Notes to Chapter 1hands: one to the Bodleian (though not personally to Rouse), one (at Harvard) to
Charles Vane the erstwhile Portuguese ambassador and Henry Vane’s brother, one to
Hartlib. The printer Dugard presented one (now at Durham University) to Sir Henry
Vane with a lengthy inscription. One copy was inscribed “ex dono authoris” (not in
Milton’s hand) to a collector, John Morris (Parker II, revd, I, 237). A copy owned by
the Elder Brother in A Maske (now Earl of Bridgewater) is at the Huntington Library;
on the title page he wrote “Liber igni, Author furcâ, dignissimi” (This book is most
deserving of burning, the author of the gallows). Parker, II, 979–80.
109 BL Add Ms 32,310.
110 In his Defensio Secunda (CPW IV.1, 596) Milton vehemently denied receiving a re-
ward for this work. For his accusation of Salmasius, see p. 272.
111 In January, February, and March, 1651, Mercurius Politicus, nos. 33, 37, and 39 carried
references to Milton’s forthcoming answer to Salmasius. In no. 37 (February 13–20),
p. 604, a letter dated from Leyden (February 6/16) reads, “I am thankfully glad of the
promise Politicus gives us of Salmasius Answer, which we greedily expect, and Salmasius
himself seems to desire it; Goliah-like, despiting all his adversaries as so many Pigmies.
112 See Leo Miller, “Milton’s Defensio Ordered Wholesale for the States of Holland,”
N&Q 231 (1986), 33.
113 Mercurius Politicus, no. 43 (March 27–April 3, 1651), 697
114 Mercurius Politicus, no. 57 (July 3–10, 1651), 914–15. This is probably from Nicholaas
Heinsius, then at Leyden. See LR III, 46–50 for other reports of the book burning in
Toulouse in late June and in Paris on July 6.
115 Mercurius Politicus, no. 58 (July 10–17, 1651), last page.
116 On September 8 a correspondent reported from Delft in Mercurius Politicus, no. 66
(September 4–11, 1651), 1,056: “The reason why Salmasius left Sweden was because
Milton’s book having laid him open so notoriously, he became thereby very much
neglected, the Queen not having sent for him, nor seen him for the space of two
months, so that perceiving a decay of her favor, he came himself and desired leave of
departure, which was very readily granted, the Queen having at length understood,
how impolitick it is for any Prince, to harbor so pernitious a Parasite, and Promoter of
Tyranny.”
117 Both men were in the queen’s service, Heinsius traveling in Europe and Vossius at
Stockholm. Heinsius had long been at enmity with Salmasius and Vossius fell out with
him in political struggles at court. Edward Phillips repeats the Christina story (EL 70),
no doubt on Milton’s authority. For a refutation, marshaling evidence of the queen’s
continued favor to Salmasius until his death in 1653, see Kathryn A. McEuen, CPW
IV.2, 962–82.
118 Letters of Vossius to Heinsius (April 12 and 19, 1651), LR III, 15–16, 19. Despite their
bias, the Heinsius–Vossius letters contain a core of credible information about the
reception of Milton’s Defensio; they themselves describe it as “clear, concise, witty”
and speculate about who this Milton might be (see LR III, 14–16, 24–5, 29–31, 33,
59–60, 65). On May 29 Vossius reported that he had learned from his uncle, Francis
Junius, that Milton was a gentleman, “skilled in many languages... courteous, affable,
and endowed with many other virtues,” and also that he was a “disciple of Patrick
Young.” Milton had sent a volume of his writings to Patrick Young (see chapter 7,
p. 210), so they evidently had had some association.
Notes to Chapter 8