Notes to Chapter 160, suggests that the Samson–Harapha encounter evokes Milton with Salmasius in the
1650s and may well date from that period. Most recent scholars favor the traditional late
date, citing numerous and pervasive post-Restoration allusions and analogous situations.
See, for example, Christopher Hill, Milton and the English Revolution (London, 1977),
487–91; Mary Ann Radzinowicz, Toward Samson Agonistes: The Growth of Milton’s Mind
(Princeton, NJ, 1978), 387–407; and Laura Lunger Knoppers, Historicizing Milton: Specta-
cle, Power, and Poetry in Restoration England (Athens, Ga., and London, 1994), 142–59.
12 Blair Worden, “Milton, Samson Agonistes, and the Restoration,” in Gerald Maclean,
ed., Culture and Society in the Stuart Restoration (Cambridge, 1995), 111–36.
13 See chapter 12, pp. 406–7, 413. Also see Sharon Achinstein, “Samson Agonistes and the
Drama of Dissent,” MS 33 (1996), 133–58; and Worden, “Milton, Samson Agonistes,
and the Restoration.”
14 Nicholas Lockyer, Some Seasonable and Serious Queries Upon the late Act Against Conventicles
(Oxford, 1670), 8; [ John Owen], Indulgence and Toleration Considered: In a Letter to a
Person of Honour (London, 1667), 18–20; Charles Wolseley, Liberty of Conscience the
Magistrates Interest (London, 1668), 13, 20–2. Owen argues that such liberty will unite
all dissenters with the king against the papists.
15 [Tomkyns], The Inconveniences of Toleration, 6. See chapter 13, note 69. The ubiquitous
Roger L’Estrange in an anonymous tract, Toleration Discussed, in Two Dialogues. I. Be-
twixt a Conformist and a Non-Conformist. 2. Betwixt a Presbyterian and an Independent
(London, 1670) argues that toleration undermines law and causes confusion in church
and state, and that claims of conscience are a cover for conspiracy to overthrow the
king. Another anonymous pamphlet, Toleration Disapprov’d and Condemn’d by the Au-
thority and Convincing Reasons of King James, Parliament in 1662, etc. (London, 1670),
concludes that those who think Church of England worship is not sinful are schismatics
if they do not accept it; those who think it is sinful will strive to overthrow it and so are
dangerous to church and state.
16 See Masson, VI, 566–74.
17 David Loewenstein, “The Kingdom Within: Radical Religious Culture and the Poli-
tics of Paradise Regained,” Literature and History III (1994), 63–89. See, for example, The
Examination and Tryall of Margaret Fell and George Fox (London, 1664), 14–15, 7. Fell,
on trial in 1664 for holding religious meetings and refusing the Oath of Allegiance,
affirmed that “I owe Allegiance to the King as he is King of England, but Christ Jesus is
King of my Conscience.” See also William Dewsbury, The Word of the Lord to all the
Inhabitants of England (London, 1666), 3–8; and Samuel Crisp, An Epistle to Friends,
Concerning the Present and Succeeding Times (London, 1666), 14.
18 See chapter 13, pp. 443, 450.
19 Its foremost practitioner, John Dryden, had staked out his position in several dramas
(see chapter 13, p. 445 and note 17) and in the essay On Dramatick Poesie (1667/8). See
Steven N. Zwicker, “Milton, Dryden, and the Politics of Literary Controversy,” in
Maclean, ed., Culture and Society, 139–40, 151.
20 Samson Agonistes, p. 4.
21 It was advertised in the Term Catalogues, licensed November 22, 1670, I, 56, though the
title pages of all copies are dated for the new year, as often happens with late-year
publications. Starkey was also named as bookseller for the second issue of Milton’s
Grammar, with Simmons as printer.
Notes to Chapter 14