Notes to Chapter 1pleas’d him well anough when he had read it; onely he desir’d that where the two
marks be on the margent of the English copy this clause [about successors] might be
inserted.”
157 CPW IV.2, 848. On February 20 Mylius recorded in his Tagebuch that two days before
he had sent his kinsman – probably again Edward Phillips, though possibly John – to
assure him that there had been some progress on his affair in the parliament, despite
opposition.
158 Miller, Oldenburg Safeguard, 199.
159 Ibid., 214–15. Milton was in fact 43.
160 This Marshall frontispiece to Eikon Basilike is from a 1649 edition in the Houghton
Library. Marshall had earlier transposed the face of King Charles onto a frontispiece
image of David with his harp, for a translation of Virgilio Malvezzi’s Il Davide Perseguitato,
making that translation by Robert Ashley, David Persecuted (London, 1647), into a
royalist commentary.
161 See chapter 7, pp. 226–7.
162 Owen Felltham’s epigraph also makes this equation: “Here Charles the First and Christ
the Second lies.” See Lana Cable, “Milton’s Iconoclastic Truth,” in Loewenstein and
Turner, eds. Politics, Poetics, Hermeneutics, 135.
163 See Richard Helgerson, “Milton Reads the King’s Book: Print, Performance, and the
Making of a Bougeois Idol,” Criticism 29 (1987), 12–14; Corns, Uncloistered Virtue,
213; and Sharon Achinstein, Milton and the Revolutionary Reader (Princeton, NJ, 1994),
162–8.
164 Steven N. Zwicker, Lines of Authority (Ithaca, NY, and London, 1993), 37–59, and
Norbrook, Writing the English Republic, 204–12.
165 CPW III, 341. This language recalls Areopagitica’s statement about the power of books
to distill the living spirit of their authors. See chapter 6, p. 193.
166 CPW III, 340–1. Cf. PL 6.119–26.
167 CPW III, 343. In the second edition, with more evidence in hand about the relative
popularity of the king’s book and his own, he specifies his audience yet more pre-
cisely: “few, perhaps, but those few, such of value and substantial worth, as truth and
wisdom, not respecting numbers and bigg names, have bin ever wont in all ages to be
contented with” (CPW III, 339–40).
168 Pages 473, 481. Another example: the king repents for shedding the traitor Strafford’s
blood but not for the bloodshed his wars caused, “a million of his Subjects lives not
valu’d in comparison of one Strafford” (376).
169 These arguments reprise some developed in Tenure. See chapter 7, pp. 230–1.
170 Achinstein, Milton and the Revolutionary Reader, 155–68.
171 See David Loewenstein, Milton and the Drama of History: Historical Vision, Iconoclasm,
and the Literary Imagination (Cambridge, 1990), 62–73.
172 Milton might have heard of E. R.’s verse renderings of the king’s Divine Penitential
Meditations and Vows (c. June 21, 1649).
173 From the Anglican liturgical perspective, of course, Charles has every right to adapt to
his own purposes prayers like the Psalms which belong to the church and all its mem-
bers. Also, he might well recognize in David’s Psalms, as all the devout may, an anatomy
of his own soul. See Lewalski, Protestant Poetics and the Seventeenth Century Religious
Lyric (Princeton, NJ, 1979), 39–53.
Notes to Chapter 8