vel pereant vel periclitentur." “ intelligat. Ego vero dixi et Dr. Symmons extracts one or two “ dicam prorsus, malam a Mil- curious passages beside these. “tono causam tam bene actam, See his Life of Milton, p. 396, “ quam Regis infelicissimi cau. 397. E.

The first reply that appeared was published in 1651, and entitled an Apology for the King and people &c. Apologia pro rege et populo Anglicano contra Johannis Polypragmatici (alias Miltoni Angli). Defensionem destructivam regis et populi Anglicani. It is not known, who was the author of this piece. Some attributed it to one Janus a lawyer of Gray's-Inn, and others to Dr. John Bramhall, who was then Bishop of Derry, and was made Primate of Ireland after the Restoration: but it is utterly improbable, that so mean a performance, written in such barbarous Latin, and so full of solecisms, should come froin the hands of a prelate of such distinguished abilities and learning. But whoever was the author of it, Milton did not think it worth his while to animadvert upon it himself, but employed the younger of his nephews to answer it; but he supervised and corrected the answer so much before it went to the press, that it may in a manner be called his own: . It came forth in 1652 under this title, Johannis Philippi Angli Responsio ad Apologiam anonymi cujusdam tenebrionis pro rege et populo Anglicano infantissimam; and it is printed with Milton's works; and throughout the whole Mr. Philips treats Bishop Bramhall with great severity as the author of the Apology, thinking probably that so considerable an adversary would make the answer more considerable".

Milton's real adversary was

“Defensionem populi AngliJohn Rowland, an English cler. “ cani, &c. Per Jo. Rowlandum, gyman, according to his own as “ Pastorem Anglicum, 1653." sertions in a second publication, 12mo. Bp. Bramhall also in a entitled, “ Polemica sive Supple letter to his son, dated Antwerp, " mentum ad Apologiam anony- May 1654, says, “ That silly " mam pro Rege et populo An- “ book which he [Milton) .

glicano, adversus Jo. Miltoni “ scribes to me, was written by

Sir Robert Filmer likewise published some animadversions upon Milton's Defence of the people, in a piece printed in 1652, and entitled Observations concerning the original of government, upon Mr. Hobbes's Leviathan, Mr. Milton against Salmasius, and Hugo Grotius de Jure belli: but I do not find that Milton or any of his friends took any notice of it; but Milton's quarrel was afterwards sufficiently avenged by Mr. Locke, who wrote against Sir Robert Filmer's principles of government, more I suppose in condescension to the prejudices of the age, than out of any regard to the weight or importance of Filmer's arguments'.

It is probable that Milton, when he was first made Latin Secretary, removed from his house in High lolborn to be nearer Whitehall: and for some time he had lodgings at one Thomson's, next door to the Bullhead tavern at Charing-Cross, opening into SpringGarden, till the apartment, appointed for him in Scotland Yard, could be got ready for his reception. He then removed thither; and there his third child, a son, was born and named John, who through the ill usage or bad constitution of the nurse died an infant. His own health too was greatly impaired; and for the benefit of the air, he removed from his apartment in Scotland-Yard to a house in Petty-France Westminster, which was next door to Lord Scudamore's, and opened

si one John Rowland, who since “ securi et calamo Miltoni vin“ hath replied upon him. I “ dicatus:" and in 1653 a work * never read a word either of was printed at Leyden, entitled, " the first book, or of the replie, “Caspari Ziegleri Lipsiensis “ in my life.” Todd.

“circa Regicidium Anglorum * In 1652 also the following “exercitationes. Accedit Jacobi publication appeared in Dublin “Schalleri Dissertatio ad loca against Milton. “ Carolus 1. à "quædam Miltoni.” Todd.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

into St. James's Park; and there he remained eight
years,
from the

year

1652 till within a few weeks of the King's restoration. In this house he had not been

settled long, before his first wife died in childbed;: and FI his condition requiring some care and attendance, he

was easily induced after a proper interval of time to marry a second, who was Catharine, daughter of Captain Woodcock of Hackney: and she too died in

childbed within a year after their marriage, and her era child, who was a daughter, died in a month after her;

and her husband has done honour to her memory in one of his sonnetsk

Two or three years before this second marriage he sha

had totally lost his sight!. And his enemies triumphed in his blindness, and imputed it as a judgment upon him for writing against the King: but his sight had been decaying several years before, through his close application to study, and the frequent head-aches to which he had been subject from his childhood, and his continual tampering with physic, which perhaps was more pernicious than all the rest; and he himself has informed us in his second Defence, that when he was appointed by authority to write bis Defence of the people against Salmasius, he had almost lost the sight of one eye, and the physicians declared to him, that if he undertook that work, he would also lose the sight of

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

« Mrs. Catharine Milton, Probably early in 1652; as "wife to John Milton, Esq. Dr. Symmons, has concluded “buried Feb. 10, 1657. Bp. from Milton's being upbraided Kennet's MS. collections for St. with his blindness in the “ Regii Margaret's Parish, Westminster. " Sanguinis clamor," published See Mr. Malcolm's Hist. of Lon- in 1652. E. don, 4to. vol. iv. p. 128. Todd.

« السابقةمتابعة »