“I... Steer Right Onward” 1654–1658cause” to be considered the author.^24 But to do that he has to define authorial
responsibility very broadly indeed:
If I find that you wrote or contributed one page of this book, or even one versicle, if
I find that you published it, or procured or persuaded anyone to publish it, or that you
were in charge of its publication, or even lent yourself to the smallest part of the work,
seeing that no one else comes forth, for me you alone will be the author of the work.^25He can, he is almost sure, lay Vlacq’s preface to More’s account (More never de-
nied that). He also invokes the legal definition whereby, in Roman and English
law, a publisher or printer is held responsible with the author, or even in his place
if he is unknown; on that ground, “he who published that Cry must be considered
its author” (701). Since More was the “proven overseer and editor of that book,”
Milton can proclaim him the author by “the justice and laws of all nations” (735–
6). So he asserts boldly, to hide his discomfort, that identifying the primary author
is irrelevant: “what now becomes of the author, or where on earth he lives, I do not
linger over” (746).
Milton is much more effective as he embellishes his narrative of More’s licen-
tious behavior. Employing intensive textual analysis, he refutes More’s arguments
and subjects his testimonial letters to a rigorous deconstruction that reveals their
inadequacies when weighed by customary canons of evidence. He also draws on
information from his own sources. Many of the Geneva letters predate the writers’
full knowledge of the scandals about More. Diodati’s letters were written after he
retired and was no longer in close touch with affairs. Other Geneva letters are
“cold,” suggesting that they were produced to help dispatch More to Middelburg
before the scandals broke open. More’s failure to produce the final letter from
Geneva to Middelburg suggests that it was far from exculpatory. Most of the letters
More cited in the Supplementum do not address the relevant charges against him.
Also, More’s report of the decisions of the civil court and the Utrecht synod are
suspect, and the documents cited do not clear him of the morals charges.
Milton declines to name the witnesses he quotes against More. This weakens his
case, but he probably needed to protect Thurloe’s sources and he was scrupulous
about not involving correspondents like Spanheim in his quarrels without their
express permission.^26 So he proclaims loftily that “in affairs well known in them-
selves, I do not hold it necessary” to give names (716), and he also insists that the
testimony of others is unnecessary for a virtuous man like himself, who “surrounds
himself with his own integrity” (791). Questioning the probative value of testi-
mony is a common theme with Milton, whether it be from living witnesses or (in
the antiprelatical tracts) ancient authorities, since the witnesses, like those who seek
their support, “are alike the good and the bad” (791). They are especially suspect in
this case, and Milton has a sharp warning for those who, out of partiality, timidity,
mistaken charity, a spirit of forgiveness, or a desire to avoid scandal have written for