« 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 dis. courses against popery. And in others of his letters to Vossius and to J. Fr. Gronovius from Holland, Heinsius mentions how angry Salmalius 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.
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 Polipragmatici (alias Miltoni Angli) Defensionem destructivam regis & populi Anglicani. It is not known, who was the author of this piece. Some attribute 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 solæcisms, 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 wile 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 & populo Anglicano infantiffimam ; and it is printed with Milton's works; and throughout the whole Mr. Philips treats Bishop Brainhall with great severity as the author of the Apology, thinking probably that so considerable an adversary 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 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 Holborn to be nearer: Whitehall; and for some 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 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 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 attendance, he was easily induced after a proper interval of time to marry a second, who was Catherine 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 judgment upon him for writing against the King: but his sight had been decaying several years before, thro' his close application to Itudy, 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 light 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 fight of his left eye that he loft first: and at the desire of his friend Leonard Philaras the Duke of Parma's minister at Paris he fent him a particular account of his case, and of the manner of his growing blind, for him to consult Thevenot the physician, who was reckoned famous in cases of the eyes.
The letter is the fifteenth of his familiar epistles, is dated Septemb. 28, 1654: and is thus translated by Mr. Richardson.
advise me not to fling away all hopes “ of recovering my fight, for that you
have a friend “ at Paris, Thevenot the physician, particularly famous for the
offer to consult in my
behalf if you receive from me an account by “ which he may judge of the causes and symptoms “ of my disease, I will do what you advise me to, " that I may not feem to refuse any assistance that “ is offer’d, perhaps from God.
“ I think 'tis about ten years, more or less, since I
began to perceive that my eye-light grew weak and “ dim, and at the same time my spleen and bowels to “ be opprest and troubled with Flatus ; and in the “ morning when I began to read, according to cu
stom, my eyes grew painful immediately, and to “ refuse reading, but were refresh'd after a mode
rate exercise of the body. A certain Iris began “ to surround the light of the candle if I look'd at w it; soon after which, on the left part of the left eye
(for that was fome years sooner clouded) a mist “ arose which hid every thing on that side; and
looking forward if I shut my right eye, objects appear'd smaller. My other eye also, for these
« last three years, fading by degrees, fome months « before all fight was abolished things which I os looked upon seemed to swim to the right and
left; certain inveterate vapors seem to possess my « forehead and temples, which after meat espe
cially, quite to evening, generally, urge and de" press my eyes with a feepy heaviness. Nor would « 1 omit that whilst there was as yet some remain“ der of fight, I 'no sooner lay down in my bed, “ and turn'd on my side, but a copious light daz“ zled out of my shut eyes; and as my fight dimi“ nish'd every day colors gradually more obscure “ flash'd out with vehemence; but now that the « lucid is in a manner wholly extinct, a direct
blackness, or else spotted, and, as it were, woven “ with ath-color, is us'd to pour itself in. Nevera theless the constant and settled darkness that is “ before me as well by night as by day, seems
nearer to the whitish than the blackish ; and the
eye rolling itself a little, seems to admit I know “ not what little smallness of light as through a 6 chink.”
But it does not appear what answer he received ; we may presume, none that administered any relief. His blindness' however did not disable him entirely from performing the business of bis office. An arfiftant 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