“For the Sake of Liberty” 1652–1654the same eyes. And yet they have as much the appearance of being uninjured, and are
as clear and bright, without a cloud, as the eyes of men who see most keenly.... In
my face... still lingers a color exactly opposite to the bloodless and pale, so that
although I am past forty, there is scarcely anyone to whom I do not seem younger by
about ten years. (582–3)He decided not to take on the “toils and dangers” of military service in order to
serve in a role better suited to his talents but “no less perilous” (552). While he
“admire[s] the heroes victorious in battle,” he rejoices in his own role of “defend-
ing the very defenders” and he represents that as an epic encounter: when Salmasius
“was attacking us and our battle array... I met him in single combat and plunged
into his reviling throat this pen, the weapon of his own choice.”^151
At one point (612–28) Milton offers a sequential autobiographical narrative, parts
of which I have treated earlier in relation to the relevant stages of his life. Consid-
ered as a whole, this passage functions as an apologia, to show foreigners and Eng-
lishmen alike “that I am incapable of ever disgracing honorable speech by
dishonorable conduct, or free utterances by slavish deeds” (611). It serves also as
ethical proof to establish Milton’s character as the good orator, with worthy par-
ents, good breeding, eminently respectable friends, unselfish motives, and illustri-
ous deeds. And it helps to assimilate him to his own pantheon of English epic
heroes by displaying his unstained virtue and his vigorous defense of liberty in all
arenas. He came “of an honorable family,” had a rigorous and extensive education
and self-education, left the university with an MA and the respect of all, and then
studied for five years in retirement at home, traveled abroad where he met famous
men of the stature of Galileo and Grotius and was befriended by many “eminent in
rank and learning” (612–15). He defended Protestantism boldly in the very teeth of
the Roman Jesuits, lived in the sinks of iniquity in Europe “free and untouched by
the slightest sin or reproach,” and then cut his voyage short to join his fellow
citizens “fighting for liberty” at home (619–20). In several tracts opposing the bish-
ops he took part with those “exposing themselves to danger for the sake of the
Gospel”; in several tracts on divorce he sought “to advance the cause of true and
substantial liberty” which is from within; and in a tractate on education and another
on freedom of the press he undertook to promote that virtue and inner liberty
which are requisite for citizens in a free commonwealth (622–4). He wrote Tenure
not to make specific recommendations about Charles but to advise what may be
done against tyrants; he was engaged in writing the history of his country when the
Council of State sought his services; he wrote Eikonoklastes not to insult the king
but to serve “Queen Truth” (628). A few pages earlier he cast the council’s charge
to him to write against Salmasius as an epic mission given to a worthy knight: “It
was I and no other who was deemed equal to a foe of such repute... and who
received from the very liberators of my country this role, which was offered spon-
taneously with universal consent, the task of publicly defending (if anyone ever did)