University of Virginia Library

This is a report on a search of the State Papers Foreign of the Public Record Office conducted during the summer of 1977.[1] With few exceptions the documents found have been identified before as Miltonic or possibly Miltonic in at least one of the published sources.[2] However, it has not been known that aside from the Skinner transcripts, SP 9/194, there are copies of these

specific State Papers in the PRO. In several instances, copies have been known to exist only in foreign archives. The search suggested itself when, in preparing a study of Milton's experience as Secretary for Foreign Languages, I discovered that the State Papers Foreign (SP 71-113) had been generally neglected by his editors and biographers. Why this is so is not clear, possibly because his role in foreign affairs was of far less importance, hence of less interest to Miltonists, than his function as propagandist for the English Republic. My own inquiries revealed that though he was surely no mover and shaker in the government, the great majority of his time as public servant was spent in correspondence with foreign powers. Indeed, during the six years of the Protectorate, this appears to be all he did to earn his salary (Defensio Secunda and Pro Se Defensio were not commissioned by the government). Thus the State Papers Foreign seemed a natural place to look for one seeking insight into the activities of Mr. Secretary Milton.[3]

These discoveries produced unanticipated benefits, for the identification of the documents as part of the official government collection is of value in two respects. First, the archival environment of a letter, that is, the papers which accompany it in the file, throws light on the circumstances of its composition not always apparent when it is a part of a collection of his papers, isolated from that environment. A second advantage is the identification of the handwriting. If a series of documents, including one or two of Milton's, appears to have been transcribed or copied in the same hand, and presumably at the same time, our ability

to place his letters in their historical setting is much enhanced.

Based on either or both of these considerations, I am suggesting herein that certain letters not previously considered Miltonic be accepted as such. This is a process fraught with peril, of course, and perhaps a word or two of rationale will soften the impression of headstrong rashness. As a general rule, the editors of the State Papers have identified as Miltonic only those documents which appear in the three contemporary transcripts, the Skinner MS, the Columbia MS, and the Literae. With some few exceptions, they limit themselves to the publication of letters, copies of which Milton seems to have retained in the course of his official duties, though Prose hews this line more strictly than does Works. This is an entirely appropriate editorial policy for such volumes, but it is far too restrictive for a scholar attempting to evaluate Milton's role in government. A biographer who does not go beyond these collections will emerge with a very limited view of that role, for he is proceeding on the assumption that Milton kept a copy of every paper he worked on and that we have them all. Such an assumption is highly questionable. For example, one of his tasks was to produce English translations of Latin correspondence received from abroad. If a biographer uses the Prose volume as his source, he will discover that only about a dozen or so papers in English are accepted as Miltonic. One can surely assume that Cromwell's Secretary for Foreign Languages performed this duty somewhat more frequently than an average of once a year.

This search was undertaken for biographical, as well as bibliographical, reasons. The proposals for expanding the canon of State Papers are an effort to fill in the very sketchy outline we have of Milton's office and, perhaps of greater importance, to excite some interest in further exploration among Miltonists. These proposals are based on two factors which have not been given adequate consideration in the past; the first is a practice common to government bodies such as the one Milton served and the second is the archival environment of the letters, already mentioned. It will be of value to review these factors, so as to avoid unnecessary repetition in the description of the documents.

If there is a requirement for extensive correspondence on a single issue or a prospect of protracted negotiations for a treaty, it is a common practice in any government structure to appoint an "action officer" whose task it is to see the project through to its conclusion. The advantages are obvious. If one person is thoroughly informed on the matter at hand and keeps himself abreast of developments, there is no need for the time-consuming orientation of a series of secretaries concerning points of contention, controversies over specific wording, often important,

or shifts in bargaining positions. The busy executive body, juggling many problems at once, can avoid the annoyance of constant rehash and review if one person is made historian and agent on any single matter. This was as true of the Republican governments of the 1650's as it is today, and Milton frequently acted in this capacity, as in the Oldenburg Safeguard and the Portuguese negotiations of 1651. In later years, when his activity was limited to correspondence, he was assigned duties on this basis. He was responsible, for example, for Cromwell's letters on the Piedmont Massacre in May, 1655, and for much of the subsequent correspondence that was precipitated by that event. When the need arose for diplomatic credentials for ambassadors on foreign missions, he was quite logically asked to prepare all the letters required for a single mission, such as the six for William Jephson on August 20, 1657, and the five for Fauconberg in May, 1658.

The archival environment of a document is equally suggestive, for the accompanying papers can in many ways clarify both the historical context and the person's role in events. Further, the presence of a variety of documents together in a single file may indicate a relationship among them not otherwise evident. Caution is required, of course, particularly in evaluating Interregnum records, which are at best chaotic. But if, for example, one or two of Milton's letters appear in the midst of a body of documents all devoted to a single issue, one may feel justified in entertaining the thought that some of the accompanying papers are perhaps his work. Or if five Miltonic letters appear in a transcript in a single hand, it is not too rash to suggest that a sixth, on the same subject in the same hand, is his also.

In the interest of clarity, and at the risk of tediousness, it will be of some value to outline the editorial practices followed: