University of Virginia Library

Miltonic Documents in the Public Record Office, London
by
Robert Thomas Fallon

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:

Hamburg and Hanse Towns, SP 82/8

The exchange of letters with Hamburg is well represented in the PRO: SP 82/7, ff. 122-225 (Apr 2-June 29, 1650) and SP 82/8, ff. 1-126 (July 2, 1650-July 30, 1651). Prose identifies copies of Quantis Bellorum (Prose, 1) and an English version of Quam Diu (Works, 1; Prose, 5) in SP 82/7.

*1. (128-29, English) An early draft of the Parlamentum Reipublicae Angliae, Cum Antiquam Amicitiam (Works, 18; Prose, 37), unsigned. The cover sheet of 1 and 2 (below) is endorsed "Copy of the Letter to the Citty of Hamburgh Mart 11, 1651/2." The final two-thirds of the first paragraph is marked with a vertical line in the margin, indicating the section to be revised.

*2. (130, English) A later version of 1, with the marked section revised, unsigned. This is very close to the approved version, but it is not the final draft. There is, for example, no English equivalent in either 1 or 2 for the Latin "in navem praedatoriam" in the approved version.

*3. (132, English) A translation of 4 (below), headed "To the Hanse Towns," unsigned, undated. The copy in Nalson XVIII, 160, is torn in two or three places, as Prose notes (p. 611), but what remains is verbally identical to this translation.

*4. (134, Latin) A copy of Parlamentum Reipublicae Angliae Literas Vestras Sexto (Works, 25; Prose, 43). This appears to be a version of the fair copy from which Literae, p. 36, was transcribed. They are verbally identical, the "de" being scratched out and "ab" inserted. It is endorsed "Read 13 Aprill, 1652 & uppon the Question agreed," and signed "Hen: Scobell, Clic Parliament." The source notes in Prose err in identifying Nalson, X, 85, as a draft of this letter (p. 611). This could be a simple typographical oversight; on the other hand it might have been caused by the inscription on the cover-sheet of Nalson X, 85, which is erroneously endorsed, "Prl. Lte. to Hans Towns" (see 5 & 7 below).

*5. (Bodleian Library, Nalson MS, XVIII, 161; Latin). A semi-final draft of 4 above. While this copy is not in the PRO, it is included here because it is a copy of the letter to the Hanse Towns and it is not mentioned in Prose. Further, I suspect that this copy is the one erroneously identified as Nalson, X, 85, in the source notes (p. 611), though it differs in some respects from the description there, e.g., it has "de" not "ab," is endorsed "Read 13 April 1652 & agreed unto," and has "aequitate." A few words are torn out.

*6. (136, English) A translation of 7 below, headed "To Hamburgh," undated,

unsigned. It is verbally identical to the text of Bodleian, Nalson, XVIII, 149, as published in Prose, p. 609.

*7. (138, Latin) A copy of Parlamentum Reipublicae Angliae, Literas Vestras Quinto (Works, 26; Prose, 42). It is endorsed "Read 13 April 1652 & uppon the Question agreed," and signed "Hen: Scobell, Clic Parliament." It differs from Nalson, X, 85, in some respects, the address, for example, reading "Proconsulibus et Senatoribus" with the "Pro" obliterated. Neither address agrees with Works, 26. Prose remains confusing on Nalson, X, 85 (p. 608). I do not find "perlegum" inserted after "perlegit." "Eumque" is inserted there, however, so that the text agrees with the approved wording. The Nalson copy is properly identified in Prose as a semi-final draft, while it appears that this one was transcribed from the approved text.

8. (140, English) A Parliamentary order dated April 13, 1652, and signed by Scobell, directing that the letters be sent. It reads in part, "Collonell Morley Reported from the Councell of State severall letters to be sent to the Hanse Townes and Hamburgh which were this day read first in Lataine and after in English and upon the Question assented unto."

Comment: Scobell's order (8) indicates that "severall letters" were approved on April 13, 1652. A search of SP 82/7 & 8 and Bodleian, Nalson X & XVIII revealed only these two (4 & 7 above) marked as having been read on that date. Assuming that "severall" means more than two, it appears that there were more letters to Hamburg and the Hanse Towns in the group. If found, they could reasonably be attributed to Milton.

Holland, SP 84/162

1. (164, Latin) A copy of a letter from Richard Cromwell to the States General, announcing his assumption as Protector and continuing George Downing as Resident, unsigned, dated September 6, 1658.

2. (165, English) "Richard P. Instructions to George Downing Esq: Our Resident with ye Lords ye States Generall," unsigned, dated September 6, 1658. This order to Downing reappoints him to office and gives him more specific instructions to carry out the provisions of the letter.

Comment: The letter is not included in any collection of Milton's letters, nor has it been identified as Miltonic. It is, however, an example of a document which because of the date and subject deserves to be considered. When Richard assumed the position of Protector, it was necessary to inform other nations that an orderly succession had taken place, that former policies would not change, and that former Ambassadors and Residents were being reappointed. There are two of Milton's letters to that effect, one to Louis XIV (Works, 124; Prose, 159) and a companion to Mazarian (Works, 125; Prose, 160), of the same substance and with the same date as this one to the States General. It is reasonable to assume that Milton was responsible for the preparation of letters to more than one of the many European states that had to be contacted at that time, but in the absence of any more substantive evidence, no definite claim for attribution can be made here.

Savoy, SP 92/24

These papers all deal with the Piedmont Massacre, April, 1655.

1. (304-5, Latin) Cromwell to the United Provinces, May 25, 1655 (Works, 54; Prose, 75).

2. (306-7, Latin) Cromwell to the King of Sweden, May 25, 1655 (Works, 53; Prose, 74).

3. (308-9, Latin) Cromwell to the King of France, May 25, 1655 (Works, 139; Prose, 78).

4. (310-11, Latin) Cromwell to the Evangelical Swiss Cantons, May 25, 1655 (Works, 55; Prose, 76).

5. (312-13, Latin) Cromwell to the Duke of Savoy, May 25, 1655 (Works, 51; Prose, 73).

These letters (1-5) are erroneously listed by French and Prose as a part of SP 96/6, Switzerland. See the catalogue for 96/6 (PRO, Round Room, Press 15/140), p. 24, where appears the following notation, "Documents relating to Savoy, March-August, 1655, formerly in this bundle were moved to S.P. 92/24 in August 1953."

#6. (358-59, Latin) Headed "Mr. Morland's Speech to the Duke of Savoy 1655," unsigned (Works, 153). This copy is verbally identical to the speech identified in Works, p. 476, as "First Draft Prepared by Milton for Samuel Morland." It is not the one presented, for Morland revised it before delivery. The final speech appears in Works, pp. 482-89, transcribed from Morland's History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piedmont, 1658, pp. 568 ff. It will be of value to quote Works briefly, "(Hamilton) believed the draft Milton's, and that Morland had changed the speech before delivering it; and this belief was shared by Masson (V, 186, ff.) who found certain verbal parallels (which are exceedingly close and convincing) to other writings of Milton. But unfortunately Hamilton gave no reference to where his manuscript was in the State Paper office, and now it cannot be located" (p. 633). Prof. Maurice Kelley located it, for he discussed it with J. Milton French (French, IV, 30); but this was before it was transferred to SP 92/24, for French has it still in SP 96/6. The speech is not referred to in Prose.

Pertinent to the Comment below, it should be mentioned that there are four additional letters in the file, all addressed to Cromwell: (318, Latin) from the States General, June 12; (323-26, Latin) from the Duke of Savoy, July 10; (342-43, French) from the Vaudois, August 26; (355-56, French) from the Vaudois, September 23. All of these were transferred with 1-6 in 1953.

Two letters were not transferred, however, for some reason, and so are still on file in SP 96/6 Switzerland. They are included here, as they seem to be part of the same original packet.

**7. (121, Latin) A copy of Summum Dolorem, Cromwell to the Senate of Geneva (Works, 59; Prose, 81). It is verbally identical to Works, 59 (Literae, p. 103) except for the opening and closing. It concludes, "Dab: ex Aula Nostra

Westmonasterii 7th Junii Anno 1655. Vester bonus Amicus," followed by a note concerning the money.

8. (123-24, Latin) A copy of a letter from the States General to the Evangelical Cantons, dated June 7, 1655, concerning the Piedmontese.

Comment: The most striking aspect of these eight documents is that they are all in the same hand and apparently were deposited as a packet in SP 96/6, for the old folio numbers assigned before the transfer was made are in sequence. These circumstances strongly suggest that they are a transcript of a packet of documents sent to Morland, who had left for Savoy on May 26th. The date of the transcript can be identified fairly closely. The letter of June 12 to Cromwell from the States General is in the same hand as these eight, that of July 10 from the Duke of Savoy in a different hand. Presumably the transcript was made between these dates. There are no other documents in either file in this hand.

It will be noted that seven of these documents originated in England (1-7). Of these, six have been identified as Miltonic, the draft of Morland's speech being the only one questioned. It cannot be definitely concluded, of course, that since all seven were transcribed at once and that six of them have a single author, he must, therefore, be the author of the seventh; but such a circumstance adds weight to the judgments of Hamilton, Masson, and the editors of Works that the draft of Moreland's speech is, indeed, the work of John Milton. The copy in SP 92/24, it must be emphasized, is not a transcript of the speech as delivered, but of the draft, presumably composed in May-June, when Milton was so deeply involved in the matter. The letters which did not originate in England (8 and the four to Cromwell) are included since Milton, as Cromwell's "action officer" in the secretariat, may have been responsible for their translation.

Denmark SP 103/3

**1. (265-66, English) A contemporary translation of Preadictis Dominis, Council of State to the Danish Ambassadors (Works, 29; Prose, 50), undated, unsigned.

**2. (266-68, English) A contemporary translation of Concilium, Inspectis, Council of State to the Danish Ambassadors (Works, 30; Prose, 51), undated, unsigned.

Comment: These two letters appear in the middle of a document of more than usual interest, A Journall of the Proceedings Upon the Treaty between the Parliament and the Ambassadors of the King of Denmarke with what relates to the detention of the English Ships by the said King in Copenhagen (ff. 241-318). It opens with a succinct narrative of the rather torturous negotiations of May [?]-October 29, 1652, including an account of one of the Ambassadors' servants who was arrested for failure to pay his bills (ff. 241-46), which seems to have complicated matters for a time. Transcripts of all pertinent papers make up the bulk of the Journal (ff. 247-318), which seems to have survived complete, as all of the events described in the narrative are supported by documents, the final one dated October 29.

The two letters attributed to Milton are part of a series of documents exchanged between the Council of State and the Ambassadors. In order to appreciate Milton's contribution, it will be of value to describe them briefly:

• a. June 14, ff. 250-55. The Danish Ambassadors delivered to a Committee appointed by the Council of State a draft of a treaty containing 14 points.

---

91




• b. July 8, ff. 256-61. The Committee delivered two letters to the Ambassadors: (1) an answer to their 14 points, and (2) a paper containing six propositions.
• c. July 28, ff. 261-64. The Ambassadors delivered two letters to the Committee: (1) a reply to the Council of State's answer to their 14 points, and (2) an answer to the six propositions.
• d. September 13, ff. 265-68. The Committee delivered two letters to the Ambassadors: (1) an answer to the Danish reply to the Council of State's answer to the 14 points, and (2) a reply to the Danish answer to the six propositions. These are Milton's letters. The date assigned in the narrative differs from that suggested in Prose, which has October 14 [?] for Prose, 50 and October 22 for Prose, 51. September 13 seems a more appropriate date for both.
• e. September 21, ff. 268-70. The Ambassadors delivered a reply to d above, in which, probably in desperation, they reduced the points in contention to two.
• f. October 5, ff. 271-73. The Committee delivered an answer to e above, identified here as "the paper . . . delivered to the Committee of the Councell att a conference the 21st of September last," thus confirming the earlier dating of Milton's letters.
• g. October [?], ff. 273-74. The Ambassadors, apparently despairing of any agreement, requested their credentials for return to Denmark. The narrative dates this October 1, but the letter is indefinite, "London . . . October, 1652."

The Ambassadors did not depart immediately and presumably negotiations continued, but on October 13, all discussion of a treaty came to a halt, for on that date the Council of State received information that a group of English merchant vessels had been detained in Copenhagen harbor. Most of the balance of the Journal is taken up with an exchange of correspondence over this detention and with King Frederick III's refusal to permit a fleet of English warships to convoy the merchant vessels home.

Aside from the two cited, Milton's involvement in these negotiations includes at least two additional letters, one written before and one after the dates of the Journal. In Literas Vestrae Majestatis Undevigesimo, Parliament to the King of Denmark, April 13, 1652 (Works, 24; Prose, 41), the King's overtures for a treaty are welcomed. Parlamentum Reipublicae Angliae Postquam, Parliament to the King of Denmark, November 9, 1652 (Works, 35; Prose, 52), is a sharply worded letter in which Parliament, citing evidence given by Captain Andrew Ball, Admiral of the English Fleet, rejected the Danish explanation for the detention and notified the King that Richard Bradshaw had been dispatched to negotiate the differences. Ball's testimony and supporting letters appear in the Journal (ff. 307-18), including Frederick III's "Resolution and Answer" delivered to Ball on September 25th outside Copenhagen. Milton refers to this letter in his own, but it is available here, apparently, for the first time (see Prose, p. 635n).

Milton was involved in the affair, it would appear, from beginning to end, as his four letters seem to indicate. The question is was he more involved than these four documents evidence. By the time the negotiations broke down the Danish Ambassadors and the Council of State had exchanged no less than nine letters containing various proposals and counterproposals, only two of which are identified as his. It seems unlikely that Milton was suddenly called in at a point when the complexity of answer and reply had reached almost bewildering proportions, to prepare just two of this series of letters. It is certainly reasonable to assume that he was used from the beginning to translate the Danish proposals and prepare the English answers (see page 90 above). His blindness would have been no hindrance, as none of the documents are of excessive length and the time intervals between exchanges varied from two to six weeks. There being no supporting evidence for such a suggestion,

however, no claim for attribution can be made here, though the weight of custom and reason persuades that it deserves consideration.

France PRO 31/3

This is a lengthy transcript entitled "Lists of Despatches of Ambassadors from France to England; Henry VIII—George I; with remarks on their Correspondence. By M. Armand Baschet." The collection for the period of the English Republic, PRO 31/3/98-103, is composed chiefly of letters between Cardinal Mazarin and his ambassadors, but there is a scattering of letters to and from Cromwell, six of which have been identified as Miltonic. These letters were transcribed from copies or originals in the Archives des Affaires Etrangeres, Correspondence Politique, Angleterre, Vols. 66 & 69. They are identified below by volume and folio page number in the French Archives and by the type of document they were transcribed from.

PRO 31/3/98

**1. (15-16, Latin) Perlati Ad Nos, Cromwell to the King of France, May 25, 1655 (Works, 139; Prose, 78); Vol. 66, f. 1, copy; unsigned.

**2. (17-18, Latin) Illatae Nuper, Cromwell to Cardinal Mazarin, May 25, 1655 (Works, 112; Prose, 79); Vol. 66, f. 60, original; signed "Oliver P."

**3. (82-84, Latin) Ex Literis Majestatis Vestrae, Cromwell to the King of France, July 31, 1655 (Works, 56; Prose, 82); Vol. 66, f. 98, copy; unsigned.

#4. (85, Latin) Cum E Re Visum, Cromwell to Cardinal Mazarin, July 31, 1655; Vol. 66, f. 96, original; signed "Oliver P." This letter lies next to and has the same date as Ex Literis Majestatis Vestrae (3 above) in French Archives. It is the original cover letter to the Cardinal, enclosing an information copy of the longer one to the King. It has not been accepted as Miltonic; rather Cum Nobilem Hunc, July 29, 1655 (Works, 57; Prose, 83) is published, since it appears in all three contemporary transcripts. Works suggests that Cum E Re Visum "may be a revision of Cum Nobilem Hunc" (XVIII, 650); Prose dismisses it: "only conjecture could connect it with Milton" (p. 710n). Both letters are to the same effect, however, they enclose the letter to the King and introduce the Ambassador, George Downing. The earlier version, of which Milton kept a copy, was revised, apparently, because it was deemed advisable to mention Downing by name. To suggest that Milton wrote Ex Literis Majestatis Vestrae, which is the subject of Cum E Re Visum, and Cum Nobilem Hunc, which is a rejected earlier draft of it, but that he was not responsible for the wording of the letter finally sent to Mazarin is surely being cautious in the extreme.

PRO 31/3/99

**5. (8, Latin) Cum Videam Vestris, Cromwell to Cardinal Mazarin, April 14, 1655 (Works, 146; Prose, 94); Vol. 66, f. 239, original; signed "Oliver P." The transcript is dated "4 April 1656" in two places and the letter concludes "Alba Aula, decimo quarto die Aprilis 1656," but the "quarto" has been lined through and "4" inserted in the margin, both in pencil.

PRO 31/3/100

**6. (57-8, Latin) Cum Dandae, Cromwell to Cardinal Mazarin, September 25, 1656, (Works, 74; Prose, 113); Vol. 66, f. 112, original; signed "Oliver P."

PRO 31/3/102

**7. (201, Latin) Quum Nuntiato Serenissimi, Cromwell to Cardinal Mazarin, May 20, 1658 (Prose, 150); Vol. 69, f. 59, original; signed "Oliver P."

Comment: Prose lists thirty letters dating from May 25, 1655, when Milton was first employed in French correspondence, to February 22, 1659; and for a number of reasons English-French relations seems a particularly promising area for exploration. To mention a few: (1) Because of the Spanish War, this was a period of close alliance between the two nations. (2) The Baschet transcript is catalogued in the 39th Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, App. 8, May 16, 1878. There are six documents listed in the Report which, for some unaccountable reason, are missing from the collection, two of which have the same dates and addresses as known Miltonic letters; Cromwell to the King of France, July 1, 1658 (Works, 143; Prose, 156) and Richard Cromwell to Cardinal Mazarin, September 6, 1958 (Works, 125; Prose, 160). (3) Aside from the seven documents here listed, there are fourteen additional transcripts in the file, eleven of them in French, of letters exchanged by, variously, Louis XIV, Mazarin, Oliver and Richard Cromwell, all written during the period of Milton's employment in French correspondence. Further, there are a number of "Minutes" recording additional letters exchanged among the four, many of them on matters that Milton's letters deal with—the Piedmont Massacre, Lockhart's mission, Fauconberg's mission, the fall of Dunkirk, and Cromwell's death. (4) An idiosyncracy of the correspondence with France makes it clear that we do not have all of Milton's letters to that country. During the 1650's protocol required that each letter to Louis XIV be accompanied by a companion to the regent, Cardinal Mazarin. Milton was responsible for a number of these pairs (see Prose, 78-79, 82-83, 93-94, 146-147, and 148-149 or 150), and the companion to any single letter which he is known to have written to either of these figures may be reasonably attributed to his hand, even though he may not have kept a copy of it. It seems unlikely that the efficient Thurloe would assign two secretaries to compose separate letters, one to the Cardinal and one to the King, on the same matter on the same date.

Oldenburg SP 103/24 & SP 81/54

Milton was responsible for the preparation in English and Latin of safeconduct credentials or a Safeguard, as it was called, issued by Parliament to the Count of Oldenburg in 1652. He was in frequent contact with Oldenburg's emissary, Herman Mylius, from October 20, 1651 to March 6, 1652, keeping him abreast of the complex negotiations that marked the passage of the document through the Committee for Trade and Foreign Affairs, the Council of State, and Parliament. For some reason, working papers used by various individuals in this affair are extremely well represented in the PRO. In 103/24, Treaty Papers, German States, for example, they constitute the entire file of papers derived from Commonwealth sources. Since this material, which relates to what is the best documented of all Milton's services as Secretary

for Foreign Languages, appears to have been overlooked by Miltonists, it seems appropriate to list the papers in the various files. A more careful editing than is possible here may determine some of them to be Miltonic. Readers are encouraged to consult French, III, 78-207, where the entries in Mylius' Tagebuch are published.

It will be noted that there were two separate periods of negotiations, the first in 1652, the second in 1654, when the Count quickly dispatched ambassadors to procure a confirmation of the Safeguard from the newly established Protectorate government.

103/24, Treaty Papers, German States

Oldenburg 1-10 are in two folders containing documents dealing solely with the 1652 Safeguard. The folio numbers, it will be noted, are in sequence.

*1. (216-17, Latin) A copy of Universis et Singulis, the Oldenburg Safeguard (Works, 152; Prose, 35). It is verbally identical to the one printed in French (III, 180), which is based on a copy in the Oldenburg Staatsarchive, and is therefore a transcript of the approved Latin text. Beneath Milton's name, in a different hand appears, "Concordat haec copia, cum vero suo mihi exhibito originali, quod attestor ego Eimertis Lunisnu [?] Hot. Publicus Caesareus," followed by a set of initials, possibly "mppa." These initials also appear after Mylius' signature on all of the documents he signed. The copy in the Bodleian Library, Nalson MS, XVIII, 168, is an earlier draft and working paper, which as corrected conforms to the approved text and to the amended English of 11 below, except for the omission of reference to Spain (See COMMENT below).

2. (218-20, Latin) A copy of Mylius' petition to Parliament, "Petitio Parlemanto Reipublicae Angliae," undated, signed by Mylius.

##3. (221-22, Latin) A copy of a Safeguard issued to the Duke of Holstein, undated, unsigned. (See Holstein 2).

4. (223-24, English) A translation of 2 above, undated, signed by Mylius.

5. (225-26, English) A copy of a cover letter from Mylius to the Council of State, enclosing documents defending Oldenburg (10 below). These papers were delivered at his farewell audience and are mentioned in his speech (6 & 9 below).

6. (227-29, English) A translation of 9 below, "Thanksgiving, Recommendation, and Valediction before the Right Honorable the Committee of the Councell of State," dated March 2, 1652, signed by Mylius. The penultimate paragraph is in a different hand.

7. (235, Latin) A cover letter, addressed to Parliament, enclosing the "Memoriale" (8 below) for their consideration, undated, signed by Mylius.

8. (237-40, Latin) A "Memoriale" from Mylius to the Council of State defending the Count against accusation, dated 28 January, 1652, signed by Mylius.

9. (243-46, Latin) A copy of Mylius' farewell speech to the Council of State, "Gratiorum actio, Recommendatio et Valedictio, coram Augusti Consillii Status Nobilissimus Dominis Commissarius," dated March 2, 1652,

signed by Mylius. This appears to be the document he refers to in his Tagebuch (French, III, 203). He indicates that it is to be inserted at a certain point in the text, but as French says, "No document follows the Jnseratur" (III, 204). To the best of my knowledge, it has not been identified before.

10. (247-54, English) A copy of a letter from Oldenburg to the States General, entitled, "A Short Deduction, why the Count of Oldenburg cannot part with the Weser-Tole, etc.," dated 17/27 January, 1652, unsigned. In his farewell speech, Mylius indicates that he is leaving this document with the Council of State for their information. It is a lengthy explanation (despite the "Short") of the rights granted the Count by the Holy Roman Emperor to collect tolls on the Weser River and was part of Mylius' defense of the Count against accusations concerning his trafficking with Royalists, questions which delayed the approval of the Safeguard for some weeks. (See French, III, 154-55 and 178-79, where Mylius mentions "a message of the States to the Count," to which this one is probably the answer).

Oldenburg 11-15 are in a single folder of papers, all relating to the 1654 Safeguard. Note that the folio numbers are in no way related.

*11. (54-55, English) A copy of "Bee it knowne unto all" (Works, 152; Prose, 35), undated, with only Lenthall's signature. This is an early draft, agreeing with the copy in the Oldenburg Staatsarchive (Prose, p. 576, Manuscript C). The presence of this copy in the folder of papers devoted to the 1654 Safeguard indicates that it was used as a working paper in composing the later document. It is written in the same secretary hand as Oldenburg 4, 5, 6, 10 above, and 17 below, which suggests that it was transcribed at the same time as the others in 1651-52 and kept on file for later reference.

*12. (170 b-c, Latin) A copy of Universis et Singulis, dated 17 February, 1651, with the names of Lenthall, Milton and Scobell at the closing. Under Milton's name appears, "Johannes Miltonius, a Secretis, Consilii Status." It is verbally identical to the approved text and was probably used, like 11 above, as a working paper for the 1654 Safeguard. All of the available Latin texts, except for Bodleian, Nalson, XVIII, 168 (Prose Manuscript C) appear to be copies of the approved version, for they all include reference to Spain and France.

13. (284a, Latin) An original memorial from Oldenburg, signed by his 1654 emissaries, Wolzogny and Gryphiander, stamped with their official seals. It is endorsed "Exhibitum 19 Junii Anno 1654" and identified as "Letter from ye Commissioner of Count Oldenburg desiring ratification of the Salvaguard formerly granted ye said Count, 19th June, 1654."

14. (285-86, English) A translation of 13 above.

15. (423, Latin) A document entitled, "Formalia Confirma Lionis [?] Exemptionis," unsigned, undated. It is endorsed, "Draught of a ratification of the Salvaguard delivered in by the Agents of Count Oldenburg."

Comment: (These remarks are based on a personal examination of all copies except the four in the Oldenburg Staatsarchive, identified in the source notes of Prose, 35, and referred to below, as MSS C, D, E, and F). Prose lists seven copies of

the Safeguard, four in English and three in Latin (p. 576). With the three added here, it would seem a simple matter to reconstruct the evolution of the final document but, as is often the case, new discoveries have a way of presenting more questions than answers. While this is not the appropriate place to enter into the intricacies of editing, the variants pose certain intriguing problems. Among them: (1) The question of the inclusion of the Duke's successors. How did an English translation which includes the successors end up in the Oldenburg archives "beautifully written on parchment with a wafer seal" (Prose, p. 576)? The reference was struck from the document during the February 11 meeting of the Council of State; at least this is the date when Mylius first noted its absence. Thus this copy seems to have been prepared in final form and dispatched long before the Safeguard was approved and worthy of any "wafer" whatsoever. (2) The question whether the Safeguard includes protection in Spain and France. (See Works, p. 474, ll. 13-14). Oldenburg 11 and MS D mention only Spain. Nalson, XVIII, 168 & 169, the copy in SP 25/66, pp. 324-26, No. 16 (Prose erroneously has 26), and MS C name only France. The rest include both France and Spain. In brief, none of the English copies name both countries and all of the Latin versions, with the exception of Nalson, XVIII, 168, do. The inclusion of a major European power in such a document is of more than usual importance and, one would think, not subject to the normal scribal error. The final Safeguard included both countries, but what was the problem? (3) At its February 11 meeting, the Council of State, in addition to deleting the reference to Oldenburg's successors, added the phrase, "who shall view our present letters patent," to the first sentence of the English draft. It appears in the approved Latin as "praesentes literas patentes inspecturis" (Works, p. 470, ll. 13-14). At the same time they changed "within the Borders of Concord and modesty" (Works, p. 473, ll. 7-8) to "within the bounds." These changes are helpful in identifying versions written before and after that date, but what in the world difference do they make?

On the basis of these various additions and deletions it is possible to venture an analysis of the sequence of composition of these documents, one which more careful editing may correct. Of the five Latin copies it appears that four are transcripts of the approved Safeguard; Nalson, XVIII, 168 alone is earlier. The five English copies appear to have been written in the following sequence: MS C (Works, 152) is the earliest version. Oldenburg 11, as amended, is next in order. Nalson, XVIII, 169, is yet later, since it incorporates corrections made in earlier drafts. The copy in SP 25/66 is later still, since it incorporates changes made in Nalson, XVIII, 169. MS D is the lates of all, but still without reference to France and Spain. We do not, therefore, have an English translation of the approved Latin.

SP 81/54 German States

Nos. 16-19 concern the 1652 Safeguard, the balance deal with the 1654 negotiations. There are no copies of known Miltonic documents in this file.

16. (54, Latin) A letter from Oldenburg to Parliament, dated August 15, 1651. This is a copy of Mylius' credentials. There is a copy in Bodleian, Nalson, XVIII, 167. To the best of my knowledge, neither one of these copies has been noted heretofore. (See French, III, 85).

17. (55, English) A translation of 16 above. It is endorsed "Read 15 Oct, 1651," "Read 15 October 1651 & referred to the Councell of State," and "Letters of Credence." It is in the same secretary hand as the English translations of SP 103/24.

18. (57, English) A letter from Parliament to the Council of State ordering Mylius' reception, signed by Scobell.

19. (61, Latin) A letter from Mylius to the Council of State, dated February 10, 1651, signed by him. He is complaining about the delay in approval for the Safeguard and asking for authority to return to Oldenburg. Sir Oliver Fleming is mentioned, but not Milton.

20. (76, Latin) A letter to Thurloe signed by the 1654 emissaries, Wolzogen and Gryphiander, dated March 16, 1654.

21. (78, English) A translation of 22 below.

22. (80-81, Latin) A letter from the emissaries to Cromwell, dated March 9, 1654, suggesting that since the Dutch War is coming to a close, the approval of the Safeguard should be forthcoming. Apparently they were having as much trouble as Mylius did.

23. (82-85, Latin) A letter to Cromwell, signed and sealed by the Count of Oldenburg, dated May 2, 1654, asking an audience for his son, Count Anthony. This is the letter Milton refers to in the first sentence of Prose, 65; Works, 45. It appears to be available here for the first time.

24. (86, English) A translation of 23 above.

There follow several more documents arising from this mission, most of them communications between the emissaries and Thurloe.

Comment: There are several aspects of this series of documents that excite interest. One wonders, first, why this relatively unimportant matter should be so well represented in the State Papers, where it has double and triple the number of documents on file than can be found for negotiations of far greater weight and moment, such as the treaties with France and Sweden. More pertinent to Milton, however, is the matter of handwriting. Oldenburg 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, & 17, as has been noted, are all in the same secretarial hand. The important question is whose amanuensis was he, Mylius' or Milton's, for if he turns out to be Milton's, then there is reason to assume that Mr. Secretary was responsible for some of the translation. The evidence, unfortunately, can be argued both ways. The presence of a copy of "Bee it knowne" in the files would seem to indicate that this is Milton's amanuensis. This is a working paper, a draft prepared before February 11, when the reference to successors was scratched, and used after that date, presumably by Milton, to prepare a semi-final draft of the Safeguard in English. It would appear to be a translation of the Latin draft which Milton prepared on January 8, English copies of which Mylius requested of him on that date (French, III, 142). As such, it would have been prepared by Milton's amanuensis.

On the other hand, at his audience on October 20 Mylius delivered his "credentials in autograph in both Latin and English copies" (French, III, 83), and these are surely Oldenburg 16 and 17. There is no indication that Milton did any of this work for him, nor is there any reason to believe that he was responsible for translating the documents left at his farewell audience (Oldenburg 5, 6, 9, and 10). Milton was ordered to prepare Mylius' authorization for departure, which has not been found (French III, 192). If the English version of this document could be located and if it proved to be in the same hand, then perhaps the matter might be settled.

We have, therefore, in English archives, six copies of the Oldenburg Safeguard, three in Latin and three in English, reflecting various stages in the evolution of the document. These, along with the wealth of material from the PRO and other sources,

give us a remarkably full account of the production of a paper with which Milton was intimately involved, and provide us with a vivid picture in microcosm of his activities as Secretary for Foreign Languages.

Aside from the presence of a Latin and an English copy of the Safeguard in the file, the 1654 documents provide no evidence of Milton's involvement in the later negotiations. It is reasonable to assume, however, that the 1654 document, like the later version of the Duke of Holstein's Safeguard (see Holstein 3 & 4), conformed closely in wording to the 1652 versions, and that its wording was in part Miltonic. It can only be suggested that, since the later document was to be based on the one that Milton had so laboriously negotiated in 1652, Thurloe would be very likely to have called upon the author of the original to assist in its preparation. Milton was certainly available, and still on the payroll.

Holstein

Although this document appears in the files of other nations, it seems best to treat it separately, since it presents some problems. It is really not too difficult to understand why this Safeguard has been overlooked for so long and, hence, was never included in Milton's State Letters. First, the most striking feature of the Holstein Safeguard is that in the 1652 version it is verbally identical to the Oldenburg Safeguard, and a major portion of the 1653 version is copied, word for word, from the earlier document. The second reason can be best illustrated by citing Masson's confusion. He notes the copy in Thurloe, I, 385-86 (4 below) and correctly names the addressee as "Lord Frederick, heir of Norway" (IV, 424), but he erroneously identifies the document as the Oldenburg Safeguard, calling it "out of place" chronologically in Thurloe. His error probably arises from the fact that among the many titles that Frederick laid claim to was one as "comes in Oldenburgh and Delmenhorst." I am in no position to explain this coincidence at the moment, but I think it safe to say that when coupled with the similarity of language, it helps explain why three of the four copies available are incorrectly identified as the Oldenburg Safeguard. Works rejects Masson's suggestion twice (XIII, 633, and XVIII, 638). Prose makes no mention of it.

##1. Sp 103/3, Treaty Papers, Denmark, ff. 52-53, Latin, unsigned, undated, endorsed "Safe Guard for ye Duke of Holstein." This copy has portions underlined with marginal substitutions. As changed, it is verbally identical to the Oldenburg Safeguard, save for three or four brief phrases. Of particular interest is the fact that it was at some point in time used as a working paper to prepare a copy of the other document. For example, "et Consiliarum Hermannum M." appears in the margin, to be inserted after "per Deputatum suum." This copy was transcribed after February 11, 1652, when the final wording for the Oldenburg document was approved by the Council of State and the phrases "praesentes Literas patentas inspecturis" inserted. It is in the Denmark file because the Duke of Holstein, as "Haeres Norwegiae," was a vassal of the King of Denmark.

##2. SP 103/24, Treaty Papers, German States, ff. 221-22, Latin, unsigned, undated (Oldenburg 3). This copy, which is part of the Oldenburg file, is verbally identical to 1 above, disregarding the marginal changes in the

latter. It is treated, it appears, as a companion to Universis et Singulis (Oldenburg 1), as the two have the same coversheet, marked "Holsteen Oldenburgh." The folder in which the two appear has pencil entries on the cover made at a much more recent date. The entry incorrectly identifies this document as the Oldenburg Safeguard.

##3. Bodleian Library, Nalson MS, XVIII, 172, Latin, dated December 1, 1653, endorsed "The Parliament's Declaration in regard to ye trafficking of ye subjects of Oldenburgh [sic]." This copy is verbally identical to 1 & 2 above, except for about ten lines of script. After the dissolution of the Rump in April, 1653, the Duke apparently requested a renewal of the agreement and, it seems, received this one from the Barebones Parliament. Oldenburg waited a month or two more and so could request a renewal from the Protectorate in March, 1654 (see Oldenburg 20-22). I suppose Holstein had to come back and start all over again.

##4. Thurloe, I, 385-86, unsigned, undated, incorrectly identified as "Letters of safe-conduct from the parliament to count Oldenburgh." Though not dated, the copy in Thurloe and the original in the Tanner MS (V, 192) both appear among papers of July and August, 1653. If one disregards the change in name, fully 90% of the text duplicates the wording of Universis et Singulis. It is close verbally to 3 above, for which it was probably a working paper.

The searching out of these papers took approximately three weeks work in the Public Record Office. If these are the fruits of such small

effort, what may be expected of more extensive research! This is not to imply that one can hope to come upon some rich lode of papers lying, unnoticed for centuries, in a long neglected attic somewhere. This is too much to expect; some De Doctrina Christiana may indeed be stuffed away in the corner of a manorial garret, but such discoveries come centuries apart. The reality is that such a search involves making one's way through many musty pages of unrewarding manuscript to find a few isolated documents (I read in eager anticipation the four hundred-odd pages of the minutes of the Council of State in 1658, to find only a few stray references of interest).

This report does have certain promising implications for Miltonists, however. First, there are surely more documents somewhere and, further, each new discovery reveals more about the life of the poet during those shadowy years. If nothing else, one must emerge from such a search with the conviction that at the moment we have only a superficial understanding of Milton's public service and that any effort to assess the scope of his duties must not be limited to a consideration solely of those papers of which he retained copies. He surely did more than that collection reveals.

Such research can lead to new insights into his poetry, for ultimately, of course, it is the art that counts, not whether he wrote this letter or that. We find value in the chronicle of that experience if we feel that the events which those letters record had an impact on the poet's imagination. In recent years, scholars have scoured Milton's library for keys to his meaning, but might we not find as much wealth in the passage of his days? He was part of a revolution, a seeding-time of our era, two decades of tumult and bitter trial—a part of it, first as a concerned observer, later as a willing and active worker, and finally as a blinded symbol of the cause, struggling through his Defensios to stay in the mainstream of events, but forced by his infirmity to view the scene through his mind's eye. But he knew it all—the stilted facade of protocol, the subtle give and take of guarded debate, the careful wording and artful veiling of purpose, the uncertain ceremony of treaty and alliance, and finally the sudden sword of war.

Paradise Lost took form in those years; Milton began his vast project during the death throes of the English Republic, as his dream of liberty faded. It is a time that cannot be dismissed. Scholars, in the final analysis, are but acolytes in the ceremony of creation, and as we watch those rites in our passion to understand, we dare not blink, lest we miss some fleeting gesture that shapes a part of the final achievement. We cannot discard any of it, for the poet's vision draws substance from all his days, from a book read, a melody heard, a painting seen, a death mourned, a dream denied—or from an obscure letter written.

Notes