« AnteriorContinuar »
him Milton's Latin poems; that they were nothing, compared with the elegance of his Apology; that he had offended frequently against prosody, and here was a great opening for Salmafius'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 Voffius and to J. Fr. Gronovius from Holland, Heinsius mentions how angry Salmafius was with him for commending Milton's book, and says that Grafwinkelius had written something against Milton, which was to have been printed by Elzevir, but it was suppressed by public authority.
The first reply that appeared was published in 1651, and intitled an Apology for the king and people &c, Apologia pro rege & populo Anglicano contra Johannis Polypragmatici (alias Miltoni Angli) Defenfionem destructivam regis & populi Anglicani. It is not known, who was the author of this piece. Some attributed it to one Janus a lawyer of Grays, 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 folæcisms, should come from 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
in 1652, and sernment, upon
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 & populo Anglicano infantiffimam; 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 fo considerable an adversary would make the answer more confiderable.
Sir Robert Filmer likewise published some animadversions upon Milton's Defense of the people, in a piece printed in 1652, and intitled Observations concerning the original of government, upon Mr. Hobbes's Leviathan, Mr. Milton against Salmafius, 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 Holborn to be nearer Whitehall : and for fome time he had lodgings at one Thomson's next door to the Bull-head tavern at Charing-Cross, opening into Spring-Garden, 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 thro' the ill usage or bad conftitution of the nurse died an infant. His own health too was
greatly 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 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 his condition requiring some care and attendence, he was easily induced after a proper interval of time to marry a fecond, who was Catharinę daughter of Captain Woodcock of Hackney: and she too died in childbed within a year after their marriage, and her child, who was a daughter, died in a month after her; and her husband has done honor to her memory in one of his sonnets.
Two or three years before this second marriage he had totally lost his fight. And his enemies triumphed in his blindness, and imputed it as a judge ment upon him for writing against the King: but his fight had been decaying several years before, thro' his close application to study, and the frequent headakes to which he had been subject from his childhood, and his continual tampering with phyfic, which perhaps was more pernicious than all the reft: and he himself has informed us in his second Defense, that when he was appointed by authority to write his Defense of the people against Salmafius, 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 fight of the other: but he was nothing discouraged, and chose rather to lose both his eyes than desert what he thought his duty. It was the sight of his left eye that he lost first: and at the defire of his friend Leonard · Philaras the Duke of Parma's minister at Paris he sent him a particular account of his case, and of the manner of his growing blind, for him to consult Thevenot the
1, who was reckoned famous in cases of the eyes. The letter is the fifteenth of his familiar . epistles, and is dated Septemb. 28. 1654: but it does not appear what answer he received; we may presume, none that administered any relief. His blinda ness however did not disable him entirely from performing the business of his office. An affiftant was allowed him, and his falary as secretary still continued to him.
And there was farther occasion for his service befides dictating of letters. For the controversy with Salmafius did not die with him, and there was published at the Hague in 1652 a book intitled the Cry of the King's blood &c, Regii fanguinis Clamor ad çælum adversus Parricidas Anglicanos. The true author of this book was Peter du Moulin the younger, who was afterwards prebendary of Canterbury: and he transmitted his papers to Salmasius; and Salmasius intrusted them to the care of Alexander Morus, a French minister; and Morus published them with a dedication to King Charles II. in the name of Adrian Ulac the printer, from whence he came to be reputed the author of the whole. This Morus was the son of a learned Scotsman, who was president of the college, which the protestants had formerly at Castres in Languedoc; and he is faid to have been a man of a molt haughty dispofition, and immoderately addicted to women, hafty, ambitious,
full of himself and his own performances, and satirical upon all others. He was however esteemed one of the most eminent preachers of that age among the protestants; but as Monsieur Bayle observes, his chief talent must have consisted in the gracefulness of his delivery, or in those fallies of imagination and quaint turns and allusions, whereof his fermons are full; for they retain not those charms in reading, which they were said to have formerly in the pulpit. Against this man therefore, as the reputed author of Regii fanguinis Clamor &c, Milton published by authority his Second Defense of the people of England, Defenfio Secunda pro populo Anglicano, in 1654, and treats Morus with such feverity as nothing could have excufed, if he had not been provoked to it by so much abuse poured upon himself. There is one piece of his: wit, which had been published before in the news-papers at London, a diftich upon Morus for getting Pontia the maid. fervant of his friend Salmasius with child. ; . ;
Galli ex concubitu gravidam te, Pontia, Mori, i
Upon this Morus published his Fides Publica in answer to Milton, in which he inserted several testimonies of his orthodoxy and morals figned by the consistories, academies, fynods, and magistrates of the places where he had lived ; and disowned his being the author of the book imputed to him, and appealed to two gentlemen of great credit with the Parlament party, who knew the real author. This brought Du Moulin, who was then in England,