Book 10). The definition of the good king is to be derived

from this. Cf. Aristotle’s definition of tyranny: ‘Tyranny is
Just that arbitrary power of an individual which is responsible
to no one, and governs all alike, whether equals or betters,
with a view to its own advantage, not to that of its subjects,
and therefore against their will’ (Politics 4. 10. 4).

12. 17. Sovran Lord, naturall Lord. Kings and nobles.

12, 18. Arrogancies, or flatteries. These titles are either
assumed because of pride, or bestowed by courtesy.

12, 21. Tertullian, Date of birth and death unknown.
It is conjectured that he was born between A, D, 150 and
160, and that he died between A. D. 220 and 240. He was
born at Carthage. He was the first of the great Latin
Fathers, and chief among them in vigor of style and acuteness
of mind. He was the first to create a technical Christian
Latinity, and is known almost entirely through his writings.

In the First Def. (Bohn 1. 80), the teaching of Tertullian
here referred to is quoted in full.

12. 24. Against the advice, etc. See 1 Sam. 8

12. 25. Wise authors. In First Def. (Bohn 1.82) we
have it on the authority of Aristotle and Cicero ‘that the
people of Asia easily submit to slavery, but the Syrians and
the Jews are even born to it from the womb,’

Milton probably first met this idea in the pages of Buchanan :
‘For as the nations of Asia discover greater servility of mind
than the Europeans, so they will submit with greater facility
to the commands of tyrants; and, hence there is not, as far

ae

mane

a SS

se oe ———

sao Seo serene eae

88 The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates

as I know, mention anywhere made in historians of a king
subject to laws in Asia’ (p. 163).

12. 80. Chattell. See Hotman, Franco-Gallia, p. 27, who
quotes Pliny to this effect.

12. 84. Courtesie. A law-term. An estate was sometimes
held by the courtesy of England or of Scotland. Strictly
speaking, it was a tenure by which a husband, after his
wife’s death, holds certain kinds of property which she has
inherited, the condition varying with the nature of the
property.

18. 1. Convenience. A law-term. A written agreement
or covenant.

18. 5. For crimes proportionall. The modern phrase
would be, for corresponding crimes.

18. 11. Kings are accountable to none but God. The
first implication of the theory of divine right. Salmasius
gathered up all the arguments that had ever been adduced
in support of this tenet. He defined a king to be a person
in whom the supreme power of the king‘om resides, who
is answerable to God alone, who may do whatsoever pleases
him, who is bound by no law. Milton’s lengthy and crushing
reply to this doctrine is to be found in the second chapter
of the First Def. (Bohn 1. 30-60). Even Calvin asserted
that, however wicked a ruler might be, he was responsible
to God alone, See 8. 12, and Calvin's Znstitutes 4. 20. 30. For
an exposition of Calvin’s teaching on this point, see Gooch,
Hist. of Democratic Ideas in the 17th Cent, pp. 6 ff.

18. 18. As how many of them doe not. This phrase, it
would seem, was intended to be a forceful parenthesis.
Proper punctuation would give this reading: ‘For if the
King feare not God—as how many of them doe not?—we
hold then our lives and estates,’ etc.

18, 23. Those Pagan Caesars, that deifi'd themselves.
Early in the reign of Augustus the Roman Senate deified
the defunct Julius Cesar. Even in the lifetime of Augustus
the cult of the emperor was established, temples were raised
in his honor, and priests and rituals dedicated to his worship.

Notes 89

14. 6. See Ps. 51.4. Milton objects to the royalist inter-
pretation of this text. Of all the wrestings of Scripture in
that age surely this is the /ocus classicus. Because David
confessed sin only against God, it was held that he was not ac-
Countable to his subject Uriah, and therefore no king is required
to answer for his sins to his people. That Milton considered
it necessary to meet this argument shows its power of appeal
even to serious men of the period. Salmasius dwelt upon
it, and in First Def. (Bohn 1. 50), Milton’s ample treatment
of the text may be found.

14. 8. Uriah. Husband of Bathsheba. See 2 Sam. 11.

Adulterate. This verb is not used in Milton's verse. It
was probably coined by him, The equivalent phrase is fo
commit adultery.

14. 11. See Deut. 17. 20: ‘That his heart be not lifted up
above his brethren.’

14. 18. Patheticall words of a Psalm. Pathetical means
emotional or poetical. Cf. First Def. (Bohn 1.61): ‘The
words of a Psalm are too full of poetry, and this Psalm too
full of passion, to afford us any exact definitions of right

and justice.’
14. 22. Euripides, (B.C. 480-406). The passage quoted
is from a speech by King Demophoon in the Herachida:

For I rule not here
With boundless power, like a barbarian king ;
Let but my deeds be just, and in return
Shall I experience justice.

Milton himself translates the passage in First Def. (Bohn
1. 127): ‘I do not exercise a tyrannical power over them,
as if they were barbarians: I am upon other terms with
them; but if I do them justice, they will do me the like.’
Many other passages from the Greek Poets are also quoted
in the same chapter.

14, 26. Trajan, the worthy Emperor (98-117). ‘More
fortunate than Augustus, and better than Trajan' was a
proverbial expression in the later days of the Roman Empire.

90 The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates

14. 29. Thus Dion relates. Dio Cassius Cocceianus (b.
155; d. ?) A celebrated historian who published a Roman
history in eighty books. The story is thus translated by
H. B. Foster :—' Indeed when he first handed to him who
was to be prefect of the Pretorians the sword which the
latter was required to wear by his side, he bared the blade,
and holding it up said: Take this sword, to the end that
if I rule well, you may use it for me, but if ill, against me‘
(Cassius Dio, Roman History 6.195). Buchanan, in his Hist.
of Scotland, trans. by John Watkins (1. 20. 501), relates this
story.

Grotius also uses this quotation, but says that Trajan
wished to avoid assuming kingly authority, and to be a
true governor (Princeps), and as such was subject to the
will of the senate and people, whose commands the prefect
was to execute even against the prince (De jure Belli et
Pacis 4. 4, 5).

14, 30. Theodosius the Younger (408-450). An amiable
but weak ruler. In his reign and that of Valentinian III
was made the compilation called Codex Theodosianus. It
was published in 438, and consists of sixteen books.

Buchanan ascribes to Theodosius and Valentinian, whom
he praises as two illustrious emperors, the following words:
‘It is an expression worthy of the sovereign’s majesty,
to confess that the prince is bound by the laws. And, in
reality, the imperial dignity is exalted by subjecting the
prince's power to the laws; and that we announce, by the
oracle of the present edict, which specifies what licence we
do not allow to another. These sentiments were sanctioned
by the best of princes and cannot but be obvious to the
worst’ (De Jure Regni, p. 192). Milton probably drew his
illustration from this source, as he uses the phrase one of
the best in imitation of Buchanan. No doubt Milton also read
the following sentence in Buchanan's Hist. of Scot. (1. 20.
601): ‘Even Theodosius, a good emperor in bad times, would
have it left recorded amongst his sanctions and laws, as a
speech worthy of a monarch, and greater than his dominion
itself, to confess, that he was inferior to the laws.’ Cf. First

Notes 91

Def. (Bohn 1, 180): ‘Indeed if we must believe the oracles
of the emperors themselves, for so some Christian emperors,
as Theodosius and Valens, have called their edicts (Cod. lib.
1, tit. 14), the authority of the emperors depends upon that
of the law.’

15. 2. Remaines yet unrepeald. Cf. Exéon. (Bohn 1, 488) :
‘For it was decreed by Theodosius, and stands yet firm in
the code of Justinian, that the law is above the emperor,
then certainly the emperor being under the law, the law
may judge him; and if judge him, may punish him, proving
tyrannous : how else is the law above him, or to what purpose ?

The Code of Justinian. Justinian, Emperor of Rome
(482-565).

The Theodosian code of laws was commenced by order
of Theodosius II in 429, and published for the eastern empire
in 488. In 447 he transmitted to Valentinian his new
Constitutions, promulgated as the law of the West in 448,
The celebrated code of the Emperor Justinian appeared in
529, and to this was added the Digest, the Institutes, and the
Novels in 584. It was compiled by a commission appoir.ed
by the emperor, and was a compendium of statute law
gathered from two thousand volumes. It is a document as
much medizval as ancient in tor >, Its fundamental idea
is that of a uniform single state existing on a Christian basis.
It was an attempt on the part of the best jurists of the
Roman Empire to combine the Jus civile, a body of rules
pertaining to the property and f mily rights of Roman citi-
zens, and the jus gentium, . 'y of law built up by the
pretors ir the provinces and applying to non-citizens,

15. 8. Justinian Cods. Lib. 1. tit, 24 is as follows:
‘ Consti ationibus principum continetur, ut Pecunia, que ex
detrimento solvitur, usure non Prestentur: et ita impera-
tores Antoninus et Verus Augusti rescripserunt his verbis:
Humanum est reliquorum usuras neque ab ipso, qui ex
administratione honoris reliquatus est, neque 2 fidejussore ejus,
et multo minus a magistratibus, qui cautioiem acciperint,
exigi, cui Consequens est, ut ne in futurum a forma observata
disced tur.’

1

92 The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates

15, 23. These words confirme us, etc. Filmer criticises
this sentence severely : ‘But can the foretelling or forewaming
of the Israelites of a wanton and wicked desire of theirs,
which God himself condemned, be made an argument that
God gave or granted them a right to do such a wicked
thing ?’ (Observations Concerning the Original of Govt., p. 20).
See Hooker, Eccles. Polity, Book 8: ‘Heaps of Scripture are
alledged, concerning the solemn coronation or inauguration
of Saul, David, Solomon and others, by nobles, ancients,
and the people of the Commonwealth of Israel.’

15. 28. Displeasd him. 1 Sam. 8. 7.

15, 82. Reserv’d to himself the nomination. See 1 Sam. 9.
God revealed to Samuel Saul’s coming, and his divine ap-
pointment to the kingdom. Buchanan also discusses the de-
position of Samuel and the answer of God to the Israelites
when they asked for a king (see De Jure, p. 163).

16. 2. David first made a Coynant. See 1 Chron, 11.3;
2 Sam. 5.8. Filmer says: ‘As for David’s covenant with the
elders when he was anointed, it was not to observe any
laws or conditions made by the people, for ought appears;
but to keep God's laws and serve him, and to seek the good
of the people, as they were to protect him’ (Concern. Orig.
of Govt. p. 22).

16. 4. Jehoiada. See 2 Kings 11.17. The covenant be-
tween Jehoiada and the Israelites was the model set up in
Vindicie Contra Tyrannos. The contract between Jehoiada
and the people was made with God; on the divine side
protection was promised, on the part of the king and people
maintenance of the true religion. The people were absolved
from allegiance to the king by their duties to God the
overlord, if the king should violate the covenant by perse-
cuting the true religion. For further treatment of this
stock incident see First Def. (Bohn 1. 46, 98, 96). Filmer,
in an ingenious attempt to explain away a troublesome
piece of Scripture, says: ‘It is not likely the king should
either covenant, or take any oath to the people when he
was but seven years of age, and that never any king of
Israel took a Coronation-oath that can be shewed: when

Notes 93

Jehoiada shewed the king to the rulers in the house of the
h of the people: he did not article
with them’ (Concern, Orig. of Govt, Pp. 28).

16. 6. Roboam. Rehoboam, the foolish son ¢f Solo on,
See 1 Kings 12.16. The text is not quoted in fau here,

16. 11. Deposd Samuell. The people of Israel did not
actually depose Samuel (see 1 Sam. 8. 1-6). His sons were
Joel and Abiah. ‘They turned aside after lucre, and took
bribes, and perverted judgment’ (1 Sam. 8. 8).

16. 20. Livy. Titus Livius (B.C. 59—A.D. 17). The most
popular of the Roman writers of history. He recounted the
history of Rome in 142 books, from the foundation of the
city to the death of Drusus (A.D. 9).

Tarquinius. L. Tarquinius Superbus (B.C. 684—510). An
early tyrant of Rome, who abolished rights conferred upon
the plebeians by his predecessors, and who put to death, or
drove into exile, all senators or Patricians whom he disliked,
or whose wealth he wished to seize,

16, 22, Numa. Numa Pompilius. The ideal king of the
early days of Rome, revered by the Romans as the author
of their whole religious worship. He is supposed to have
reigned forty-three years. In the opening sentences of his
second book, Livy alludes to the expulsion of Tarquinius and
the successful insurrection of Brutus. Cf. the treatment of this
historical example in First Def. (Bohn 1. 128).

16. 27. This text is quoted and explained in First Def.
(Bohn 1. 95).

16. 30. Owning the thing himself, 1 Kings 12, 24. For
this thing is from me. God Countenances the insurrection
of the people against a tyrant. A telling argument from
Milton’s point of view.

Not by single providence. God does not oppose Rehoboam
directly, but by the use of secondary agents, Jeroboam and
the insurrectionists. God approves not only the rebellion,
but the occasion also.

17. 3. Those grave and wise Counselors. 1 Kings 12.6-8,

12

94 The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates

17. 6. Our old gray headed Flatterers. A forceful compar-
ison. Charles I did not lack advisers who urged him to
stand upon his prerogative, maintain divine right, and scorn
to capitulate to the rebel parliament. Some of the older
advisers were Lord Jermyn, Lord Digby, the Earl of Holland,
and the Marquis of Hamilton.

17. 8. Unless conditionally. The Israelites regarded the
king’s tenure as jure divino only on condition of good
behavior.

17. 10. Therfore Kingdom and Magistracy, etc. Later
editors begin a new paragraph here. In this and the
following paragraph we have a specimen of Milton as a
wrester of texts. He is making an ingenious but labored
effort to combine Petrine and Pauline dicta into an argument
that Christians are obliged to obey only those magistrates
who use their power to good ends.

17. 14. 1 Peter 2.18. This and Rom. 13. 1 were the great
New Testament texts, always quoted by royalists, and always
explained away by republican writers. Milton is here follow-
ing the example of all his predecessors. As early as 1558
Christopher Goodman advanced the same exegesis in his
How Superior Powers ought to be Obeyed, p. 114. Milton
expatiates on this text in First Def. (Bohn 1. 68).

47. 16. Rom. 18.4. In First Def. (Bohn 1. 68-78) he
spreads his exegesis over five pages. For there is no power
but of God: that is, no form, no lawful constitution of any
government. The apostle speaks only of a lawful power.
A still later comment is to be found in his Civ. Power in
Eccles. Causes (Bohn 2. 580, 531): ‘The apostle in this place
gives no judgment or coercive power to magistrates, neither
to those then, nor these now, in matters of religion.’ For
a dexterous treatment of this text from the monarchical point
of view, see Filmer, Patriarcha, p. 88.

47. 19. Else it contradicts Peter. 1 Peter 2. 13.

17. 21. Els we read of great power, etc. In his exposition
of Rom. 18.1, Goodman brings forward the same argument
(How Superior Powers ought to be Obeyed, p. 110).

17. 27. The thirteenth of the Revelation. Rev. 18. 2.

Notes 95

18. 4. Not a terror to the good. Cf. Goodman: ‘And
that the Apostle Paule dothe so restrayne his wordes to all
lawfull powers, we nede not to seke far of. For in the self
same Chap. after he dothe exponnd- is mynde: that is,
what powers and Magistrates he mea: ih: Such (saith he)
as if thou doest well, thou needest not to feare, but if thou
doest evel’ (How Sup. Powers ought to be Obeyed, p. 441).

18. 6. If such onely, etc. A new paragraph should begin
here.

18. 18. In termes not concret but abstract. In his inter-
pretation of Rom. 13, Chrysostom makes a distinction between
authority in abstracto and in concreto. The apostle says noth-
ing of exceptions, but states a general principle.

Buchanan provided the seed-thought for this argument
(De jure, p. 166): ‘Paul therefore does not treat of the
magistrate but of the magistracy, that is of the function or
duty of the person who presides over others, nor of this or
of that species of magistracy, but of every possible form of
£overnment,’

18. 21. Chrysostome. An eminent Father of the Church
(847-407).

Buchanan cites the opinion of Chrysostom, quoting this
passage from Homily 23: ‘For these passages of Paul's relate
not to a tyrant, but to a real and legitimate sovereign, who
personates a genuine God upon earth, and to whom resistance
is certainly resistance to the ordinance of God ' (De Jure, p. 166).

18, 21. On the same place dissents not. Chrysostom
does not mention the word tyrant in his homily on Rom. 13.
Compare the quotation from Chrysostom in the First Def.
(Bohn 1, 69).

18. 28. Immediately of God. Alluding to the doctrine
of divine right. See The True Law of Free Monarchies, by
James I. For Charles the First’s views on this question see
his controversy with Rev. Alex. Henderson, the famous Scotch
preacher, at Newcastle, as related by Neale (2. 27-30). In
First Def. (Bohn 1. 48) Milton expands this sentence into a page.

18. 80. Onely when the people chose them. Filmer boldly
denies that the Israelites had the right to choose their kings,

1a tameNENeNRNRRe penn tecmmenamrensonntanstniaronea cee

pment caeeraesee = treba

96 The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates

and cites Hooker in support of his statement (Patriarcha,
p. 46).

18, 88, The casting down of Princes. See Job 12. 18,
19, 21, 24; Ps. 2, 107. 40; 149. 8.

19. 18. Demerit. That which is merited, especially for
ill doing; punishment deserved.

19. 13. Thus farr hath bin considered. A summary of
the argument. He has laid down these principles:

1. The kingly power was originally in the people.

2. This power was conferred upon kings only on condition

of good behavior.

8. The people retained the right to reassume or to transfer

it, if the public good so required.

19. 22. He has now paved the way for his definition of
a tyrant.

19. 27. Thus St. Basil. See Commonplace Book, p. 81:
‘And Basil distinguishes a tyrant from a K. briefly thus,
totro yee dtapéger tigavv0g Backing Ste 6 uv td
tavrod xavzayd9ev oxonet, 6 de td tvig aexoutvors Gpe-
wov éxxogite. Tom. i. 456.’ The idea that a tyrant views
as his own that which comes from all sources is also the
basis of Aristotle’s definition. See 12.16. Buchanan com-
pares a good king with a tyrant in the following phrase,
following Aristotle: ‘For the one exercises his power for
the benefit of the people, and the other for his own’ (De
Jure, p. 148). Aristotle’s definition has also filtered through
Thomas Aquinas to Sir John Fortescue: ‘ For tyrant (tyrannus)
is so called a tyro, that is, strong, or angusta, as though
by his strength straitening his subjects; and a tyrant, ac-
cording to St. Thomas in his aforesaid book, De Regimine
Principum, is a prince who rules for his own pleasure, and
not for the good of his people’ (Works of Sir John Fortescue,
ed. by Lord Clermont, p. 220).

Milton quotes St. Basil for his definition of a tyrant,
but he could not range any definite deliverances of the
early Fathers on his side of the controversy. ‘Without a
single exception, all who touched upon the subject pronounced
active resistance to the established authorities to be under

Notes 97

all circumstances sinful. If the law enjoined what was wrong,
it should be disobeyed, but no vice and no tyranny could
justify revolt. ... So harmonious and so emphatic are the
patristic testimonies on this subject, that the later theologi-
ans who adopted other views have been utterly unable to
adduce any passages in their support’ (W. E. H. Lecky, Hist.
of the Rise and Influence of Rationalism in Europe 2. 187).
See also Grotius, De Jure Belli et Pacis, lib. 1. cap. 4.

After criticizing this definition severely, Filmer declares
that Milton ‘doth himself give as little regard to the laws
as any man.’ He quotes Milton's phrase ‘t’ieir gibrish laws,’
and ‘a disputing presidents, forms and circumstances,’ to
prove that the hater of tyrants is like a tyrant himself
(Concern. the Orig. of Govt. p. 30ff.). Cf. Milton's own
definition of a tyrant in Apo/. Smect. (Bohn 3. 163), also in
Sec. Def. (1. 224).

19. 83. Look how great a good, etc. This comparison
between a good king and a tyrant is worked out with more
detail in Sec. Def. (Bohn 1. 224). In his De Republica, a book
which was diligently read by Milton, Jean Bodin draws a
comparison between a tyrant and a good king in a sentence
over fifty lines in length (p. 212).

20. 1. Against whom what the people lawfully may doe,
etc. The most important question in Milton’s day was this,
‘Is it lawful to kill a tyrant?’ This question was the title
of a chapter in the celebrated book De Rege et Regis
Institutione by Mariana, the Spanish Jesuit, in ‘An tyrannum
opprimere fas sit’? (Lib. 1, Ch. 6.) Mariana approved the
assassination of Henry III of France by the young Dominican,
Clement (1d. p. 69).

Milton follows Bodin in the course of his thought. See
De Republica (Book 2, chap. 4).

20. 11. As thir prime Authors witness. For a full
discussion of this topic, and the citation of Greek and Roman
authors in praise of tyrannicide, see Appendix. In one of his
earliest prose writings, Apol. Smect. (1642), Milton spoke of
‘those exploits of highest fame in poems and panegyrics of

SAT Meee ae

a

Spe eee

98 The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates

old,’ alluding to ‘those ancient worthies who delivered men
from tyrants.’ (Bohn 3. 147).

20. 18, Statues and garlands. Cf. Sec. Def. (Bohn 1.217).

20. 17. Seneca the Tragedian. Seneca, Lucius Annus
(circa 4 B.C.-65 A.D.). The famous Stoic philosopher. His
works consist of treatises and epistles. The tragedies ascribed
to him are of doubtful authenticity.

Hercules. He is fabled to have conducted an expedition
of vengeance against Laomedon, tyrant of Troy. Laomedon,
with all his sons except Podarces, was slain. In a later
struggle, Hercules killed Theodamas, king of the Dryopes.

20. 19. The quotation is from Seneca’s tragedy, Hercules
Furens, 11. 922-924. These lines are also quoted in First
Def. (Bohn 1. 181). Jean Gerson, Chancellor of the University
of Paris, was one of the first writers on political theory
to quote this passage from Seneca.

20. 28. Among the Jewe, etc. Milton follows the example
of Buchanan, who, in resorting to Scriptural instances, bluntly
says: ‘Let us examine where the Scripture grants us a license
to murder princes with impunity’ (De Jure, p. 170).

20. 29. Ehud. Eglon. See Judges 8. 15—26.

21. 1. It imports not. It is of no consequence.

21, 4, All the Covnants and Oaths. Coronation pledges.
‘Nor can we see why it should be expected a new Engage-
ment could prevail on them, or oblige him more strongly
to the Kingdom, then the Solemn Oaths of His Coronation,
anc the several other Vows, Protestations, and Imprecations
so frequently by him broken, during His whole reign, and so
often renewed before God and the whole world. Remind
him that the Articles he signed with th2 Scots at the close
of the first Pacification he disavowed and had them burnt
by the Hangman at London’ (4 Declaration of the Commons
of England touching no farther Address or Application to be
mode to the King. \n Civil War Tracts, vol. 21, Yale Library).

21, 8. An outlandish King. A foreign ruler. Cf. ‘What
even a Solomon did for Outlandish Idolatrous wives’ (Scrip-
ture and Reason, etc., p. 72).

Notes 99

28, 25. Contempt of all Laws and Parlaments. For the
relations between the King and Parliament, see Green, Short
Hist. Engl. People, chap. 8.

21. 19. A boasted prerogative unaccountable. In English
constitutional history a prerogative means a prior, exclusive,
or peculiar right or privilege. The Stuarts claimed special
preeminence, by right of regal dignity, over all persons, a so-
vereign right (in theory) subject to no restrictions or inter-
ference. This assertion of unaccountability to Parliament or
people was of course hotly contested by Milton and his party.
An interesting modern survival of the royal prerogative is
the right of the king of Great Britain to give condemned
murderers a reprieve. Cf. Eikon. (Bohn 1.847): ‘Those fine
flowers of the crown, called prerogatives’; ibid. (Bohn 1.414):
‘Mere prerogatives, the toys and gewgaws of his crown’;
Sec. Def. (Bohn 1. 224).

Two expositions hy contemporary writers may serve to
throw more light on this elastic word. Thomas Cary, in his
Mem. of the Great Civil War in Eng. says (Introd., p. 21):
‘What then if he (the king) shall close up, by this prerog-
ative, the avenues of justice, and screen the offenders from
punishment, so perpetuating abuses, and giving wider scope
for their arbitrary proceedings’?

In A Political Catechism, printed by order of the House
of Commons in 1648 (p. 7), we read that the king claimed
the following privileges or prerogatives :—‘ Power of treaties
of war and peace, of making Peers, of choosing Officers, and
Councellours for State, Judges for Law, Commanders for Forts
and Castles; giving Commissions for raising men to make
Warre abroad, or to prevent or provide against invasions
and insurrections at home, benefit of Confiscations, power of
pardoning and some other like kinds are placed in the king.’

Towards the close of the century John Locke defined
prerogative as ‘That measure of power which the nation
concedes to its ruler, and the nation may either extend or
restrict it’ (Treatise on Civil Government, chap. 18).

21. 20. After sev’n years warring. The Civil War (1642—
1649).

Seether anes heer

oe: amen: -. SSR MG oe oo waned

100 The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates

21. 21. Overcom, and yeilded prisoner. Alarmed by the
march of Fairfax, the king escaped from Oxford in May, 1646,
and voluntarily placed himself in the hands of the Scotch
army-leaders in the camp near Newcastle. He was regarded
by the Scots as their prisoner.

21, 22. In respect of whom. By whose instrumentality.

21. 25. Crying for vengeance. It was a widespread
belief among ancient peoples that the ghost of a murdered
man, whose body lay unburied, could not find rest until
interment had taken place. Relatives of the dead were
visited by the unhappy spirit, and made aware of their duty.
It was considered not only as an impious dereliction of duty,
but as a provocation to the spirit-world, to deny such a
request. The voice of Abel's blood crying from the ground
for vengeance upon Cain is a familiar instance.

In Milton’s time, Carcass was employed in the same sense
as corpse. :

21. 27. Who knows not, etc. It is necessary to go back
to the beginning of the previous long sentence to retain the
sequences of thought.

In respect of whom. In comparison with.

21, 28. To the second (argument). See 23.8, Ehud, so
the royalists declared, was (1) a foreign prince, (2) an enemy,
and (3) Ehud, besides, had special warrant from God.

22. 20. Eglon. The king of Moab. See Judges 8. 14:
‘So the children of Israel served Eglon the king of Moab
eighteen years.’

22, 22, William the Conqueror. Reigned twenty-one
years (1066—1087).

22, 24. Oaths of Fealty and Allegeance. The oath of
fealty was a practice of the age of feudalism by which a
vassal took an obligation, called fidelitas, or fealty, to his
lord. The nobles also took a similar pledge to a new-made
king.

Allegiance was the relation or duties of a liege-man to
his liegelord. We still speak of the oath of allegiance,

Notes 101

referring to the obligation of a subject to his sovereign or
government.

22. 26. Homage and present. In feudal law homage was
the formal and public acknowledgment of allegiance, wherein
a tenant or vassal declared himself a man of the king or
lord of whom he held, and bound himself to his service.
Homage was usually rendered annually, and was expressed
by a money-payment, a present, or some kind of personal
service.

The present sent by Ehud to Eglon was probably a money-
payment. Judges 8. 15.

22. 27. The third argument is now taken up. See 25. 10.

22. 29. Raysd by God to be a Deliverer. Milton draws
a delicate distinction between a tyrant-killer with a special
warrant, and one raised by God to be a deliverer.

22, 34. Agag. See 1 Sam. 15.33. Next to the deed of
Ehud, the republican writers prized the story of Samuel's
killing of Agag.

A forren enemie no doubt. A sarcastic reference to the
quibble discussed above. See 28.9. Dr. Gauden wisely
remarks: ‘For that of Samuel’s severity against Agag, you
know that neither is the King an Agag to you, nor you as
Samuel to him’ (Religious and Loyal Protestation, p. 7).

23. 1. As thy sword, etc. 1 Sam. 15. 33.

28.7. Jehoram. A son of Ahab, slain by Jehu. See 2
Kings 9. 24. Cf. First Def. (Bohn 1. 96).

23. 8. Imitable. Deserving of imitation.

28. 16. David refus’d to lift his hand. Milton follows
Chris. Goodman and others in this interpretation. Goodman
says: ‘This beinge then David’s owne private cause, it
was not lawfull for him in that case to seke his owne
revengement: especially in murtheringe violently his anoyn-
ted kinge, and the anoynted of the Lorde. For it is not
written of Saule, that he was an idolatrer or constrayned
his people to worshippe stronge Godes’ (How Superior
Powers ought to be Obeyed, p. 189). Cf. First Def. (Bohn
1.90). In Eskon. (1. 486) three different meanings of the
phrase are stated. On Milton’s use of Scripture see Introd.

102 The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates

28. 17. The matter between them was not tyranny. The
implication is that Saul was a tyrant. Royalist writers
insisted that Saul was no tyrant: Saul lost his kingdom, but
not for being cruel or tyrannical to his subjects, but by
being too merciful to his enemies (Filmer, Patriarcha,
pp. 84 ff).

28, 24. To Christian times. The points raised here are
all developed and enlarged in First Def. (Bohn 1. 60 ff.).
Salmasius advanced the following arguments in favor of the
theory of divine right: (1) Christ himself suffered the assaults
of tyrants without resistance; (2) Render unto Caesar, etc.
Luke 20. 25; (3) The princes of the Gentiles exercise lordship,
etc. Mk. 10.42; (4) Peter's dictum, 1 Pet. 2. 13; (5) Paul's
dictum, Rom. 13.1. In this paragraph, Milton deals with
only one of the above points. The opening sentence of the
paragraph would lead us to expect an exhaustive treatment
of the New Testament field. See, Introd.

28. 80. Benefactors. See Luke 22. 25: ‘They that exercise
authority upon them are called benefactors.’

24. 2. They that seem to rule. The meaning of Jesus
in Matt. 20. 25, and its parallels, Mk. 10. 42 and Luke 22. 25,
is forced here. Jesus said nothing in criticism of the Gentile
rule. He was simply using it as an illustration. Milton
makes much of the phrase in Mark 10. 42, of doxobvres Goze,
those who are reputed to rule, who have the title of rulers.
There may be an insinuation here that the Gentile rulers
are not really those who rule, that God is the supreme ruler,
but it is very questionable if Jesus had any other end in
view than to contrast his kingdom of humility and service
with the kingdom of the Roman world. If we press the
criticism of Gentilism, his own parallel breaks down.

The argument is presented with much greater cogency in
First Def. (Bohn 1. 66).

24. 8. That fox. See Luke 18,82. Herod Antipas.

24. 10. In her profetic song. See Luke 1.52.

24.11. Dynasta’s or proud Monarchs. ‘He hath put down
the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.’

Notes 103

The word used by Milton is the duvdorag of the Greek
version. See also Acts 8.27, for the use of this word. There
éuvdorng is translated, ‘a man of authority.’

24. 16. A new paragraph should begin here. This is the
author's point of departure from the New Testament argument.

24. 17, Both hate and fear, etc. He began his pamphlet
with this assertion. See 1. 18.

24, 18. The true Church. An ambiguous phrase to Milton's
readers.

24.19. Subverters of Monarchy, though indeed of tyranny.
A somewhat obscure statement. Tyrants call the true church
and saints of God (Milton and his party) enemies and sub-
verters of monarchy, but they are not really so: they oppose
not monarchy, not good kings, but tyranny.

24, 21. The perpetual cry of Courtiers, and Court Prel-
ates. From the days of Queen Elizabeth the court-party
had been jealous of the growing power of the Puritans. In
the first year of Queen Elizabeth's reign all preaching was
forbidden for a time. Marsden says that the mischievous
introduction of state-affairs into the popular harangues of
the sectaries seemed to the queen to threaten the safety of
the country and the stability of her throne (Hist. of Early
Puritans, p. 103). The queen’s subsequent severe policy
towards the Puritans, and the establishment of the Court of
High Commission by her at Archbishop Whitgift’s suggestion,
bear out Milton’s assertion. ‘No bishop, no king!’ was the
adage of King James I, when he mounted the throne of
England. He and the prelates made common cause against
the forces of Puritanism. In the ecclesiastical fabric of
Calvinism, in its organization of the church, in its annual
assemblies, in its public discussion and criticism of acts of
government through the pulpit, he saw an organized democ-
racy which threatened his crown. ‘The new force which
had overthrown episcopacy in Scotland, was a force which
might overthrow the monarchy itself’ (Green, Short Hist.
Eng. People, chap. 8).

25. 15. St. Edward. Edward the Confessor (1004(?)—1066).

25. 16. Earle of the Palace, etc. See Commonplace Book,

=

oF SRN Rep erates meer

Ssoephehemmee

104 The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates

p. 29. ‘An office to correct the King. The Earl of Chester
bare the sword of St. Edward before the K. in token that
he was Earle of the Palace, and had authority to correct
the K. if he should see him swerve from the limits of justice.
Holinsh. Hen. 8. 219; this sword is called by Speed Curtana,
p. 608, Rich. 2.’ The reference to Holinshed is untrustworthy.
See Chronicles 2. 841, 849. For the reference to Rich. and Il,
see John Speed, Hist. of Gr. Britain, p.728. Cf. First Def.
(Bohn 14. 174).

Some of the most interesting passages in such chronicles
as those of Roger de Wendover and Matthew Paris are the
descriptions of coronation-proceedings.

24.18, Matthew Paris (1200(?)—1259). Monk of St. Albans.
In 1236 Matthew succeeded Roger of Wendover as chronicler
of the convent, carrying on the Chronica Major to the year
of his death. Milton’s eulogy is confirmed by modern
historians. ‘In vigour and brightnéss of expression he stands
before every other English chronicler, and in these respects
his writing is in striking contrast to that of his immediate
predecessor, Roger de Wendover’ (Dict. Nat. Biog.).

24, 24. The very discipline of Church. The discipline
of the Presbyterian and Independent churches was framed
on democratic principles. Each member had a voice in
calling or deposing a minister, and in electing officials; all
members were on a footing of equality, even the minister in
the Presbyterian Church, although moderator of the session,
was called simply a ruling elder. Universal suffrage has
always obtained in the nonconformist churches.

24, 31. Ludovicus Pius. Lewis the Pious, Frankish emperor
(814-840). A weak but thoroughly conscientious ruler.

25. 1. Charles the Great (742-814),

Du Gaillan. Bernard de Gerard, Seigneur du Haillan
(1585-1616). After a successful diplomatic and literary career,
he was made counsellor of Charles IX, and historiographer of
France. His most important work was his Histoire Genérale
des Rois de France (1576). Du Haillan criticised the methods
of the chroniclers, and attempted to write a history after the
manner of the ancients and the Italians. He discarded a vast

Notes 105

number of legends, but retained the trick of making speeches
for his characters.

The quotation was transferred from the Commonplace Book
(p. 81): ‘Ludovicus Pius, being made judge of a certain
German tyrant, approves the people who had depos’t him
and sets his younger brother up in his stead. Gerard, Hist.
France, |. 4, p. 248.’ See also entry in Commonplace Book,
p. 27: ‘The cause and reason of creating Kings, see well
express'd in Haillan, Hist. France, |. 18, p. 719.’

26, 2. Milegast. A king of the Vultzes or Wiltzi, a Sla-
vonic tribe who lived east of the Elbe, in the district now
known as Prussia. They were originally conquered by
Charlemagne.

25. 9. Constantinus Leo. Leo the Isaurian (717-740).

2. 10. The Byzantine Laws. The emperor Leo was
responsible for a revision of the Justinian Code, which in his
time had become unintelligible. It was abridged and trans-
lated, in order to meet the requirements of the needs and
customs of later times. Basil I (867-886), in his turn, made
another revision of the Justinian Code, which superseded the
Ecloga of Leo the Isaurian, In the Commonplace Book (p. 26),
Milton quotes Leo from the Byzantine laws as they were
finally arranged by Basil I: ‘ Officium et definitio imperatoris
egregia est: Jus Graeco-Romanum, 1. 2, p. 178, ex lib. de
jure qui est Basil. Const.nt. Leonis ubi ait réAog t@ Baodet
tO evegyetely xat ivind tis Evegyecias eSarovijon dSoxic
xBdndebew tov Baciixdy yagaxtijea.

25. 19. To mind them, saith Matthew Paris. In his ac-
count of the ceremonies at the marriage of Henry III to
Eleanor, daughter of the Count of Provence, Matthew Paris
says: ‘The nobles, too, performed the duties, which by
ancient right and custom, perta‘ned to them at the coronation
of kings. In like manner some of the inhabitants of certain
cities discharged certain duties which belonged to them by
right of their ancestors. The Earl of Chester carried the
sword of St. Edward, which was called Curtein, before the
king, as a sign that he was earl of the palace, and had by

106 The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates

right the power of restraining the king if he should commit
an error (Matthew Paris, English History, trans. J. A. Giles,
1.9).

25, 23. Our ancient books of Law. Milton gives as his
legal authority, in First Def. (Bohn 1.178), the Mirror of
Justice. ‘In this book,’ he says, ‘ we are told, that the Saxons,
when they first subdued the Britons, and chose themselves
kings, required an oath of them, to submit to the judgment
of the law, as much as any of their subjects, cap. 1 sect. 2.
In the same place it is said, that it is but just that the king
have his peers in parliament, to take cognizance of wrongs
done by the king, or the queen.’ Cf. Ralph Sadler, Rights
of the Kingdom, pp. 24 ff.

25. 27. His Peers, or equals. Peer, an equal in civil
standing or rank; one’s equal before the law. A celebrated
use of the word occurs in Magna Charta 21: ‘Earls and
barons are not to be punished éxcept by their peers (nisi
per pares suos).’ In its titular meaning, the word peer means
a member of one of the degrees of nobility in the United
Kingdom—a duke, marquis, earl, viscount, or baron. Nobles
or magnates had a special privilege of having access to the
king at all times. Milton's contention that they had a legal
right to judge the king is opposed by Bishop Stubbs, who
declares: ‘The English lords do not answer to the nobles of
France, or to the princes or counts of Germany, because in
our system the theory of nobility of blood as conveying
political privilege has no legal recognition. The nobleman
is the person who for his life holds the hereditary office
denoted or implied in his title. The law gives to his children
and kinsmen no privilege which it does not give to the
ordinary freeman, unless we regard certain acts of courtesy,
which the law has recognised, as implying privilege. ...
The English law does not regard the man of most ancient
and purest descent as entitled thereby to any right or priv-
ilege which is not shared by every freeman’ (Constit. Hist.
of Eng. 2. 176, 177).

Hotman devotes a chapter in Franco-Galha (p. 97 f£.) to a
discussion of the origin of constables and peers. He thinks

Notes 107

that King Arthur first appointed twelve great men as peers,
but does not agree that they were pares regi. See also
First Def. (Bohn 1. 175).

25, 81. Judge the highest. On the right of the parliament
to judge the king, see the elaborate argument in First Def.
(Bohn 1. 171 ff.). That the will of the monarch should have
the force of law was wholly inconsistent with the forms and
theories of English legis!ition. Glanvil and Bracton lay it
down in the strongest terms that the king, while subject
to no man, is always subj t to law (see Hallam, Middle
Ages 2, 884, 385), Sir Hd waid Coke in the reign of James I,
set up the doctrine that the common lay, was above the
king.

25, 38. Dukes, Earls and Marqueses, ce Commonplace
Book, p. 38: ‘Dukes, Comts, Mavqueses, etc. were not
hereditary at first, but ovly piaces of government and office
in the time of Charles the (treai. Gerard, Hist. France
1. 8, p. 168; 1. 6, 416. and so continu’ d without much difference
between gentlemen and nobles till the time of Charles the
Simple, about the year 900, when this corruption (for so the
historian calls it, though himself a french lord) took beginning,
and receiv'’d accomplishment afterward in the time of Hugh
Capet. Gerard, Hist. France, 6, p. 816: taking example from
his usurpation, they made themselves proprietaries of those
counties and dukedomes which they had as offices, not
inheritances, idem, 1. 6, 829, 830, except those who were
natural lords, as of Normandy, Toulouse, Flanders, etc. idem,
p. 338.’

25. 33. At first not hereditary, etc. Modern authorities
are disposed to accept this view. Cf. Goldwin Smith, The
United Kingdom 1. 29.

26. 3. Parlament. Hotman is one of the earliest writers
to define this word: ‘Now the word Parliament in the old
manner of Speech used by our Countrymen signifies a Debate,
or discoursing together of many Persons, who come from
several Parts, and assemble in a certain Place, that they may
communicate to one another Matters relating to the Publick’
(Franco-Gallia, p. 189).

m

108 The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates

Baron. The word is thus defined by Goldwin Smith:
«All tenants-in-chief were barons, a name of which the origin
is uncertain; but the meaning probably is man of the king;
a free man, perhaps, in contrast to the serf’ (The United
Kingdom 1. 29). Milton probably got this idea from Hotman,
Franco-Gallia, p. 145: ‘Budaeus writes that Philip the Fair
appointed, that three Sorts of People shou’d sit in Parliament,
viz. Prelates, Barons, and Clerks mixed with Laymen.’ Cf.
First Def. (Bohn 1. 167).

26. 6. Caveats. A caveat is a process in court to suspend
proceedings; a notice given by some party to the proper
officer not to take a certain step until the party giving the
notice has been heard in opposition. Here warnings or cautions.

96, 8. Circumstantial men. Those who have regard to
petty caveats and circumstances.

26, 9. Our ancestors who were not ignorant. Cf. First
Def. (Bohn 1, 172 ff.). ;

96. 144. At Coronation. On the King’s coronation oath,
and his obligation to observe it, see Etkon. (Bohn 1. 364).

And renewd in Parlament. See Commonplace Book, p. 25:
‘K. Rich. ihe 2 also renew’d his oath in parliament time in
the church at Wee.nin. Stow, an. reg. 11. Richard the 1.
Holinsh. p. 118, ac large.’ ‘The third day of June, the K.
in the Church of Westminster renued the oth, which hee
toke when he was crowned, and all the Lords sware homage
and fealtie to him ’ (John Stow, Amnales or a General Chronicle
of England, p. 304). The reference to Richard I is in Holins-
hed, Chron. 2. 240.

96. 16. Richard the second (1377-1899). By the removal
of Richard, parliament made a precedent for after-times, not
only for the deposing of Charles I, but also of James II. Further
mention is made of Richard II in the Commonplace Book, p. 81:
‘Of the deposing of a tirant and proceding against him.
Richard the 2nd was not only depos’d by parliament, but
sute made by the commons that he might have judgement
decreed against him to avoid furder mischeif in the realm.
Holinsh. 612’ (Holinshed 2. 869); ‘Richard the 2 in his 21

Notes 109

yeare holding a violent parlament shortex.'d his days: see
in Sto. the violency of that parl. See other tyrannicall acts
an. 22; and of his parl. Holinsh. 490,’ The references are
to John Stow, Annales, or a General Chronicle of Engl.,
pp. 315 ff. and to R. Holinshed, Chron. 2. 889 ff. Also p. 29:
‘To say that the lives and goods of the subjects are in the
hands of the K. and at his disposition is an article against
Ri. II. in Parl. a thing ther said to be most tyrannous and
unprincely. Holinsh. 503’ (2. 861).

26. 18. Peter Martyr Vermigli (1500—1562). Pietro
Martire Vermigli. Born in Florence, Vermigli became a
scholar of the cloisters, At the age of 27 he had acquired
such a reputation for learning that he became a public
Preacher at Rome. He also lectured on Scripture in various
convents of the Augustinian order throughout Italy. Influenced
by the writings of Bucer and Zwingli, he imbibed Protestant
doctrines, and was obliged to flee from Italy. Eventually,
on Cranmer's invitation, he went to England, and in 1548
became professor of divinity at Oxford. Later he was
professor of Hebrew at Zurich. Vermigli was a voluminous
expositor and author.

See Commonplace Book, p. 82: ‘Petrus Martyr in 8c. Iud.
eis qui potestatem superiorem eligunt certisque legibus
reipub. preficiunt, ut hodie electores imperii etc. licere, si
Princeps pactis, et promissis non steterit, eum in ordinem
cogere ac vi adigere, ut conditiones et pacta que fuerat
Pollicitus, compleat, idque vel armis cum aliter fieri non
Possit: citatque authorem Polydorum nostros homines ali-
quando suos reges compulisse ad rationem reddendam
pecuniz male administrate.’

Milton refers to a disquisition entitled, ‘An subditis liceat
contra suos principes insurgere.’ After noting the commands
of Peter and Paul not to resist superior powers, the fate of
Zedekiah and his people because they rebelled against
Nebuchadnezzar, how David spared Saul, the Lord’s anointed,
and how the early Christians, even when they were armed,
obeyed the cruel tyrant Julian the Apostate, Martyr cites a
number of instances where rulers have been forced to keep

m2

110 The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates

their promises to govern justly. The Romans and the Danes
took such violent measures, as well as the English against their
kings. The Romans even deposed Tarquinius Superbus.
Martyr says he will not refer to Brutus and Cassius, because
men are divided respecting the justice of their cause. He
concludes that, although it is fitting for magistrates to move
against princes, the private citizen is not to have the same
privilege (Jn ibrum Judicum commentarii Petri Martyris
Vermillii, p. 56).

96. 19. Sir Thomas Smith (1513-1577). A typical Eliza-
bethan in the wide range of his activities. At the age of
twenty he was appointed public reader or professor at
Cambridge. Ten years later he became professor of civil
law. In addition to his college work, he took a prominent