« AnteriorContinuar »
cour could extort. As I am not possessed of this paltry work, to which the passions of an eminent man could induce him to condescend, I am compelled to rest my report of it on the testimony of Vossius who saw it in manuscript, of Bayle, and of Dr. Birch. From the last of these writers, I shall insert a further account of it in a note.
e His reply to Milton did not appear till the year of the Restoration, when it was printed at London in 24to, under the fol lowing title; “ Claudii Salmasii ad Joannem Miltonum Responsio, Opus posthunum,” with a dedication to Charles II, by Salmasius's son Claudius, dated at Dijon, Sept. 1, 1660. This Book is written with unexampled virulence. He treats Milton as an ordinary schoolmaster; “ Qui Ludimagister in scholà triviali Londinensi fuit;" and charges him with having divorced his wife after a year's marriage, for reasons best known to himself, and defending the lawfulness of divorce for any causes whatsoever. He stiles him " impura bellua, quæ nihil hominis sibi reliqui fecit præter lippientes oculos ;" and charges him with some false quantities in his Latin juvenile poems; and throughout the whole book gives him the titles of Bellua, fanaticus latro, Homunculus, Lippalus, Cæculus, Homo perditissimus, Nebulo impurus, scelestus audax & nefarius Alastor, infandus Impostor, &c. and declares, that he would have him tortured with burning pitch or scalding oil till he expired: “ Pro cæteris autem tuis factis dictisque dignum dicam videri, qui pice ardenti, vel oleo fervente perfundaris, usque dum animam esies nocentem et carnifici jam pridem debitam." [Account of Life and Writings of Milton, p. xxxvi.]
The virulence of this work is frequently made the subject of allusion by the learned correspondents of that age. Speaking of this Responsio by Salmasius, Heinsius says in a letter to his friend Gronovius-Salmasius Miltonum suum defrïcare pergit; in edendo horribili isto scripto graviter desudant operæ typographicæ in Suecia
The publication of this reply to Milton, which was delayed, as we have noticed, for some years, was preceded by that of two others, produced with different degrees of
power, but equally envenomed and aimed equally at the heart. The earliest of these anonymous replies, which was erroneously imputed by Milton to bishop Bramhall, appeared in 1651 with the strange title of “ Apologia pro Rege et Populo Anglicano contra Johannis Polypragmatici (alias Miltoni Angli) Defensionem destructivam, &c.—and the second, written by Peter du Moulin, (the son of an obscure French satirist of Sedan, but who subsequently obtained by his party merits a prebendal stall in Canterbury,) was published at the Hague in 1652, and called, “ Regii sanguinis clamor ad cælum adversus parricidas Anglicanos,” or “ The Cry of Royal Blood to Heaven against the English Parricides.” To the former of these works, which was altogether a contemptible production, and which came from the pen of John Row
And a little after he adds;
Miror intemperiem profecto hominis furiosi et quietis impatientem animum. Tot præstantium animarum ultrices scilicet illum Exagitant Furiæ et Furiarum maxima conjux.
Burm. Syll, iii. 274. This letter bears date July 501h 1651.
land,' an English ecclesiastic of whom we
"We have this information from himself in a subsequent production; which was published in 1653, and dedicated to the Emperor Ferdinand III. The title of the work is “ Polemica, sive supplementum ad Apologiam Anonymam pro Rege & Populo Anglicano, adversus Jo. Miltoni Defensionem populi Anglicani, per Jo. Rowlandum, Pastorem Anglicum."
In this work, Mr. Rowland refers in several places to his preceding publication against Milton; and seems pleased with the circumstance of his being mistaken for the courtly bishop of Derry.
P.22. “ Hæc in Apologiâ meâ obscurè tacta sunt.”
P. 41, 42. “Ego interea, post ante dictos pugiles, Salmasium et Miltonum, unus è turbâ sine nomine, veritatis solius patrocinio nixus, pacis semper cupidus, indignatione potius quam animo scribendi, me ad aliquid scribendum applicavi.
Semper ego auditor tantum, nunquamne reponam
--- Ut verò Regem et Populum, quos Salmasius suâ defensione regiâ, Miltonus sua defensione populi, diviserant, conciliarem; nec enim Rex sine Populo nec Populus sine Rege tam felix esse poterit, utrumque conjungendo, (testis non arbiter) quantam, quantam mea tenuitas pateretur, pro Rege et Populo Anglicano Apologiam edidi."
P. 48. "Cui,” (speaking of his antagonist Philips,) "ratio non est quod ipse succenserem, qui errando circa authorem Apologiæ, me dignitate Episcopali honoravit; et Episcopum Dirthæum, aulicorum sacerdotum priinipilum, omni vitiorum labe maculavit."
P. 49. Non sum enim Johannes Bramalius, Episcopus Dirrhæus aulicus, sed Johannes Rowlandus, Anglicus Pastor Ecclesiæ particularis."
What is meant by the expression, “ Ecclesiæ particularis," I am at a loss to discover: but I am frequently puzzled by Mr. Rowland; the barbarisms and solecisms of whose page forbade me
know nothing but by his own report,” an answer was written by John Philips, Milton's youngest nephew, who had not then attained his twentieth year: against the latter Milton drew. his own formidable pen; and we shall soon have occasion to speak of the brilliant result.
Before we finally dismiss from our notice the “ Defence of the People of England,” it may be proper to mention that the curiosity respecting its author, which it generally excited, gave rise to a correspondence, among the leading scholars of that age, which supplies us with some valuable
to ascribe it, before I was acquainted with its author, to a man of such respectable learning and talents as Bramhall.
Though I wrote this note with Rowland's “ Polémica," in my hand, and drew my information respecting him from a source of my own, it would be andandid in me not to acknowledge that Mr. Todd has preceded me on the ground, and, that his correction of my former ignorance, on the subject immediately before us, is at this moment under my eye. To Rowland's assertion of the “ Apologia, &c." as the issue of his own brain, Mr. Todd has been enabled to add an express disavowal of this work, with an assignment of it to its proper author, by the prelate to whom it had been so injuriously attributed. In a letter to his son, from Antwerp in May 1654, which has lately been discovered among the bishop's papers, Bramhall says, “ That silly book, which he, (Milton,) imputes to me, was written by one John Rowland, who since hath replied upon him. I never read a word either of the first book or of the reply in my life.” [Todd's Life of Milton, 2d ed. p. 82, 83.]
and interesting information. Isaac Vossius, who after the Restoration was made one of the Canons of Windsor, being at the court of Stockholm when the “ Defence” was published, relates the warm approbation which Christina expressed of Milton's work, and unites his own applauses with those of the Queen. Francis Junius, the writer of “ De
In a letter from Stockholm dated on the 12th of April 1651, Isaac Vossius writes to N. Heinsius-Liber Miltoni heri huc est allatus. Exemplar meum petiit a me Regina. Ipse non nisi cursim dum perlustravi. Nihil tale ab Anglo expectaram: et certe, nisi me animus fallit, placuit quoque, uno tantum excepto, incomparabili nostræ Dominæ, Dicit tamen Salmasius se perditurum auctorem cum toto Parlamento. [Burm. Syll. iii. 595.] In a letter written a few days afterwards to the same correspondent, Vossius says, Miltoni apologiam pro Parlamento suo priori accepimus hebdomade. Legit istud scriptum incomparabilis nostra Domina, et, nisi fallor, valde ei placuit. Certe et ingenium istius viri et scribendi genus multis præsentibus collaudavit. [Ib. 596.)
b De Miltono (says Isaac Vossius in a letter to N. Heinsius, dated on the 8th of June 1651) jam certior factus sum ab avun. culo meo Junio, qui cum eo familiaritatem colit.. Is mihi significavit eum Parlamento esse a Secretis in negotiis externis, esse, multarum linguarum peritum, non quidem nobili, sed tamen generosâ, ut ipsi loquuntur, ortum stirpe, discipulum Patricii Junii, comem, affabilem, multisque aliis præditum virtutibus. Burm. Syll. iii. 618.] In the library of Trin. Coll. Dublin, (as I am informed by the kindness of Mr. J. Cooper Walker,] is preserved a volume of Milton's prose-tracts, which had been presented with an inscription by the Author to this Junius; who was not less celebrated for his Anglo-Saxon than for bis classical erudition. Junius in his report to his nephew, mistakes the Christian name of Milton's tutor, and substitutes Patrick for Thomas.