“For the Sake of Liberty” 1652–1654On April 19/29 Dury wrote Hartlib again, citing another witness – “Mr. Hotton
who is a fierce Royalist” – who also denied More’s authorship and reported that
More “hath been absolved by the Synod of the French Churches from the vexation
that Salmasius Kinswoman put him to; and that Salmasius and hee fell out about the
matter before hee died.” Dury added, “You may let Mr. Milton know of this lest
hee should wrong the innocent and wrong his own Credit by spreading false re-
ports.”^121 Hartlib surely did so. But Milton could discount the source – not the
respected Dury but the “fierce Royalist” whom he wrongly assumed to have been
Dury’s informant on both occasions. He could also discount the report of the court
and synod decisions, having heard from other sources that those matters remained
murky.^122 In mid-May, at More’s behest, the Dutch ambassador Willem Nieupoort
sent emissaries to assure Milton that More did not write the Clamor, but Milton
could put that down simply to an effort by More to prevent publication of Milton’s
attack on him. Nieupoort wrote More on June 23/July 3 that Milton would do
nothing, being firmly convinced the author was “no other than you,” and that his
appeal to Thurloe to stop the publication in the interests of the fragile new peace
between England and the United Provinces came to nothing because a just-uncov-
ered plot (May 20) on Cromwell’s life was just then engaging the entire attention of
the officials (LR III, 399–402). Milton might have done well to heed Dury’s advice
in the earlier letter – “truly there would bee more strenth in all these writings, if the
personall reproaches were left out” – but he felt that he had to respond in kind to
the ad hominem attacks in the Clamor, and that More was the likeliest, as well as the
only available, target.
About May 30, 1654 Milton’s long-awaited and already controversial treatise
was published by Thomas Newcomb: Joannis Miltoni Angli Pro Populo Anglicano
Defensio Secunda contra infamem libellum anonymum cui titulus, Regii sanguinis clamor ad
coelum adversus parricidas Anglicanos.^123 Breaking free of the chapter-by-chapter for-
mula, it develops an often powerful argument, mixing diatribe, autobiography,
panegyric, implicit and explicit advice, and admonition. The diatribe is directed at
More’s supposed book and scandalous life, as well as Salmasius, Charles I, and the
English royalists. Extensive autobiographical passages seek to repair any damage
More’s attacks may have done to Milton’s now considerable reputation abroad;
they also provide information about Milton’s earlier life and insight into his sense of
himself in the early 1650s. Some panegyric passages also function as implicit argu-
ment. The fulsome praise of Cromwell legitimates the Protectorate by demonstrat-
ing that he alone is worthiest to rule. But Milton’s praise of 14 other men by
name^124 and his omnibus recognition of “a great many other citizens of pre-emi-
nent merits” as deserving to share power with Cromwell, refashions the Protector-
ate from a quasi-monarchy to an aristocracy of worthies who have proven their
devotion to liberty.
At times Milton uses panegyric to offer implicit but very specific political advice,
as when he includes among the named worthies two very visible opponents of the