arguments could be produced, sufficient to counterbalance so strong an evidence. He is inclined to think, however, that the royalists have the better of the dispute; and his opinion is founded solely on the internal evidence of the book itself. The style, in his opinion, resembles that of the king much more than that of Dr. Gauden;† though it is a little remarkable, that, according to Dr. Walker, the relation of Gauden, there occur many expressions in the book, which were habitual to the bishop of Exeter.

Milton had next to meet an antagonist more formidable than either King Charles, or Bishop Gauden. Charles, prince of Wales, now an exile in Holland, persuaded Salmasius, a professor of polite learning in the university of Leyden, to write a defence of his father, and of regal government. Salmasius was then in the pay of the Dutch administration; and, if we had not been told, that he received a hundred jacobuses for his work, we might wonder, how a pensioner of a republic should be writing a a treatise in favour of monarchy. The Defensio Regia was published in Holland, in 1649; and, as soon as it crossed the channel, the council of state directed their Latin secretary to draw up an answer. Defensio pro Populo Anglicano appeared in 1651; and, so completely did it answer the expectations of the author's employers, that Hobbes is said to have declared, he knew not, of the two antagonists, whose language was the best, or whose arguments the worst. Salmasius was a great critic; and Milton did not forget to pick barbarisms in his Latinity. This question must be left to the schoolmasters; for Milton falls upon Salmasius, and Johnson falls upon Milton.

* Hist. Eng. ch. lix.

+ Id. ibid.

The

‡ Tol. p. 75. Toland is the great, champion of this side. See

Amyntor at the end of the volume.
VOL. VII.

E

-Some polemics use to draw their swords
Against the language only and the words;
As he who fought at barriers with Salmasius
Engag'd with nothing but his style and phrases,
Mov'd to assert the murder of a prince,
The author of false Latin to convince ;-
And counted breaking Priscian's head a thing

More capital than to behead a king.

Butler.

The question in dispute concerned every government in Europe; and the champion of monarchy reigned almost absolute over the literature of the times. An answer to such a writer, upon such a question, could not fail to find readers. It was soon known throughout the continent. Milton received visits and compliments from all the foreign ambassadors; was tempted, by the offer of great preferments, to go into France and Italy; and 'the only inducement of several foreigners that came over into England,' says Aubrey, y, 'was chiefly to see O. Protector, and Mr. J. Milton, They would see,' he adds, 'the house and chamber where he was born.'* His book was burnt by the hands of the common hangman at Paris and Toulouse; nor is it any thing but a testimony to his powers, that the same earl of Bridgwater, who had acted a part in Comus, wrote in the title page of his own copy, Liber igne, Author furca dignissimi.† Salmasius had been invited to Sweden, by Christiana; who treated him with so much attention, that, when he was sick, she would sit by his bed side, and listen to his conversation. Milton's Defence is supposed, by some, to have occasioned his expulsion from court, with circumstances of indignity and contempt; but others tell us, that he was dismissed with marks of honour, and a train of attendance almost regal. He died in September, 1653; and Milton believed himself, and was ready to make others believe, that he died of the Defensio Populi.* But we learn from Mr. Godwin, who has no doubt of all this, that Salmasius was ' confined to his bed during almost the whole of his residence' in Sweden:† it is certain, that he was at the Spa, for his health, at the time of his death; and, according to his biographer, Clementius, he died of that same gout, which, at last, brought Milton himself to the grave.

The Defence of Milton was answered by an Apologia pro Rege et Populo Anglicano, contra Johannis Polypragmatici (alias Miltoni Angli) Defensionem Destructivam Regis et Populi. It came out anonymously; but Bishop Bramhall was supposed to be the author; and, being an ignoble book, a reply appeared, in 1652, under the name of John Phillips, the younger nephew of Milton. 'Non poteram,' says he, quin hujus ineptissimi nebulonis petulantiam retundendam mihi, ne rogatus quidem, susciperem.' How 'unasked,' will appear from the account of his brother, Edward. Milton 'committed the task,' says he, 'to the youngest of his nephews; but with such exact emendations before it went to press, that it might very well pass for his.'§ A Supplement to the Apology was published in 1653; and, as the original work had been attributed to an eminent bishop, the real author was now willing to give his own signature, and ready to reclaim his own property. He turned out to be John Rowland, an English divine.* The Defensio Populi was answered by other publications, both abroad and at home. Salmasius himself had partly finished a reply; and the imperfect production was afterwards given to the world by his son. Milton's Defence procured him compliments even from Athens; but it is not probable, that the praises of modern Greece could much inflate his vanity; and, in the answer to his friend's letter, on the subject, he seems to think, that the only benefit he shall derive from that quarter, will be, a specific for the disorder of his eyes.t

As every thing about Milton must be extraordinary, the loss of his eyesight has been converted into a wonder. We are told how late he bent over his books at night; what headachs he underwent; what warnings he received from the physicians; and how nobly he slighted their advice;--how much disinterestedness there was in 'preferring his duty to his eyes;' and what magnanimity he displayed, in studying himself blind for the good of the human race. His enemies, on the other hand, were little inclined to give him so much praise for his diligence; and, for their own parts, they said, there was no doubt, that the loss of his sight was a judgment from heaven, for his attempt at impugning the regal doctrines of Salmasius. One of these accounts is as likely as the other. The truth seems to be, that Milton's eyes were constitutionally weak; and that the intenseness of his application only accelerated

* Todd, vol. i. p. 82, note. It was the fashion of the times to play upon names; and Rowland thus analyses that of Phillips :

Phy nota factoris Lippus malus omnibus horis,
Et malus et Lippus, totus malus ergo Philippus.

† Epistle to Leonard Philaras.
+ He seems himself to have been persuaded, that he

-Lost them overply'd
In liberty's defence.

an event, which must inevitably have taken place at an early period of his life. He tells us himself, that 'ad naturalem debilitatem occulorum accesserant et crebri capitis dolores.'* The history he gives of his symptoms to Philaras, is utterly inconsistent with the supposition of a disease induced by study;† and the well known circumstance, that one eye began to fail, and became extinct, some years before the other, is wholly at variance, we believe, with the usual course of occular disorders, arising from a cause, which must operate equally, and at once, upon both eyes. But a fact, communicated by Aubrey, seems to place the matter beyond controversy. His father, we are told, 'read without spectacles at eighty-four; but his mother had very weak eies, and used spectacles presently after she was thirty years old.'s That Milton was his mother's child, there can be little doubt. His enemies often reproached him with effeminacy: he had no beard at twenty-three; || and his complexion was so remarkably fair, that his fellow students nicknamed him 'the Lady of Christ's College.' If he re

* Def. Sec.

† Epist. ut sup. + Dr. Anderson tells us, that his disorder was a gutta serena. Sir William Adams says, that it is sometimes 'exceedingly difficult to determine between the first approaches of gutta serena, and of ca taract; and he thus describes the symptoms, which attend the latter: The disease generally commences at first in one eye, and, by the time it has made any considerable progress, the other eye becomes affected. Essay on Cataract, Lond. 1817.

§ Aub. ap. Godw. p. 346. Phillips says, in a loose way, that his eyes began to decay about a dozen years before' he became actually blind. Ap. Godw. p. 375. He was about forty five at that time; and 'above a dozen years,' taken from this, will leave us about thirty.

|| There can be no other meaning to the ode on himself, on com ing twenty-three years old :

My hastening days fly on in full career,

But my late spring no bud or blossom shew'th,
Perhaps my semblance may deceive the truth,
That I to manhood am arrived so near.

Aub. ap. Godw. p. 337.