« AnkstesnisTęsti »
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 Salmafius's book underwent only one impression, while this of Milton passed thro' 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 honored and esteemed by Adrian Paaw, embassador 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 embassador from the Duke of Parma to the French king, wrote a fine encomium of his Defense, and fent 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 defired him to undertake it; and they made him a prefent 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 Salmafius. He was then in high favor 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 Defense of the people of England was brought to Sweden, and was read to the Queen at her own defire, he sunk immediately in her esteem and the opinion of every body; and tho' he talked big at first, and vowed the
destruction of Milton and the Parlament, yet finding that he was looked upon with coldness, he thought proper
to take leave of the court; and he who came in honor, 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 honor 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 perfons, and that Salmafius 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 criticized 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 Voffius which he had received, and the third to Salmafius; 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 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 dircourses against popery,
And in others of his letters to Voffius and to J. Fr. Gronovius from Holland, Heinsius mentions how angry Salmasius 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) Defensionem destructivam regis & populi Anglicani. It is not known, who was the author of this piece. Some attributed it to one Janus a lawyer of GraysInn, 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
press, that it may in a manner be called his own. It came forth in 1652 under this title, Johannis Philippi Angli Refponfio ad Apologiam anonymi cujusdam tenebrionis pro rege & populo Anglicano infantissi-. mam; 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 adverfary would make the answer more considerable.
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 fufficiently 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 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 condii tion requiring some care and attendence, he was
easily induced after a proper interval of time to marry a second, who was Catharine daughter of Captain Woodcock of Hackney: and the 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 fonnets.
Two or three years before this second marriage he had totally lost his light. And his enemies tri-, umphed in his blindness, and imputed it as a judgment upon him for writing against the King: but his light 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 physic, which perhaps was more pernicious than all the rest: 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 fight of one eye, and the physicians, declared to him, that if he undertook that work, he would also lose the sight of the other: but he was nothing discouraged, and chose rather to lose both his eyes than desert what he thought his duty.