“I... Steer Right Onward” 1654–1658During the autumn and winter of 1654–5 Milton set about to answer More’s
defense of himself, called Fides Publica. Sometime in October, 1654 Adriaan Vlacq
published in the Hague a new edition of Milton’s Defensio Secunda along with that
incomplete answer; More had gone to Paris before finishing it and Vlacq was un-
willing to delay publication.^2 Fides Publica begins with a prefatory epistle by George
Crantz, a theologian friend of More’s, which characterizes Milton as “a fabulist and
a meer poet” and defends More as a scholar, a skillful preacher, and a noble genius
whose temper invites hostilities but who is innocent of Milton’s charges.^3 A preface
by Vlacq, “Typographus Pro Se-Ipso,” reviews the publication history of Clamor:
the manuscript came from an unknown author to Salmasius; Vlacq agreed to pub-
lish it and invited Milton (through Hartlib) to reply; when Milton’s reply at last
appeared – Vlacq wonders why so tardily – it castigated Vlacq for signing the dedi-
cation to Charles. Taking a leaf out of the Defensio Secunda, Vlacq defends himself
by reviewing his life in London, Paris, and The Hague, and emphasizing his schol-
arly contributions in mathematics. He published both works, he explains, because
printers often publish on both sides of an issue, and he signed the dedicatory letter
to Charles because he was asked to and because such practices are common. Quot-
ing his exchange with Hartlib two years earlier denying More’s authorship of Clamor,
he concludes that Milton knowingly defamed More “with calumnies and the blackest
lies” (CPW IV.2, 1,093).
In the Fides Publica itself, More categorically denies writing any part of the Clamor,
but equivocates about the Epistle to Charles, which he did write. He declares that
he knows the author and looks forward to the day he will reveal himself. Milton, he
insists, had learned from Dury and Nieupoort that More was not the author but he
was unwilling to lose so much witty word-play on More’s name.^4 This is percep-
tive: the difficulty involved in rewriting the Defensio Secunda (already two years
overdue) no doubt helped Milton convince himself that he need not credit those
few contrary reports. With witty irony More denies reproaching Milton for blind-
ness or deformity even as he renews the insult; he had supposed Milton mentally,
not physically, blind, or else as suffering from “blind self-love”; and he had even
thought Milton handsome on the strength of “that elegant picture prefixed to your
Poems” (1,103) – the Marshall engraving Milton so despised.^5 Some other shafts
also came close enough to the mark to arouse Milton’s fury: that Milton pursued
private injuries implacably; that his scholarly claims are undermined by his wanton
and abusive language; and that he supposes his pen a sword to kill the living and the
dead. He calls attention also to Milton’s admonitory stance toward Cromwell in the
Defensio Secunda – a stance Milton proudly assumed but might not care to have
quite so clearly spelled out:
Sometimes you would even appear more lofty than the very exalted Cromwell, whom
you address familiarly, without any preface of honor, whom you advise under the
guise of praising, for whom you dictate laws, set aside titles, and prescribe duties, and