demeanour against
humanity, and one which rendered a man infamous, and disqualified him
from taking part in debate.
It has always been reported that Salmasius, who was getting on in years,
and had many things to trouble him besides his own wife, perished in the
effort of writing a reply to Milton, in which he made use of language
quite as bad as any of his opponent's; but it now appears that this is
not so. Indeed, it is generally rash to attribute a man's death to a
pamphlet, or an article, either of his own or anybody else's.
Salmasius, however, died, though from natural causes, and his reply was
not published till after the Restoration, when the question had become,
what it has ever since remained, academical.
Other pens were quicker, and to their productions Milton, in 1654,
replied with his _Second Defence of the English People_, a tract
containing autobiographical details of immense interest and charm. By
this time he was totally blind, though, with a touch of that personal
sensitiveness ever characteristic of him, he is careful to tell Europe,
in the _Second Defence_, that externally his eyes were uninjured, and
shone with an unclouded light.
Milton's _Defences of the English People_ are rendered provoking by his
extraordinary language concerning his opponents. 'Numskull,' 'beast,'
'fool,' 'puppy,' 'knave,' 'ass,' 'mongrel-cur,' are but a few of the
epithets employed. This is doubtless mere matter of pleading, a rule of
the forum where controversies between scholars are conducted; but for
that very reason it makes the pamphlets as provoking to an ordinary
reader as an old bill of complaint in Chancery must have been to an
impatient suitor who wanted his money. The main issues, when cleared of
personalities, are important enough, and are stated by Milton with great
clearness. 'Our king made not us, but we him. Nature has given fathers
to us all, but we ourselves appointed our own king; so that the people is
not for the king, but the king for them.' It was made a matter of great
offence amongst monarchs and monarchical persons that Charles was subject
to the indignity of a trial. With murders and poisonings kings were long
familiar. These were part of the perils of the voyage, for which they
were prepared, but, as Salmasius put it, 'for a king to be arraigned in a
court of judicature, to be put to plead for his life, to have sentence of
death pronounced against him, and that sentence executed,'--oh
|