Before Milton Was Famous: January 8, 1649/50

Leo Miller

fitors’ note: We have honorel r. Miller’s request to use a n adaptation of the current style sheet required for manuscripts appearing in Ma.]

We normally look at past historical events, not as they happened, but backwards, through a distorting prism of later consequences. It is useful sometimes to change our focus, and try to visualize proceedings as they unfolded, without foresight of the future course of events.

On January 8, 1649150 at Whitehall in Westmin- ster, some members of the Commonwealth Council of State, little more than a quorum, were soberly con- templating a proposal that their Secretary for Foreign Languages, Mr. John Milton, should try t o compose a piece of propaganda in their behalf in Latin. No one there could then imagine that Milton would come up with a book which would do for them in the arena of ideas and opinion what Cromwell was doing for them on the battlefield.

Actually Milton composed three major books at the request, or by order of, the Commonwealth govern- ment: Eikonoklastes (1649), Pro Populo Anglican0 Defen- sio (1650), and Defensio Sea& (1654). For his mandates on Eikonoklastes and Defensio Secunda, we have Milton’s words only. Of Eikonoklustes he said in his preface, “I take it on me as a work assign’d rather, then by me chos’n or affected”; and he reaffirms, in his Second Defense, that being “ordered to respond to

it, to the Icon I opposed the Iconoclast,” huic respon- dere jwsw, Iconi lconoclasten opposui.‘

For his Defensio Secunda Milton makes a similar statement in his 1655 Pro Se Defensio (CE, IX, 164): quia jwsw, inquam, publice ab its quorum authoritas apud me gravis esse debuit, “because I was ordered on be- half of the commonwealth, I say, by those whose authority ought to have had weight with me.”’ A more specific hint is given earlier in Pro Se Defensio (CE, IX 12), a hint hitherto garbled in mistranslation by dictionary-bound editors who were unfamiliar with the Committee on Examinations in the Common- wealth administration,

Vix suis integer schedulis liber iste in Consi- lio mihi est traditus; a b eo mox consessu qui qumtionibus tum praefuit, alter mittitur: sig- nificatum quoque est, expectari a me hanc operam Republic= navandam, ut huic impor- tun0 clamatori 0s obturarem.

Scarcely complete in its sheets that book [Regii Sanguinis Clamor] was delivered to me at the Council; soon another was sent by the Com- mittee at that time in charge of Examinations. It was also intimated that it was expected of me to come to the aid of the Commonwealth so as to stop the mouth of this importunate Clamorer. 1

2 MILTON QUARTERLY

For the assignment to compose a reply to the Defen- sio Renia of Claudius Salmasius, there is much more

role, assigned spontaneously by unanimous consent.

speciic information. The Order Books of the Coun- cil of State testify that on January 8, 1649/50 some of its members were indeed in session discussing what to do about that dangerous pro-royalist diatribe, al- ready so influential on the Continent, though in La- tin, with a French translation w n to appear. But first we look at Milton’s own words (Defensio Secunda, CE, VIII, 138),

Prodiit deinde Salmasius; cui quis responderet, adeb non diu, quod ait Morus, dispiciebant, ut me in concilio tum etiam prsesentem sta- tim omnes ultro nominarent.

Now I do not want in any way to minimize the mag- nificence of Milton’s achievement, nor in any way to derogate the great principles which he enunciated in both his first and his second Defences of the people of England, but it is desirable that we look at history as it really happened. What Milton said, literally, was that he was assigned “by the common consent of all,” meaning the Council; but in the Columbia edition (VIII, 5 ) the phrase is shifted somewhat in place and rendered “by general consent,” while in the Yale edi- tion (IV, 149) it is translated “with universal consent,” giving us a feeling of a country rising in applause from Dover Beach and Land’s End all the way up to Hadri- an’s

If we examine the minutes of the Council of State on that January 8, we find there were all of ten mem- bers in attendance that day, who constituted the unanimous consent. That figure of ten attending must

Next Salmasius made his appearance. Who should reply to him, they did not (as More claims) spend long time considering, so that spontaneously at once all nominated me, then also present in the Council.

From the papers of Hermann Mylius we now know that Milton was not routinely admitted to policy deciding meetings of the Council of State. His words turn etium, “then also,” confirm that it was an unusual occasion. We may infer that he was invited to attend on that day, January 8, 1649/50, to make a full report on the contents of the Defensio Regiu. Surely its pon- derous Latin and turgid pedantry had daunted many members of that Council. It was also likely that Mil- ton pointed out some of the main lines for counter- attack, Salmasius’ abandonment of his former public hostility to episcopacy in the church and other vul. nerabilitie~.~

Again, in Milton’s own words, from his Defensio Secunda (CE, VU, 4) we have his account from after the fact, which has conveyed down to us a quite glamorous picture:

me potihs quhm alium quemvis, neque tanti nominis adversario, neque tantis rebus dicen- dis visum imparem, ab ipsis patriae liberatori- bus has partes accepisse communi omnium consensu ultro delatas.. . I rather than any other, deemed equal to an opponent of such great fame and equal to speaking on such great issues, received from the liberators of our country themselves this

be compared with the attendance on the preceding day, when the Council met in two sessions, a total of twenty-four members present at one time or another, a minimum of eighteen.6

If we read the wording of the Council‘s minutes for that day, we sense a tone of something less than the highest enthusiasm. As their decision is entered in their draft Order Book it reads: “That Mr. Milton doe praepare something in Answere to the booke of Salmatius & when he hath done it bring it to ye Councel.” Milton was directed to “prepare something” and then bring it back for the Council to judge. The tone is one of uncertainty, of diffiden~e.~ . Milton was well aware of those feelings. In a later

passage in his D e f h Sea& (CE, VIII, 100) he gave us some clues as to what was in the air that January day and ‘some time after:

immb vero multi me ab ill0 dehortabantur, tyronem cum veterano congressurum, partim invidentes, ne utcunque mihi gloria: foret cum tanto hoste decertisse; partim & mihi, et caum metuentes, nlr utriusque gravi cum i g nominia victus discederem.

The fact is that many tried to dissuade me from that task, as a rookie challenging a vete- ran; some envious that one way or another

MILTON QUARTERLY 3

it would be to my glory to have fought it out with such a great foe; some, fearful, both for me and for my cause, if I should in defeat leave the field with ter- rible disgrace to both.

It is unlikely that Milton ever dictated anything without intending real meaning in what he said, no matter how obscurely he chose to make his point. That passage is peculiarly sensitive, and those “many” dissuaders must have been real persons.

Reversing Milton’s sequence, envy and fear, we ask first: who might have feared a failure? Obviously, members of the Council of State. As of that January 8, 1649/50, Milton had never published even one prose work in Latin, while Salmasius was the author of seventy titles; his first, before Milton was born. Salmasius was formidable in controversy, well known in that century for the readiness and frequency with which he plunged into rancorous debate with the best known wranglers of western Europe. In contrast, although Milton had given the Commonwealth a good performance in his Eikonoklartes, he had hardly made a dent in the influence of Eikon h i l i k e .

It can well be understood that even good friends like John Bradshaw and Sir Henry Vane and Sir Peter Wentworth may have seriously questioned Milton’s assurances that he could demolish that royal defender, when he himself conceded that in common opinion no one ranked higher than Salmasius for erudition.8

Everyone knew that critical contingencies were at stake. Salmasius had just been invited by Queen Christina to grace her court of Sweden. At that time Protestant Sweden ranked as a great power. Fresh from victory in the Thirty Years War, Sweden was potentially a most dangerous military and political foe of the Commonwealth. Against a possible Stuart ris- ing supported by France or Spain, English Protestants would stand united, but a Stuart alliance with the Dutch or the Swedes led by the daughter of Gusta- vus Adolpus could rally many Britishers to the cause of Charles 11. It was most important to neutralize Sweden. Could Milton in a mere book counteract and overcome Salmasius’ political influence exercised in person in Stockholm?

Somehow, when Milton was far from home, among strangers met for the first time, his creative personal- ity shone at once in its native brilliance, whereas at home, among his familiars, despite the essential bold-

ness of so many of his undertakings, a certain reti- cence seems to have masked his abilities. In Italy his superiority was recognized at once, but in England he was always being eclipsed by “more timely-happy spirits” (Sonnet VII). Even so good and loyal a friend as Andrew Marvell, in his first sight of Paradise Lost years later, was worried and troubled at what Milton had attempted, until he saw the result and apologized handsomely. So good friends, like Samuel Hartlib and ‘Theodore Haak, who, with their close connections to Continental opinion, were often consulted on for- eign affairs, may have offered Milton some words of caution.

These were his good friends, but there were mem- bers in that Council who were never particularly en- thusiastic about Milton, members who would at a later date have him haled before a committee of in- quiry because he had permitted the publication of the “heretical” Racovian Catechism, members who would needle him for being, in their eyes, too helpful to Her- mann Mylius and the Oldenburg Safeguard. They might join in the unanimous vote, there being no other choice, but they could let their doubts be known. They would want personally to review whatever Mr. Milton might prepare.

Milton also speaks of envy. Who would have been envious that this endeavor might boost Milton’s repu- tation?

Within the Commonwealth administration, at least one person: Gualter Frost. During the preceding de- cade, before the Commonwealth was set up, in the Parliamentary administration there had been two secretaries, equal in status: Gualter Frost for domes- tic affairs, and Georg Rudolph Weckherlin for for- eign affairs. When Weckherlin was dismissed for being too royalist, Frost effectively became chief of staff. Although Milton was appointed in Weckherlin’s place as secretary for foreign languages, it was Frost who drafted state papers, who prepared instructions for en- voys going abroad, who on occasion met with for- eign envoys. Frost always attended Council meetings and was clearly Milton’s superior in status. The one person who might speculate that he had something to fear from a rise in Milton’s prestige would have been Gualter Frost. That feeling would have been shared b y his son and assistant, Gualter Frost Junior.’

Milton was then in daily concurrent activity with another official, Sir Oliver Fleming, Master of the

4 MILTON QUARTERLY

Ceremonies. Fleming‘s functions, as chief of protocol, and day to day intermediary with foreign envoys, was rather of a different order. For reasons not known to us now, he seems to have enjoyed a particular po- litical closeness with Cromwell. It is unlikely that he would have impressed Milton as being jealous.

There was one other figure then close to the Com- monwealth leadership, and a man prominent in liter- ary achievement, who may have seemed to show signs of envy: Tom May. He was no stranger to Milton. Twenty years before he had contributed verses to the Purergu, the collected poems of Milton’s friend Alex- ander Gil.” Tom May was a known master of La- tin. He had translated Virgil and Martial. O n the Continent he had an established reputation for his ambitious continuation of Lucan’s Pharsalia in seven books of Latin hexameters. All through the 1640’s he had rendered good service to the Parliamentary cause. He had written its authorized History of the Parliament, followed by a Breviary in support of the Independent Party and the Army.

Many years gone by, in the 1630s, Tom May had been regarded as being one of Charles I’s favorites among living English poets. At that time May was known to have coveted the post of poet laureate. When Ben Jonson died in 1636, May was passed over and the honor was granted to William Davenant. It was widely said, thereafter, that this slight was the main reason for May’s adherence to the Parliamen- tary side. His one time close friend, Edward Hyde (later Lord Clarendon), blamed May’s “pride and envy.” Edward Phillips, Milton’s nephew, in Theatrum Poetarum saw in May’s History the “spleen of a mal- contented poet.” Anthony a Wood, the Oxford chronicler, recorded the same opinion. This was not necessarily a true evaluation of May’s character, but such was the reputation he had acquired.”

A few months after the decision of January 8, on July 2 , 1650 Tom May was called upon to take over

signed to Milton: “That the Declaration of the Parla- ment bee translated into Latine by Mr. Milton into Dutch by Mr Haak and into French by Monsieur Au- gier” (PRO, SP 25/64, page 483). Thomas May accept- ed the chore and completed the task, and he need not have spoken ungenerously at the time if he mur- mured that he would rather have been offered the other responsibility, the answer to Salmasius; yet it might recall his well-known reputation.

Such was the atmosphere in London and Westmin- ster early in that year: honest concern by some, reluc- tant concession by others, with a fringe of invidious rivalry from smaller souls, and only John Milton confident of what was soon to be acclaimed.’*

New York City

NOTES AND ADDENDA

’ Milton’s writings are herein quoted from the Colum- bia University Press edition (CE) of The Works of John Mil- ton, but translations from his Latin are mine: Eikonoklastes, V, 64; Defensio Secunda, VIII, 138. These three “ordered” books are commonly regarded as having been extraordinary requests, in contrast with his Observations upon the Articles of Peace with the Irish Rebels and long state papers which were routine to his duties as secretary.

‘ Milton reiterated this statement in his April 21, 1659 letter to Jean de La Badie (Epistolarum Liber, CE, XII, 104) cum adversario tanti nominis publice jussus certamen non detrec- taverim, “when commanded on behalf of the commonwealth I did not decline the contest with an adversary of so great fame.” Publice is translated “on behalf of the commonwealth” in Adam Littleton’s 1684 Lingua Latina Liber Dictionarius Quadripartitus and in Lewis and Short’s Latin Dictionary. To translate it “publicly” (as in the Columbia edition, Pro Se, IX, 165, and in the Yale University Press edition, Corn, plete Prose Works of John Milton, Pro Se, IV, 767) is to make it meanineless.

a public duty, perhaps lesser, but still important, a The Committee on Examinations had been a stand- duty from which Milton, busy with his answer to

ing committee of the Council of State. As reappointed on Salmasius, was being relieved: “That the Declaration December 2, 1651 it had nineteen members, and its chair- Of the Of upon the marching Of man rotated monthly (Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, their Army into bee Sent unto Mr. Thomas herein cited as CSPD, 1651-1652, page 43). Milton speaks MaY to bee bY him translated into Latine to the end of it in the past tense because the committee went out of that it may bee sent abroad into fforeigne parts” existence December 2, 1652 (CSPD, 1652-1653, page 8). The (Council Order Books, PRO, SP 25/64, page 500). Columbia edition (Pro Se, IX, 13) mistranslates “Soon after One week earlier, on june 26, that task had been as- that sitting, another copy is sent me by the person who was

-

MILTON QUARTERLY 5

then president,” while the Yale edition, IV, 703, invents a tribunal: “soon after that session another copy was sent me by the court of inquisitions.”

Consilio and Consilii referring to the Council was spelled with an s by the printer of the first (authorized) edition of Pro Se Defensio, 1655, pages 8 and 85. My studies of hither- to unknown papers by Milton in the Anglo-Dutch negoti- ations have established that one can distinguish Milton’s work from that of his colleague Philip Meadows because Mil- ton always spelled concilium for “council,” reserving onsili- um for “counsel,” in the state papers and in his two Defences for the people of England. It appears that Pro Se was not read to him for proofreading, because pronunciation would have made the spelling obvious.

In consilio here, and in concilio usually, in Milton’s writ- ings, with the exception of the crucial January 8, does not mean ‘in a Council meeting” but “at the Council’s premises.” From other sources it is known that the Dutch printer of the Clamor sent the sheets through Samuel Hartlib, who served the Council in an unofficial capacity and was not admitted to its sessions. William Riley Parker, Milton, A Bi- ography, I, 421, was here incorrect to assume that Milton “was attending a meeting of the Council” when these sheets reached him, and they were most likely from the quarto edition of 172 pages: cf. L. Miller, “Milton and Vlacq,” Papers of the Bibliogruphical Society of America, 73 (1979): 188.

A Council order, February 19, 1651 (MSS. Public Record Office, London, hereinafter PRO, SP 25/65, page 1 I), specifically restricted routine attendance by its “ministers” to Gualter Frost Sr. and his son Gualter Frost Jr. For the period from March 1649 to February 1651 in- formation is less definite, but the evidence available does not support an image of Milton in regular attendance at Council policy making sessions. January 8, 1649/50 is the only date for which there is evidence of any attendance by Milton. The full text of the Mylius negotiations (L. Miller, john Milton B the Oldenburg Sufegwrd, Loewenthal Press, 1985) corrects the erroneous impressions about Milton’s role in the Council formerly derived from the incomplete ex- tracts available. On January 8, 1649150, immediately preced- ing the discussion of the Defensio Regiu, the Council heard a report on a book by Thomas Waring about the sufferings of Irish Protestants. It was decided to pay him €100 and Mil- ton was directed to confer with printers or stationers about printing the book. No other items on that day’s agenda ap- pear to have involved Milton (CSPD, 1649-1650, page 474, and manuscript Order Books for that day, cited below).

The translations given in the Columbia and in the Yale editions are typical examples of reading history refracted backwards through time from the present, but they were influenced by Milton’s tendency to self-dramatization. Simi-

lar phrases elsewhere in Defensio Secunda help: ipsorum mihi sufragiis attributum atque judiciis, “assigned to me by their own votes and judgments,” and Optimates nostri me primum intuerentur, “our statesmen looked first to me” (CE, VIII, 12, 14). Of course votes in that Council were often not unanimous.

On that January 8 the ”Fair” Order Book, PRO, SP 25/63, page 485, lists as present: “Lord President-Mr. Wallopp- Coll. Purefoy-Mr. Scott-EarIe Pembrooke- Lo. Ch. Barron-Mr. Bond-Lo : Comr. Whitlocke-Sir Gilbt Pickering- Lord Viscount Lisle.” The same names are list- ed for that day in the “Foul” (draft) Order Book, PRO, SP 2513 (unpaginated). This was out of a total roster of forty or forty-one. David Masson, Life of Milton, IV, 151, without explanation, also listed William Heveningham as present. Milton’s unanimous vote of ten councillors should be sup- plemented by the approval given to publishing his Pro Popub Anglican0 Defenrio on Decembw 23,1650, when twenty-five were present, of whom eighteen were not present on Janu- ary 8. As the sixteenth item in a long list of non-essential trivialities, it reads: “That Mr. Milton doe print the trea- tise wch he hath written in answer to a late booke written by Salmatius against the proceedings of this Comonwealth” (PRO, SP 25/15, page 39; CSPD, 1650, page 479).

The wording of the Council’s January 8 order survives in two forms. I have quoted it in my text as it appears in the “Foul” (draft) Order Book, PRO, SP 25/3, unpaginat- ed. In the form more familiar from J. M. French, Life Recur& of John Milton, 11, 286, it reads “That Mr. Milton doe pre- pare something in answer to the Booke of Saltmatius, and when hee hath done itt bring itt to the Councell;” so tran- scribed from the “Fair” Order Book, PRO, SP 25/63, page 486, with the misspelling Saltmatius.

In the “Fair” Order Book, all the entries on 485 and 486 are written in one hand by someone who was making a clear copy from the draft Order Book. What is most peculiar is that in the ”Foul” Order Book, in sharp contrast to the cus- tomary scribbling immediately preceding and following (by either Frost Sr. or Jr.?), the three entries relating to Milton (two on the Waring book, one on Salmasius) are entered in a very careful and formal hand, as if by a professional amanuensis, or someone concerned to take special pains. This out-of-the-ordinary formal hand may be seen in facsi- mile in Samuel Leigh Sotheby, Rumblings in the Elucidation of the Autograph of Milton, 1861, plate A facing page 36, reproducing the order.

We have no way of determining now the temper of the January 8 meeting, but there are some hints. While there are very many written orders entered in the Council minutes to be routed to Milton, not one of these implies any doubt as to his expected performance; only in the one other order

6 MILTON QUARTERLY

given personally to Milton that January 8, on the book of Thomas Waring, does one hear that same diffident note of checking up on him,

That Mr Milton doe conferr with some printers or Stationers, concerning the speedy printing of this Booke, and give an accompt of what hee hath done therein to the Councell.

Milton had several good friends in the Council, but of those present on January 8 only the president, John Bradshaw, is known to have been personally close; another possibility was Sir Gilbert Pickering, who was a student 1625-1629 at Emmanuel College when Milton was a student at adjacent Christ’s College. Milton’s relationship with the other eight may have been strictly formal.

Milton’s words (Defensio Sentnda, CE, VIII, 98) were de illius eruditione, erat hominicrn summa opinio, but this should not be quoted as if it were Milton’s own opinion (pace W. R. Parker, Milton, A Biograph?, I , 370).

V Gualter Frost prepared instructions for Isaac Dorislaus, Oliver Fleming, and Richard Bradshaw, and accompanied Anthony Ascham to meet Spanish Ambassador Alonso de Cardenas (CSPD, 1649-1650, pages 100, 208, 496, 496).

I ” May’s verses and their relation to Milton’s Sixth E l e p are discussed in L. Miller, “Milton’s pamiis cicutis,” Notes and Queries, 226 (1981): 41-42.

I ’ [Edward Hyde. Earl of Clarendon], The Life of Ed- ward, Earl ofChrendon . . . Written by Himself, Oxford, 1857, 1, 33, describing his early friendship with May, concludes: “He was cherished by many persons of honour, and very acceptable in all places; yet (to shew that pride and envy have their influences upon the narrowest minds and which have the greatest semblance of humility) though he had received much countenance, and a very considerable dona- tive from the King, upon his majesty’s refusing to give him a very small pension which he had designed and promised to another very ingenious person, whose qualities he thought inferior to his own, he fell from his duty, and all his former friends, and prostituted himself to the vile offices of celebrat- ing the infamous acts of those who were in rebellion against the King.”

Edward Phillips, under “The Modern Poets,” Theatrum Poetarum, 1675, page 179 in the second pagination: “Tho. May, the vulgarly admir’d translator of Lucan into English Verse; but here cheifly to be mention’d for what he hath written propria Minercia, as his Supplement of Lucun in La- tin Verse . . . as for his History of the late Civil Wars of England, though it were written in Prose, yet he is thought to have vented therein the speen [sic] of a Malecontented Poet; for having been frustrated in his Expectation ot be-

ing the Queen’s Poet. for which he stood Candidate with Sir William Davenant, who was preferred before him.”

Anthony a Wood, Athenae Oxonienses, edited by Philip Bliss, 1617, 111, 810, wrote that May “was graciously coun- tenanced by king Charles I, and his royal consort, but finding not that preferment from either, which he expect- ed, grew discontented, sided with the Presbyterians upon the turn of the times, became a debauchee ad omnia, en- tertained ill principles as to religion, spoke often very slightly of the Holy Trinity, kept beastly and atheistical company, of whom Tho. Chaloner the regicide was one, and en- deavour’d to his power to asperse the king and his cause.”

Both Gualter Frost Sr. and Thomas May were dead when Milton composed Defensio Secundu. He would not have men- tioned their names.

It is consistent with the Council of State’s limited ap- preciation of the man whom they had serving them as secre- tary for foreign languages that four months went by after publication of Pro Populo Anglican0 Defensio, during which it became a major sensation on the Continent, before they accorded him a vote of thanks, attaching the kind of cash bonus which they gave to others among their propagan- dists. Only when he surprised them by turning down the money reward did they rewrite their appreciation in some- what more appropriate terms. Both Order Book entries sug- gest that even then Milton was not invited into a Council meeting; the second reads”that the thankes of ye Councel bee returned to Mr. Mylton. and their sense represented in that behalf” (PRO, SP 25/20, pages 44, 46; facsimile in Sotheby, Ramblings, facing page 36; printed in J. M. French, Life Record5 of John Milton, 111, 43).

I!

Hiding From the Sun: The Swain in Milton’s Lycidas

Philip G. Judge, S. J.

Lycidas seems a confused and wandering poem on first reading. It does not record an expected lamenta- t ion for a shepherd’s untimely death, bu t rather de- tails its speaker’s search for a fitting song. W h a t is presented as a “monody” appears a tortured working of many voices. Unti l and unless a reader finds some connecting element, the poem is apt to remain a source of confusion, however rich in allusion. Still, a reader who is unwilling to dismiss the work may