circles, wondered at the stubbornness of the King. As both parties professed to be adherents of the same religion, they reasoned, the King should not risk bis crown for the sake of such an immaterial question as wether his ministers were to be Independents, Presbyterians or Episcopalians.1
When in 1648 both Parliamentary and Royalist warship put into the harbour of Goeree, Holland feit secretly sorry that the former did not at once attack, and beat the latter, "as in those times people were still generally in favour of Parliament." 2 Aitzema thinks that not only the example of the prosperous Dutch Republic encouraged the English rebels, but also the universal sympathy they met with in Holland, and the English rebels expected this would remain so. 3 But the execution of King Charles rad^lly changed this. The Prince of Wales applied in person to the States General for interference and the States at once sent off an embassy to prevent the terrible deed, if still possible. When the news spread in the Hague, that the dreaded thing had actually happened, it was evident, "that all and everyone, great and small, detested the deed of Parliament, even those who in their hearts had always been in favour of Parliament, whether for the sake of religion of libery, nay, even the clergymen who had always been suspicious of the King and his council in marters of religion, now showed themselves Royalists, if not from conviction, at least from compassion." * Strickland, the Parliamentary embassador, did not dare to show his face in the streets of the Hague. Four clergymen from the Hague thought it their duty to wait upon the Prince of Wales to offer their condolences and the way in which they did so, clearly shows that, now the Presbyterians had been worsted, the cause of the English had lost their favour. After having expressed their horror at "that unhearedof Parricide, that accursed execution of the holy anointed head, and that slaughter, never to be mourned for enough, of that only King of the Reformed profession", they declared, that from this it was clear "what it meant to be Independent", s This feeling occasioned a party in favour óf war to arise among the very people that were most closely allied in religion with the English rebels, but who could now folow their inclinations in devoting themselves whole-
heartedly to the cause of their beloved Prince of Orange. 
i op. cit. V, p. 339 — * ibid. p. 574 — s ibid. p. 576 — 4 ibid. p. 681, cf. Dr Geyl, op. cit. p. 51ff. — 5 Geyl, op. cit. p. 52.



There were other voices, however. From the very beginning we see that the States of Holland were firmly determined to maintain peace, convinced as they were that war would be ruinous to Dutch trade. They were greatly annoyed at the behaviour of the four clergymen just referred to and forbade them all intermeddling with foreign affairs. The great bulk of the people, however, were in faveur of the King's party. The Calvinists, who had sympathized with the Parliamentary party in their struggle with the King, became hostile to the Parliament on the defeat of the Presbyterian party and the execution of the King. *
There was thus a strong war-party in the Dutch Republic, headed by the Stadtholder William II., and only the strenuous efforts of the province of Holland prevented the immediate outbreak of hostilities. In the beginning Zealand supported Holland in this, commercial interests being stronger than the influence of the Prince of Orange. First there arose the question of the recognition of Charles II. as King of Great Britain. The Orange party tried to move the States General to this, but Holland and Zealand managed to have him recognized as King Charles merely, the name which he was entitled as King of Great Britain. The Orange party tried to move the States General refused to receive the English ambassador Srickland, the States of Holland, being unable to compel them, received him themselves. And when it became evident that Strickland would most probably be recalled, they resolved to send a representative to England on their own account, thus endangering the unity of the Dutch Republic. Internal questipns increased the tension that existed between Holland and the Stadtholder, and ultimately led to the Prince's attack on Amsterdam. The republican party was cowed for the moment, but not crushed. CromwelTs victory at Dunbar restored their courage, and the struggle was put an end to by the sudden death of William II. (6 Nov. 1650), which deprived the Orange party of their head. 2
The party óf the States was victorious now. Holland took the lead, and resolved to do without a Stadtholder, and the other provinces followed suit with the exception of Groningen, where they elected William Frederick, Stadtholder of Friesland. However, though disorganized, the Orange party was still f ormidable and the House of
1 Geyl, op. cit. p. 54 — » ibid p. 65ff.



Orange had lost nothing of its popularity. When, some days after the death of William II., a young prince was bom, the people of Holland showed as much joy and enthusiasni as at the birth of a new sovereign. It was chiefly owing to the existence of this Orange party that an atmosphere was created in which the coming negotiations between England and Holland were bound to fail.1
The great interest in what was going on in England and the general opinion about are nowhere reflected so clearly as in the satirical poems which events in England occasioned in Holland. They corroborate all that has just been said about the political relation between England and Holland. In the first place Joost van den Vondel (1587—1679), "the Laureate of Amsterdam, when that city was the heart of the Netherlands, and the Netherlands stood at the very centre of the movements of Western Europe, responsive to all that took place from Sweden to Spain, from Turkey to England, and looking out over the seas, of which her control was just beginning to be disputed, to the Indies, East and West."2 Vondel strongly feit the throbbing of this mighty heart, and, being essentially a lyrical poet — even in his tragedies he found by his strict adherence to the classical form, ample opportunity to give his lyrical faculty full play — Vondel responded poetically to the glories, hopes, anxieties, and troubles of those eventful years.
Of great importance in Vondel's attitude towards England is his conversion to Roman Catholicism, "which took place definitely in 1641, though the symptoms of what was going on in the poefs mind can be traced much earlier". 3 This placed him outside the general current of thought in Holland and caused him to take up a position by himself. His change of religion influenced his political opinions to such a degree, that the man who, at the beginning of his poetical career, had compared the liberation of the United Provinces from Spain to the deliverance of the Isrealites from Pharao, * no longer khew how to vindicate Holland's rebellion against Philip. * It is
1 Dr Geyl Stuart en Oranje in Bijdragen voor Vaderlandsche Geschiedenis en Oudheidkunde, 1924, IVe Reeks, I, II — a Grierson. Periods of European Literature. The first half of the seventeenth century, p. 26 — 3 ibid. p. 27. Cf. G. B. Brom, Vondels Bekering, Amsterdam, 1907 — 4 Vergelijckinghe vande Verlossinge der Kinderen Israels met de Vrijwordinghe der Vereenichde Nederlandtsche Provinciën, printed at the end of the first edition of Pascha, 1612 — " P. Fockens. Maria Stuart, eine literarhistorische studie. Berlin, 1887, p. 97:



obvious that such a man could not but be horrified at what was going on in England. Yet, though he cannot be called the representative of public opinion in Holland, his suprème genius attracted most attention and called forth protests or applause from all sides, so that in order to discuss contemporary Dutch comment on English affairs we could not find a better guide.
Considering his views, Vondel's first poem referring to English affairs is rather mild: the Grafnaelt van 'sKonings Stadthouder in Yrlandt, 1641, (Epitaph for Strafford the King's Deputy in Ireland). This, however, is only a Dutch rendering of a Latin poem by Huygens,1 which explains the absence of bitter criticism: the prudent politician Constantijn Huygens does not mention the dissension between King and Parliament and represents Strafford only as a noble citizen, sacrificing his life for the public weal, worthy to be compared with the great Stoics, Cato, Thrasea, and Seneca.2
The visit of Queen Henriette Maria to Holland, ostensibly to convey her daughter, the young bride, to the Prince of Orange, her future husband, in reality in order to negotiate for help from the Dutch Republic, gave Vondel occasion to compose two poems: Henriette Marie Koningin van Groot Britanje, Vranckrijck en Yriant, t''Amsterdam (Henriette Maria, Queen of Great Britain, France and Ireland, in Amsterdam) and De Hymen van Oranje en Britanje (The Marriage of Orange and Britain), both in 1642. In the latter poem the state of affairs in England is not alluded to, but the former takes a definitely sympathetic attitude to the English monarchy.
It opens wih a fine description of how Nature and the population of Amsterdam vie with each other in glee at the arrival of the English Sea-goddess. There is reason to be proud, too:
"Wo Vondel sich in seiner politischen überzeugung so weit hinreiszen liesz, dass er nach dem übertritt zum katholicismus sogar die auflehnung der Hollander geven Spanien nicht mehr zu billigen wuszte, da wird er, allerdings mit weit gröszerer berechtigung, ein verdammendes urteil Ober Elisabeth und ihre partei auszusprechen für eine pflicht gehalten haben".
cf. J. te Winkel, op. cit. III, p. 496-7 on Vondel's Leeuwendalers written in commemoration of the Peace of Westphalia.
1 cf. p. 176 — a J. van Lennep. De Werken van J. van den Vondel, Amsterdam, 1855-69, IV, p. 113.
cf. G. Kalff. Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Letterkunde, TV, p. 384, where the scanty mention of the great political events in both Cats and Huygens' poem is explained in a similar way.



Ghy Amsterdam 
Monarchen komen 't hart van uwen veldheer winnen,
En kroonen Batoos Rijck met d'eere der Vorstinnen. 1. 69,70
(Oh, Amsterdam! monarchs come to win the heart of your great
captain, and crown Bato's empire with the honour of princesses.)
As the ostensible reason of the Queen's visit was the marriage of her daughter to the Prince of Orange," Vondel rightly thinks it suitable to dweil upon the relationship that had formerly existed between Dutch and English princes. But the secret reason of the coming is also known to the pact. Hence he expatiates on the divine right of kings and tries to reassure the Queen by predicting help from all Europe should her subjects venture to assault their sacred head. This will not be necessary; it is too dangerous to attack a king; bis fall would cause chaos.
As we know, the queen's mission to Holland was a f ailure. Things became worse and worse in England, the threatening rebellion broke out, and Vondel commented upon the events in various satirical poems. In 1644 he wrote some four of them. The series is opened by Klaghte over de weerspannelingen in Groot Britanje (Complaint against the Rebels in Great Britain). England — the well-known pun on its name is not omitted — is the most noble island in the world, acquainted with the Gospel from an early date, a beacon in the Northern Sea. The indignant poet asks "the half-Jews, cursed Sabbatarians", what reason they have to raise their hands against God's anointed King. Is what Edward VI. did not yet sufficiënt and Queen Elizaheth's killing of Queen Mary of Scots? Must their present King, too, be stabbed to the heart by the execution of Strafford? The root of it all is Queen Mary's murder. The rebels seem to be possessed by Esau's hatred, and to pursue Queen Elizabeth's policy without respect for the nobility of soul of King James, who "could forget his mother's wrong in the matricidal kingdom". All these troubles must be the fruits of that atrocious deed, when the blood was spüled of. the four times crowned martyr, who preferred the Christian altar to an earthly kingdom. But it will be in vain: the offspring of such a mother must be invincible.
The help the Scottish Presbyterians rendered the Parliamentarians gave rise to two or three extremely witty but most poignant satires, the first being Morgenwecker der Sabattisten (Morning Awakener of



Sabbatarians), published anonymously with the mótto 'Eert den Koning' (Honour the King). By calling in Scottish aid, the Parliamentary party had only dragged the Trojan horse within their walls. They will fare as did the snake in the fable who took pity on the cold hedgehog and admitted it into his hole for the winter, only to be driven out of it himself by the prickly ingrate. This entertainment of their beggarly neighbours will ruin them financially. King Charles is compared to Actaeon attacked by his black dogs, with an allusion to the soberly dressed Puritans. The rebels are reminded of what happened in Jerusalem when the Zealots called in the help of their hereditary enemies, the Idumeans, and they are told that their end wil be Lucifer's, whose followers they are. The next poem Het Radt van Avonturen (The wheel of Fortune) ridicules, by no means delicately, the idea of the needy and lousy Scot, come to fatten at the expense of his English host as the Israelites did in the land of Goshen. In the f arcical Mundus vult decipi ■— of late doubts have been raised whether Vondel can be the author J- — the poet describes how Sir Thomas of Norwich, the representative of the English nation, is cured of his terrible tooth-ache by Pothecary Scot. He extracts his whole jaw-bone and when the patiënt cries out, he says:
Ba siet geruste...... daer es de baecktant met de wortele.
En al angt et rechtere ooge op de sliencke kaecke, Dat sal van selve beteren, 't es eene lichte sake, Laet slichs uutbloedene, lecht u een lettele nedere, En bekomt u dit welle, soo aelt mie vrie wedere: Want Meester Schotte geneest den aermen uyt gonste, Maer den Ingelschen Koopman betaelt siene konste.
(Be quiet, man, I have got the grinder with its root
What though the right eye hangs on the left cheek,
That'U take care of itself, is not worth mentioning,
Only let it bleed, lie down and take some rest,
If this does you good, you are free to send for me again:
For Mr Scot cures the poor for love,
But the English Merchant pays for his art.)
* Sterck etc, De Werken van Vondel, IV, Amsterdam, 1930, p. 858.



These poems did not remain unanswered, * and this is of great importance, since it shows that Vondel at this time did not voice the general sentiment. In the anonymous Weerstuit van de Klachte over de Weêrspannelingen in Groot-Brittan je (Rebound on the Complaint against the Rebels in Great Britain), the poet refutes Vondel's comparison of King Charles with a sherpherd: it would be better to call him a slavedriver. Vondel is a mere calumniator resembling in his abuse Brother Cornelius, a notorious rascal in Bruges. It is shameful indeed to condemn one of the parties unheard, and stir up hatred, the more so, now that on all sides attempts are being made to bring the parties together. But then, the king will not listen to such an adviser, the poet in a note referring to the proverb "what keur is er in, of u een hoer laakt of een boef prijst" (There is small difference between the blame of a whore and the praise of a rascal) The poem concludes with a malicious anagram of Vondel's name "Sotje vol van sonden" (fooi full of sins), borrowed from Cats.
Vondel's Morgenwecker der Sabattisten called forth a poem Aan de luisterdekker der Papisten (To the flatterer of the Papist). Vondel's phrases are taken up again and again, but given another and a mocking interpretation. We find the same stanza, even the identical rhymes. The snake is as ungrateful as the hedgehog, if after bemg thawed by the fire, it attacks the countryman with its teeth. The countryman naturally looks for his axe, and makes short work of the hedgehog. Actaeon is outside London and is bitten by Popish dogs, which rob him of his senses. In listening to the Jesuits, he behaves like the Idumeans, who persisted in attacking the Holy City to sully the Holy Temple. The end will be that the King, though purif ied by mass and pardon, will go to heil.
• The same method is used in the answer to Vondel's Het Radt van Avonturen that appeared under the title: Aen 't Vat vol Wispelturen (To the vessel full of fickleness). Again we find the same stanza, identical rhyme-words, and similar contents. Vondel is called a beggar who has barely escaped from the punishing hand of the Magistrate, and who has fled for sheer poverty to Amsterdam. What does he blame Scotland for? Its people and nobility are bound by the covenant. They occupy York and Newcastle, nor for reward, but » Sterck etc. De Werken van Vondel, IV, nal. p. 16. J. van Vloten's edition of Vondel's works I, p. 549. J. H. W. Unger mentions still more m his Bibliographie van Vondel's Werken, Amsterdam, 1888.



to free the English from bondage and the Irish from Strafford and the deluded king. The Royalists are not to be satisfied with meat or wool or wine, but feed on human flesh and blood, which they rank with that of a flea.
This activity amongst versifying pamphleteers illustrates strikingly how great an interest people took in what was going on in England, and also that, in the beginning at least, many were in favour of the rebels.
By the end of 1646 Vondel published his tragedy Maria Stuart of Gemartelde Majesteit (Mary Stuart, or Tortured Majesty), in which he expanded the opinion of Queen Mary's fate which we have already noticed in his satirical Klaghte over de weerspannelingen in Groot Britanje. This drama again shows how well posted Vondel was in the affairs of Scotland and England.1. The subject gave Vondel a fine opportunity to express his attachment to the Roman Catholic faith and to the divine right of kings, and his hatred of Protestantism and the Puritans. This has led many people to cohsider Maria Stuart not as an objective work of art, but as a political drama, describing contemporary affairs under the disguise of a historical event. 2 To us this question is of no importance: the drama does not throw any new light on Vondel's attitude to English affairs, it only emphasizes his point of view. What does matter to us is the commotion the tragedy caused in Holland. J. van Lennep 3 speaks of "a shower of pamphlets. and satires"4 and Vondel was even fined for his play. Oudaen wrote as a protestant counterblast to Vondel's Maria Stuart his Johanna Grey. Contemporary English affairs, however, are hardly alluded to in these replies, Vondel being attacked for his unfair treatment of Queen Elizabeth and the outrage done to Protestantism.
But Vondel did not lose sight of what was going on in England. In a little poem Op de Burgertwist van Britanje (On the Civil War in Great Britain), written before 1647, 6 he offered the rebels bis good advice to comply with the King's wishes: "for union is the stay of empire."
1 J. van Lennep, op. cit. V, p. 511 — 3 See especially: D. C. Nijhoff's Vondels Hecuba, Gebroeders en Maria Stuart aesthetisch-critisch beschouwd, Utrecht, 1886, p. 66ff, who opposes this view and P. Fockens (op. cit. p. 98), who detects in it "eine dem calvinismus feindliche tendenz" — 3 J. van Lennep, op. cit. V, p. 512 — 4 Several are printed in J. van Vloten, op. cit. p. 753ff. — 5 Unger, op. cit.
4



Then in 1649 that event happenen which sent a shock of horror through all Europe, and which made the Dutch people in general lose all sympathy for the Parliamentarians. J. van Lennep prints three indignant poems, all atrributed to Vondel though he accepts only one as genuine: Op de Koningh-dooders van Engelandt (On the Regicides of England), later on entitled Op den Vadermoordt m Groot Britanje (On the Parricide in Great Britain), a very small poem of only six lines, but to the point:
Vermomde Lucifer had door zijn Parlement Den Heer het Swaert ontruckt, de Kerk en 't hof geschent, En dat gesalfde Hooft, na'et bloedigh t'zamenrotten, Gekocht van Judas bloet, den droesem van de Schotten, Als hy de moortbyl klonk door 's Koninghs hals en Kroon; Soo bouwt het Helsche Heir in 't Engelsch Rijk zijn troon. (Disguised Lucifer had, through his Parliament, robbed the Lord of the sword, and violated Church and Court, and that Anointed Head, bought, after the bloody complot, from Judas' blood, the dregs of the Scots when he smote the murderous axe through the Kingly neck and crown. Thus the hellish host builds up its throne in the English kingdom).
The two poems which van Lennep rejects, Henriette de Bourbons ontstelde grootmoedigheit (Henriette of Bourbon's perplexed Magnanimity), and Karei Stuarts gemartelde Majesteyt (Charles Stuart s martyred Majesty) appeared with a third poem of the identical title of Vondel's Op de Koningh-dooders van Engelandt, in a pamphlet without the name of the printer or publisher and with the colophon «gedruct in 't moord-jaar van den Koning van Enge land 164 9 (printed in the year of the murder of the King of England, 1649). In the first-mentioned poem King Charles's mother is walling over the murder; afterwards taking comfort in the thought that this atrocious deed will stir up his friends to action. The second poem, too emphasizes the horror the spilling of royal blood has occasioned all over Europe. The last-mentioned poem, though quite different from Vondel's attack of the same name, is not unworthy of Vondel
and deserves to be quoted in full: _ 
i G. Penon. Historische en Bibliographische Beschouwingen van Vondels Hekeldichten. Groningen, 1874, p. 131.
J. van Lennep, op. cit. VI, p. 2; VI, nal. 3.



Is dit de Godts-dienst, die de Koningh scheen te weeren? Is dit de Suyverheydt? Is dit Independeeren? Ghy kapt de Halsen af, by Pausen maer betrapt. Dit is een Rübicon, by niemandt overstapt.
Roodt van het Heyligh Bloed, gestort uyt Konings Aders Haelt vry de Jooden in, ghy over-boeft hun vaders, Independents te zijn, dat is Anababtists; 't Welck looser is als 't Joods, en looser als Papists.
Tom speelt het spel van Jan, het Monster-mensch van Legden. 'K sie Londen noch voor hem een Kevy toe-bereyden. 'K sie Meester Peters, d'Aep van Knipperdollinghs pots, Is 't opsen Engels niet, haest hange op sijn Schots.
(Is this the religion which the King seemed to suppress?
Is this Puritanism? Is this 'being Independent'?
You cut the necks, on which the Popes only set their f eet.
This is the Rubicon, crossed by none.
Red with the Holy Blood poured forth from royal veins,
You may invite the Jews: you 'out-rascal' their fathers.
To be Independents is the same as Anabaptists,
Which is worse than Jewish and worse than Popish.
Thomas 1 acts the part of John, 2 the monster of Leyden.
I foresee London making a cage for him.
I foresee Mr Peters, 3 the ape of Knipperdollingh's 4 gang,
Hung, if not by the English, then by the Scotch.)
At the assassination of Isaak Dorislaar at the Hague a verse libel was published Epitaphium van Dr I. Dorislaer, attributed to Vondel,
1 Thomas Fairfax, the Parliamentary general and commander-in-chief during the Civil War — 2 John of Leyden, the well-known 'king' of the Münster Anabaptists, whose body was exposed, after his execution, in an iron cage — 8 Hugh Peters, once a clergyman of the English Church at Rotterdam, who played a prominent part in English colonial politics, and during the Commonwealth acted as a kind of official war-correspondent to Gromwell and Fairfax, and filled several other important offices at that time. He was executed in 1660, and for three centuries his name has rarely been mentioned except in terms of infamy — 4 Knipperdollingh, the notorious colleague of John of Leyden, whose stadtholder, chief justice, and headsman he was.



but this piece, too, is rejected by J. van Lennep on the score of the paltry verse.
The f all of Montrose (1650) seems to have extinguished Vondel s hope that the rightful cause would win. He signs his poem Grafnaelt van Montrose with the words "Sat pratriae Priamoque datum", the words by which the shade of Hector urges Aeneas to flight (Aen. II, 291), telling hun that "there has been enough of fighting for the King and country" and that further .exertion will be useless. Yet "faithfubaess keeps its worth and value".
In his De Pinxterbloem van Schotlant (The Cuckoo-flower of Scotland) Vondel expressed his horror of the part played in the revolution by the Scots. The Scottish Judas grows worse and worse. First he sold and rendered up the Father. Then — ref erring to the acceptance of Charles II. as their King and to the poor results — he crowned the Son with a crown of thistles and crucified him. In allusion to the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, Vondel says that the spirit of this reformation was first hid in mist, but then alighted on the heads of the purified Scots in the form of an owl. Then all those fools feil to prophesying and so ruined Churchc and crown, which was the final act of the farce.
Of the tension that preceded and the political enmity that flamed up at the outbreak of the first Anglo-Dutch war, little appears in Vondel's poetry. Only when he wrote his panegyric on Maarten Harpertz. Tromp after the three days' battle (Febr. 1653), did he again find occasion to hurl his invectives at that damnable brood. He ref ers to the English in his dirges on the deaths of the admirals Van Galen and Tromp in a similar manner. Cromwell is called the "King's scourge", in imitation of Attila's cognomen, and "the Turk of the English Barbary", and again "the curse of his people"; his followers are "janissaries", "dust-grown, upstart Giants".
A picture of Charles II. called forth some lines of verse dated Dec. 1653 by Unger. i The king is in armour to break open the monster's mouth and rob it of its spoil. Why is the crown missing? He is going to fetch it with his sword.
The time was not propitious to the poet, for in the same month Cromwell was made Protector. The event was celebrated by Vondel in one of the most biting satires he ever wrote: Protecteur Weerwolf.
1 op. cit. J. van Lennep and J. van Vloten mention the year 1660.



Milord Isegrim, van den boozen Geest beseten, Had den goeden Herder de keel afgebeten; Nu wort hem de Kudde, die dus langh ging dooien, En de Stal met Schapen, en Boeken bevolen, Hy bewaert de Vieysch-hal en Bjjl met sijn
Vleyschhouwers Honden, Aen hun hoofden met Halsbanden als Rekels ghebonden, Hy mach de Schapen scheeren, villen en stroopen, Lardeeren, braden, en met hun eyghen vet bedroopen. Hy ontfanght, in spijt van Blinden en Sienden, Costuymen, en Schipgheldt, Vrybuyt-gheldt en thienden.
Maer als hy uit syn Bybel begint te spreken, Dan hoortmen de Duyvel de Passi preken: Dan kan hy quylen, en Verckenstranen huylen, By heele plassen, daer Kokedrillen in schuylen. Och arme Gentelmans, beschreyt uw oude sonden; Nu wort u de Staert eerst te deegh opghebonden. Ghy bruyde Koningh Karei, zoo na, als veur: Nu bruyt u een Schrobber, een Protecteur.
(My lord Isegrim, possessed of the deviL
Had bitten the good Shepherd's throat.
Now the flock, which so far was wandering about,
Has been committed to his charge.
He guards the slaughter-house and axe with his buther's dogs;
And their heads are collared like those of curs.
He may shear the sheep and strip them of their skins,
Lard and roast and baste them in their own fat.
He receives, in spite of the blind and the seeing,
All duties and taxes.
But if he begins to preach from the Bible,' Then you hear the devil quoting scripture. Then he can drivel and weep pig's tears, Making pools big enough for crocodiles to hide in. Ah, poor gentlemen, repent your sins; Now your tails will be properly tied up. You smote King Charles again and again, Now you'U be smitten by a scourer, a Protector.)



In the same year Vondel wrote his greatest tragedy Lucifer, and though it cannot be maintained that this, too, is a political drama, the events in England had certainly directed his thoughts to the idea of revolution, the root of which he saw in that first great revolt of Satan against the Almighty. He meant it to be a warning and mirror for all ambition and envy.1
Perhaps it is best to mention here the names of the other poets that ref er to English affairs in their works. More than their names it is hardly necessary to mention, as the poems are generally below Vondel's level. Two things are very important; firstly, that after 1649 no protesting voices seem to have been raised against the fierce denunciations in Holland of the EngUsh Puritans, and secondly that in this respect people agreed who in other respects were utter opponents.
Of the lesser poets we may mention Jan van der Veen, an apothecary at Deventer, who had acquired some f ame by the publication of a book of emblems in 1642, and who published in 1653 along with a number of riddles a Nickers-Praatje (devil's chat) on the affairs of England. Several devils come up from heil boasting how they have made a mess of things in Great Britain, culminating in the impending war between the two Protestant nations. Jan Zoet, who has been called a satirist by profession, 2 did not neglect such a fine subject as England then afforded. In the edition of his collected poems: dUitsteekenste Digt-kunstige Werkken door Jan Zoet, Amsterdammer (the excellent poetical works of Jan Zoet, inhabitant of Amsterdam) we find many on this subject: Cromwell, Fairfax, and Dorislaer have their character and fate commented upon, generally in connection with Satan and Heil. Jan Vos, too, the famous representative of the Romantic drama and, as such, an antagonist of Vondel, denounced Cromwell, whom he called a tiger in human form. We might further mention Jan Dulleart, apparently related to Heiman Dullaert, whose tragedy Karei Stuart of Rampzalige Majesteit (Charles Stuart, or Wretched Majesty) was written in 1652 and seems to have reappeared on the stage in times of stained relations between the two countries, as in 1672. 3 But it is hardly necessary to continue, as it is perfectly
1 See his poem Op Mijne schilderij toen Goverl Flink mij uitschilderde.
cf. J. te Winkel, op. cit. IV, p. 256ff. — 2 J. te Winkel, op. cit. III, p. 525ff. — » ib. IV, p. 268.



clear from these pieces how strong popular feeling was and which
side it took. ,
We have so far discussed the principles that lie at the root of the Dutch Republic, how these ideas were realized in actual politics, and finaUy the sentiments that prevailed in the Netherlands at the time of the EngUsh Civil War. If we now consider the impression Milton's Defensio was bound to make upon the Dutch, we reahze that no section of the nation could welcome the book unreservedly. The Calvinistic body could not but sympathize with Milton's appeal to the Calvinistic doctrine of the right of resistance, just as later on they sympathized with Jurieu's Lettres pastorales, which strengthened the French Huguenots in their struggle with Louis XIV. But then the problem itseU was of no interest to them. Their Prince was in their eyes the opposite of a tyrant, he was the defender of the true f aith and their rights against the threatening oppression of the growing ohgarchy. The slighting way in which Milton referred to Wiltiam II. > hurt them deeply, and strengthened their indignation at the execution of WilUam's father-in-law. For though they admitted the correctness of Milton's starting-point, they found fault with Milton's arbitrary restriction of the 'inferior magistrates' to a mutilated ParUament and they utterly condemned he procedure against the King. The cry "Now it is clear what it means to be Independent!" * at once indicates their strong aversion and the difference that was feit to exist between English Puritans and Dutch Protestants, though Milton's ecclesiastical ideas were nearer related to those of the Dutch Calvinists than to those of the repubUcan party, who favoured State control of the Church. Indeed, though Milton addressed the latter party again and again, there was but Uttle in the Defensio that appealed to them. They shared Milton's opinion about the Prince of Orange and might have appreciated his passionate defence of the authority of ParUament, but for Milton's democratie leanings. As we have seen they feared democracy even more than monarohy. Thus we may concl<fude that, however much similarity there might be between the original principles of the Dutch BepubUc and those of the English Commonwealth, the later history of the RepubUc was such that no sympathetic response could be wakened there to the defence of the proceedings against a king. The publication of
1 cf. p. 30 — * see p. 42.



the Defensio caused some commotion in Holland, but it was only of a sensational nature. No lasting interest was roused. On the contrary, the difference between the two republics, the one democratie and, later on, dictatorial, the other in germ monarchical, was emphasized by it. We may even say that Holland's attitude to the English Civil War proves the close affinity of the Dutch and English political ideas. The Commonwealth was as un-Dutch as it was unEnglish.



individual is rebellion against the Most High and therefore sin. True independence is to be found only in dependence on God.1
If we wish to understand what Milton understood under the term reason, and why he attached such importance to it, we have to start from his conception of man's fall and redemption. One of the consequences of man's sin is 'spiritual death', by which is meant the loss of divine grace and innate righteousness, wherein man in the beginning lived unto God. This death comprises the loss, or at least the obscuration to a great extent of that right reason which enabled man to discern the chief good, and in which consisted as it were the life of the understanding. They who are delivered from this death are said to be regenerated, to be bom again and to be created afresh.* Hence the regeneration of man implies the restoration of his understanding. s The regenerated man is ingrafted in Christ, the effects of which are newness of life and increase. The primary functions of the new life are comprehension of Spiritual things and love of holiness. And as the power of exercising these functions was weakened and in a manner destroyed by the spiritual death, so is the understanding restored in a great part to its primitive clearness, and the will to its primitive liberty, by the new spiritual life in Christ.4 In the present life, however, we can only attain to an imperfect comprehension of spiritual things. 5
Now it is clear that Milton was convinced of his own regeneration and ingrafting in Christ. Hence his firm belief that he could trust his understanding, his reason, in spiritual things. If we further bear in mind that Milton addresses himself exclusively to "those who profess the Christian faith throughout the world," it is clear that, unless stated otherwise, 'reason' in De Doctriana Christian has a limited meaning: the regenerated reason of a believer.
His way of reasoning seems to have been as follows. Not one can have right thoughts of God with nature or reason alone as his guide, independent of the word, or message of God. e God has revealed himself in the Scriptures, which, however, have come down to us in a corrupted form, especially the New Testament. Hence the Old Testament is in a way more trustworthy than the New Testament. But on the other hand the New Testament is of more importance to
i W J. Aalders. Grond der Zedelijkheid, Groningen, 1930, p. 233ff. — 8 Bohn, IV, p. 265 — 8 ib. p. 329 — 4 ib. p. 343 — 8 ib. p. 344 — 6 ib. p. 16.



us, as it is the chief authority for our faith. i Apart from corruptions there can be no contradictions in the Bible, the whole being inspired by God. Difficult passages should be explained from analogy: what is obscure must be illustrated by what is clear. 2 This process is the work of reason. 3 Now Milton is f ully convinced that the Christian creed as it has been revealed in the Bible cannot be unreasonable, though it may be above reason. If there is anything in the accepted Protestant creeds which to Milton seems unreasonable, he compares it with what the Bible says on the subject, and tries to deduce from this a more reasonable solution. Why should we, on the strength of our own reasoning, though in opposition to reason itself, accept an unreasonable doctrine if it can be helped?4 Hence frequent assertions such as "reasons rejects the doctrine, Scripture nowhere asserts it." 6 In some cases Milton does not see a solution, the words of the Bible are clear, yet not to be grasped by human understanding. In that case Milton says: "let us then discard reason in sacred matters."6 And it is also possible that the Scriptures are vague on points where the protestant creeds are outspoken. In this case Milton says we must be content to leave undetermined a point on which the sacred writers have preserved so uniform a silence. 7
However much the results to which Milton comes may deviate from what is generally accepted in Protestantism, this system is genuinely Protestant, we may even say Calvinistic. The great Reformers and Reformed Churched do not rej eet all Church tradition — nor did Milton: he assiduously studied the works of the Fathers and of contemporary divines, — but they accept tradition only in so far as it is based on the Bible. "The Reformation does not acknowledge any truth but on the authority of God in Holy Writ." 3 The creed of the church is fallible, between Scripture and dogma stands the 'ratio fidelis', 9 Scripture being, moreover, "lost in its autographa, corrupt in its apographa and defective in its translations."10 In case of difference of opinion, the possibility of which from a Protestant point of view can never be denied, Church and creed must yield to the Scriptures.11 As there is no infallible interpretation of God's Word, every person has been given the liberty by Christ to understand that Word for himself as he sees
1 Bohn, IV, p. 449 — 2 ib. p. 54 — 8 ib. p. 62 — 4 ib. p. 93 — 5 ib. p. 110, cf. p. 39, 86, 95, 132, 178, 415 — 6 ib. p. 87, cf. 92 — 7 ib. p. 151, cf. p. 158, 289 — 8 Bavinck, op. cit., I, p. 5 — 9 ib. p. 25 — 10 ib. p. 465 — 11 ib. p. 72.



destinated to eternal salvation those who should believe and continue in the faith. Predestination is only to be taken in the sense of election, not of reprobation;1 reprobation forms no part óf what is meant by the divine predestination.2 There is no particular predestination or election, but only general; the privilege belongs to all who sincerely believe and continue in their belief. The general decree of election becomes personally applicable to each particular believer, and is ratified to all who remain steadfast in the faith. 3 This implies a certain freedom of will in man. God has predestinated from eternity all those who should believe and continue in the faith; hence it follows that none can be reprobated, except they do not believe or continue in the faith, and even this rather as a consequence than a decree; there can therefore be no reprobation of individuals from all eternity.4 The reprobation of unbelievers lies not so much in the divine will, as in the obstinacy of their own minds; nor is it the decree of God, but rather of the reprobate themselves, by their refusal to reprent while it is in their power. &
This point of view is the same as that which the Arminians held, whom Milton cites approvingly in a later passage.»
4 - Baptism
Milton gives the following definition: Baptism is the sacrament, wherein the bodies of believers who engage themselves to pureness of life, are immersed in running water, to signify their regeneration by the Holy Spirit and their union with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection. It follows that infants should not be baptized. 7
Milton in this respect sides with the Mennonites and Baptists.
5 - The Church
The universal visible church comprises the elect all over the world, both those that are united in churches and those that are not, for, although it is the duty of believers to join themselves, if possible, to a church, yet such as cannot do this conveniently, or with full satisfaction of conscience, are not to be considered as excluded from the blessing bestowed by God on the churches. > A particular church is a society of persons professing the faith, united by a special bond
* Bohn, IV, p. 43 — 8 ib. p. 47 — » ib. p. 49, 50 — ,4 ib. p. 64 ib. p. 70 — « ib. p. 375 — 7 ib. p. 404-5 — 8 ib. p. 429-30.



of course mentions a great many English names, generally with some slight identification of the persons. The interesting point in this connection is the abrupt mention of Milton in the midst of them, apparently as a man who needed no introduction in Dutch circles. It is the Milton of the divorce tracts who is mentioned here.1 The author took the data for his survey from Thomas Edwards's Gangraena, one of the pamphlets meant to exposé "the jangle of conflicting creeds" in Puritan England (1646).2 The puzzling intricacy of the state of affairs in England to the average Dutchman is shown by the words in which Becker concludes the discussion of England in his augmented edition: everything, he says, is too confused and entangled to permit of systematic treatment.
Hornius' writings still seem to have some authority at the end of the 17th century, for H. L. Benthem gives as one of the reasons why he wrote his Engelandischer Kirch- und Schulen-Staat (Lüneburg, 1694, p. 356), that he wanted to correct Hornius' biassed picture of ecclesiastical England, Hornius being a Presbyterian. Althóugh Sepp, a nineteenth century historian of the Dutch church refers to Hornius' works slightingly as "superficial historical surveys", 3 they must have helped to spread some knowledge of EngUsh church-matters in Holland.
Of more importance is the fact that Gisbertus Voetius (1585—1676), the celebrated professor at Utrecht and he champion of the old stern Calvinistic creed, was greatly influenced by Teellinck and his writings. He translated several EngUsh reUgious books and in 1636 made a trip to England with his son to study Puritan ideas. He met several divines whom he already knew from their works, and returned to Holland greatly enriched in mind. In a preface to the works of W. TeelUnck, dating from 1631, he mentions the names of Perkins, P. Bayne, Daniël Dyke, Preston, Bobert Bolton, Amesius and John Downame among the writers of works dealing with practical religion, rating W. Teellinck highest, however, as "a second, but reformed Thomas a Kempis." An extract of Voetius' lectures on "exercitia p^etatis" was published soon after their delivery and so eagérly 1 Kerkelycke Historie, van de Scheppinge des Werelt, tot 't Jaer des Heeren 1666, p. 305: Milton maekt het enckele believen van een Man / sonder schuit van sijn Vrouw / of kennisse van den Rechter / voor een genoegsaeme oorsaecke van haer te verlaten — a Cambridge History of English Literature, Vol. VH, p. 386 — 3 C. Sepp. Het Godgeleerd Onderwijs in Nederland, gedurende de 16e en 17e eeuw, Leiden, 1874, II, p. 434.



sought after that his colleague Hoornbeeck undertook to translate it into Dutch. In the meantime Voetius enlarged the Latin original until it became a "complete and elaborate handbook of evangelical ascetism", in which the mystics of the middle ages as well as the EngUsh and Dutch pietistical authors are discussed.1
Johann Hoornbeeck (1617—1666), who, after having been a professor of Theology in Utrecht for ten years, went to Leyden University in 1654, took the same views as his older colleague and friend Voetius. He, too, took an interest in English divines and EngUsh churchmatters, as is clear from the discussion of the Brownists in his Summa Controversiarum Religionis (1653). EngUsh is one of the thirteen languages he understood and he proves to have been well up in EngUsh religious Uterature. EngUsh influence is also perceptible in his Theologia Practica (1663),2 in which he indeed explicitly states the influence of EngUsh theólogians upon their Dutch colleagues. Though he does not forget to mention the shortcomings of the EngUsh scholars, he admits that he had greatly profited by their moratistic works, which ranked highest at that time and had been equaUed by the Dutch only quite recently, thanks to EngUsh example. 3 Hoornbeeck was here undoubtedly thinking of TeelUnck, and further of Lodenstein, Koelman, W. a Brakel.
1 H. Heppe, op. cit., p. 150ff. — 8 C. Sepp, op. cit., p. 404-5.
The statement in the Biographisch Woordenboek van Proteslantsche Godgeleerden in Nederland that Hoornbeeck's Theologia practica was nearly printed at the author's death, is not quite true. The first volume was published in 1663, as is indicated on the titlepage, for it is mentioned by V. van Deurn in 1664 in the pref ace to a translation of an English sermon (see p. 209) — 3 op. cit. I, p. 25ff.:
Hactenus Angli, in excolendo doctrinae genere Practico, tulerunt primas, quorum laudatissima aliquot scripta haud inutiliter sumus perscrutati, imprimis ad deprehendendam methodum vel clavem tractandi argumentum aliquod practice, in quo prae aliis felices habentur, nee immeritó, memores dicti ejus, quod in Medicis Sennertus laudat, praefat. ad libros de Febribus, ex Hier. Capivaccio, dicere eum solitum, lege meam methodum, & habebis mea secreta. Quem quoque in finem utilis lectu est Rev. viri Casp. Stresonis, Amici nostri, Technologia Theologica.
Jam verö tam feliciter video a nonnullis nostrüm castra illa frequentata, ut parum vel nihil illis cedere cogantur: eaque quotidie Nostratium in praxi scripta prodire, quae minus necessariam arguant illorum operam, quin a suis doceri & juvari nunc nostri queant, ultra mare illo studio non improsperè traducto & accepto.
Habent & vitia sua Angli, dum vel nimis minutum & scrupulose multa



English. This famous book, which appeared in 1678, was translated into Dutch as early as 1682, whereas the first French translation dates from 1685, and the German version had to wait till 1703.1 The Pilgrim's Progress, in the beginning, appealed chiefly to the lower classes, and it was to cater for the spiritual needs of these classes, for the people that came to conventicles for mental stimulus, that all these EngUsh sermons and treatises were translated. In these circles Bunyan's religious allegory was heartily welcomed, Milton's learned and less directly religious epic remained unknown.
We turn, lastly, to glance at the spirit of toleration that was beraming prevalent in the early 18th century. The many heated theological controversies, together with an increasing beUef in the infallibility of human reason, gave rise to an optimistic, rational attitude towards life, averse from the stern qualities of Christendom. The resulting toleration was to a great exterit the outcome of religious indifferentism, hence quite different in origin from Milton's toleration, which was based upon the sacredness of the individual soul. Of the many sides of this rising rationaüsm the most important to us is perhaps Bekker's struggle against superstition. His famous book De Betooverde Wereld (1691, 1693) was a thorough-going attack against the belief in witches, witchcraft, demons, and the devil himself. The Bible is quoted to prove that Satan, the originator of Man's fall, is chained in Heil by God, and that he and his damned crew can no longer trouble man:2 Man's fall, as described in Genesis, must be taken figuratively. Only one thing is certain: Satan was the cause of man's fall, as appears from the statements of Christ, but how it actually happened is quite unknow to us, and it is useless to try to understand what God has hidden for us. 3 As is well known, this book raised a storm of protests among the churchmen and cost Bekker his benefice, but among the intellectual part of the people he found an ever-increasing number of adherents. In these circles no genuine interest was to be expected for Milton's elaborate conception of Man's great foe, who to Milton was such a terrible reatity. Among men such as these, we might expect only cold surprise that so foolish a subject should be treated seriously.
The general outlook upon life in Paradise Lost is evidently not optimistic. Yet is cannot quite be called pessimistic, though the power
i John Brown. John Bunyan, II, p. 238 — 8 op. cit., p. 206 — 3 ib. p. 208-9.



of evil is considered great on earth and its consequences terrible. A belief in life and the redemption of life breathes through the poem, and this makes it genuinely Christian. We certainly do not hear any echo of the words, "Whatever is, is right", but neither do we hear the opposite, "Whatever is, is wrong"; it is rather the intermediate position, "What is, can be made right".1 The importance of this will be realized, when we remember that the philosophical outlook of the 18th century was optimistic. This must certainly have influenced the interest taken in Paradise Lost.
It is clear from the foregoing that in every respect the state of religious opinion in Holland was unfavourable to the reception and acknowledgement of Milton in this country. The great stumbling block was Protestant scholasticism both in its action and reaction. In the eyes of some, Milton was too much of a heretic, in the eyes of others, too much of an orthodox Christian.
1 Cf. E. Stanley Jones. Christ at the Round Table, p. 93.



It is an almost hackneyed assertion that the astonishingly rapid growth of Dutch trade at the end of the 16th and the bepnning of üie 17th century, which resutted in this trade being superior to that of all the rest of Europe taken together, i is chiefly due to negative causes. The surrounding countries were prevented by internal causes from availing themselves of the incre&sing trade poMibüities - a 'laisser-faire' poticy in favour of the Dutch, unexampled in history^ But negative causes alone cannot have such a result: the all but complete abstinence from trade expansion in other countries could have been of no use to the Dutch if they had not possessed posiüve qualities to enable them to prof it by their neighbours neglect « And öiis grówth of Dutch trade was not in the last place due to an extensive knowledge of foreign language.4 Dr H. C. Diferee tiunks that the voyages of the sons of wealthy merchants in the 17th century were not only for the purpose of general education and extension of Utérary knowledge, but especiaÜy for the acquisiüon of languages. It was highly necessary for a merchant in the 16th and üie beginmng of le 17tii century to learn EngUsh, German, sufficiënt French and
ItaThen poUtical history of the Low Countries was favourable to this acquisition of foreign languages. e The rise and ^vetopment^of the commercial town in these regions date from their joinmg the Hanseatic League and the gradual extension of their commerciia relations with England. Affinity of languages may have determined which part of the country specially applied itself to ^ trade witii England, and which to the trade with the Baltic. EngUsh trade was duefly èentred in Friesland, Zealand and Flanders whereas the other commercial towns favoured the German and Northern seaports. In the case of Zealand and Flanders this preference was of couree due to geographical position, In the case of Friesland there III 's Gravenhage, 1901-4, p. 8, 22, 61. C. Höweler, Inleiding tot de Muziek-
iSTÏ?lT r™SJ^2*Z Nederlandsen Handel.
perk,
p. 138.



were undoubtedly linguistic ties which account for the trade connections.1
In the second half of the 17th century, relations with England changed. From a country with which profitable trade connections could be made, England became Holland's most formidable compefitor. Up till the year 1674, the year in which the principle of arbitration was accepted, 2 this economical struggle between the two countries continued, occasioning the three well-known Anglo-Dutch wars. In consequence of all this, the economie importance of the English language to the Dutch inevitably decreased. Even when the study of the rival's language was necessary, it could hardly have been carried on 'con amore'. We find, quite naturally, indications of mutual contempt for each other's language. Such English expressions as 'doublé Dutch' date from the beginning of the 17th century and in the Elizabethan dramas mentioned above, Dutch is of course represented as ugly. In William Haughton's A Woman will have her wil (1,1) there is the following passage:
Frisco. "O this is nothing, for I can speak perfect Dutch when I list."
Pisaro. "Can you? I pray let's hear some."
Frisco. "Nay, I must have my mouth full of meat first, and then you shall hear me grumble it forth full-mouth; as, haunce, butterkin, slowpin, frokin. O, I am a simple Dutchman." 3
The Dutch however were not backward in this respect. Van Meteren (1535—1612), who spent the greater part of his life in England and was for thirty years chief or consul of the Dutch merchants in London, and who is important as a historian even nowadays, called the
1 In the book of travels by Von Uffenbach mentioned above, we read again and again how people were aware of the fact that English and Frisian are cognate languages (op. cit., II, p. 317, 345). In this connection one thinks of Franciscus Junius, who visited the Frisian poet Gysbert Japicx about the year 1648 and stayed for several months in Friesland to study the language. (J. Haantjes, Gysbert Japicx, Amsterdam, 1929, p. 258). Then there is the poet Starter (1594—1628?), an Englishman by birth, who settled at Leeuwarden in 1614. Starter lived and worked in Leeuwarden and Franeker till 1621 and may have been attracted to these parts of Holland by the trade-relations. At any rate he highly esteemed Friesland, even wrote in Frisian, and made much of the affinity between the English and Frisians, even going to the length of asserting that men "of the noble Frisian race conquered all England with their lord Engisto" (J. te Winkel, op. cit., III, p. 202) — 2 H. C. Diferee, Ons Glanstijdperk, p. 154ff. — » J. Huizinga, op. cit., p. 229.



English language "broken Dutch (i.e. Germanic) estranged and mixed up with French and British phrases and words."1 Presently we shall meet with a similar statement.2
In consequence of the decreased importance of English trade and the contempt of the English language, the use of English in Holland was not so great as is generally supposed. The trade between England and Holland seems never to have been of great importance,» and besides by far the greater part of that trade was in the hands of the Dutch: it was not till 1740 that England's share was equal to that of Holland.4 English trade to Holland, such as it was, centred chiefly in the Fellowship of the Merchant Adventurers, a guüd of merchants which had the monopoly of woollen f abrics.5 This company, which dated from the middle ages, settled in 1582 at Middelburg, and in 1598 this town became the sole staple of the continent. In 1668 the Fellowship lost its charter, but long before that time it had diminished in importance through the mercantile policy in England and Holland. The removal of the Merchant Adventurers to Rotterdam in 1635 was the making of the town as a whole-sale port and their removal to Dordrecht in 1655 was considered as a great loss. But English trade did not leave the town; after the departure of the Fellowship, Rotterdam became the town of the interlopers (smugglers of English cloths) and in 1682 a possible return of the Adventurers was strongly opposed. A petition to the Town-council said that twelve times as many ships with woollen fabrics arrived in Rotterdam as in all other Dutch ports together. Rotterdam had become and remained the chief staple of English trade to the United Provinces.
As has already been said, it was not until 1655 that the EngUsh language was used by the Merchant Adventurers in their correspondence with the Dutch authorities. Before that, contracts were drawn up and the correspondence carried on in Latin, French or Dutch.« From other sources too it seems that, with the growth of England's
* Van Meteren, Historie der Nederlandsche en haerder Naburen oorlogen, 1652? and 1663 folio, folio 244 recto, quoted by Diferee, Geschiedenis van den Nederlandschen Handel, p. 139: „ghebroken Duyts, vervreemt en vermengt met Fransche en Brittaensche termen ende woorden" — a See p. 110 — H. U Diferee, Ons Glanstijdperk, p. 85 - 4 ibid., p. 156 - 6 See for the Merchant Adventurers: C. te Lintum, De Merchant Adventurers in de Nederlanden, 's Gravenhage, 1905 - •ibid. pp. 40,45, 46, 55,75,105,162,186,187,190,198, 202.



political importance, the English began to insist on the use of their own language. L. van Aitzema tells us that in 1644 a Dutch embassy to the English parliament attempted to use French, but were not allowed to do so, though they pointed out that the King and their masters had always used French. The discussion, which took a whole session, was ended by the agreement that both parties should use their own language. In 1660 the embassadors of the United Provinces to Charles II, who spoke French, were told that not all present understood that language and that, therefore, they should either bring some one who understood English or use a common language like Latin. One of the ambassadors than interpreted the French into English. i From this time onward we may assume a gradual increase of the knowledge of English and it is clear that Rotterdam profited by it most, especially after 1674, when the trade wars had come to an end. Rotterdam however was not a centre of culture and hence, from a literary point of view, this knowledge of English could not be of great importance.
But though trade as such proves to have been of little importance in spreading the knowledge of EngUsh, indirecüy it had some influence in that respect.
The EngUshman abroad does not neglect his reUgious duües, but insists on having divine service either in the English church or where there is none in some improvised way. From an early time English churches were built wherever there were English soldiers and traders. These churches were protected and supported by the Dutch Government and, of course, they were so many sources from which a knowledge of English language, life, reUgion and literature was diffused. A third great contingent of English religious people came into Holland with the various persecutions in England. These people too erected their places of worship and were protected and often cónsiderably helped by the Dutch Government and local authorities. Throughout the 17th century English congregations sprang up all over Holland. The state of affairs in Holland, with the general character of the Englishmen who settled here, led to most of the churches being Presbyterian. The following survey will bring home to us the extent of the religious contact between the two nations.2
In Zealand there were three towns where English congregations * L. van Aitzema, op. cit., V, p. 739, IX, p. 903-4 - » W. Steven. The History of the Scottish Church, Rotterdam, Edinburgh, 1833.



existed, all in consequence of the trade-connections between the two countries. These were Campvere (or Vere), Flushing and Middelburg. The Marchant in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, we are told, traded to Middelburg. * From the middle of- the 15th century there subsisted between Scotland and the ancient town of Campvere an almost uninterrupted commercial intercourse. In the year 1587 we read of the plan to erect a church and appoint a minister. In 1641 this congregation was recognized a component part of the Church of Scotland by the General Assembly. A continuous list of ministers exists from 1613 up till 1790.
In Flushing a church for the British troops was built by the Dutch Government in 1586. The names of the Episcopalian chaplains have not come down to us, but before the year 1610 a Presbyterian Scotchman acted in the capacity of minister. He continued to preach in the Garrison church to the British merchants, artificers, and mariners, after the departure of the troops in 1616. In he year 1645 this church, with the English church of Middelburg, was incorporated with the Classis of Walcheren of the Dutch Reformed Church. Among the ministers, the list of whom is known from 1610, there are several persons who were Dutchmen by birth. We find for instance the above-mentioned Maximilian Teellinck, and in the Sessional Register several entries, inserted by another Dutchman, teil us how in the years 1666, 1667 in the English church the help of God almighty was called in for the Dutch fleet against their. English enemies and thanksgiving was made for the great success on the Thames.
Middelburg in its tum could boast of no fewer than three English congregations. First of all there was the Church of England. In 1571 Thomas Cartwright, the celebrated Cambridge professor and puritan leader, came from Antwerp to Middelburg as niinister to the English merchants. He and his successors were chaplains to the English society of the Merchant Adventurers, who settled at Middelburg from 1582 to 1621,2 when the trading society, and the congregation too, of course, went to Delft. Existing side by side with the English church was an important body, the first Brownist congregation. In 1588 the magistrates permitted Robert Browne, the founder of the sect, and his followers to open a place of worship. Though this congregation did not flóurish at first, the number of Brownists much increased after i G. Chaucer. The Canterbury Tales, The Prologue, 1. 276 — 8 The dates given by Steven are not correct.



1595. The greater proportion of the works written by the Brownists • issued originally from the Middelburg press. In all probability this religious sect existed in this town till the end of the 17th century.
Along with these two, there was the Church of Scotland, which is believed to have been founded in 1611. This church was greatly helped by Willem Teellinck; his son John acted for a short time as minister of the church.
The incorporation of the English churches at Flushing and at Middelburg as members of the Classis of Walcheren, brought the . clergymen into closer contact with their Dutch colleagues, however independent the English churches may have remained as such. The ministers, with a few exceptions, came mostly from Scotland.
Two centres of trade may be distinguished in Holland: Rotterdam and its surrounding towns Brill, Delft, and Dordrecht in the south; Amsterdam and Haarlem in the north. We further find English communities in the University town of Leyden and in the seat of Government, The Hague. A glance at each of these places shows that in the principal towns of Holland there was ample opportunity for theologians to come into contact with Englishmen.
At a very early period many English and Scotch people availed themselves of the peculiar advantages which Brill offered for trade and one of its longest streets was wholly inhabited by Scotch merchants. With the decline of the town, however, the congregation gradually dissolved; about the close of the 17th century a petition for a regular ecclesiastical endowment was refused by the States of the province.
In the course of the 14th century several British merchants settled at Delft and later on it was occasionally a garrison town also. A regular English community, however, dates from the arrival of the Merchant Adventurers in 1621 and there remained a congregation even after the removal of this trading-company. From the very beginning the church seems to have been closely connected with the Church of Scotland, as.is evident from its ministers. In 1724 this church was suppressed in consequence of there being very few members, and those few perfectly acquainted with the Dutch language The EngUsh and Scotch representatives at the National Synod at Dordrecht paved the way for the institution oi: *e "Presbyterian of ordinary EngUsh congregation in Dort.» (1623) Up till this, the British residents had had a temporary supply from the chaplain



German introduced into them and then apparently only occasionally. There seem to have been 'English schools', too, and we have already mentioned one,» but it is hardly possible to get any idea of what was taught at them. Those French, English, and German schools, most of them in part boarding schools, were private institutions, hence there are no official reports of them.2 Both the treatment
1 see p. 97 — 2 The question of the instruction of modern languages in Holland has not yet been adequately treated. For the 17th and 18th century the field is entirely unexplored, except as far as French is concerned (K. J. Riemens, op. cit.). For the 19th century we find much in G. Bolkestein, De Voorgeschiedenis van het Middelbaar Onderwijs, 1796—1863, Amersfoort 1914. There we see that throughout the French period (1796—1813) attempts were made to construct a modern humanitarian school. Again and again we read of the importance of the modern languages, but we have to wait till 1832 for the first endeavours to give practical form to these wishes, attempts which finally led to the establishment of the so-called 'Hoogere Burger Scholen (1863). The period 1832—1863 is specially interesting to get an idea of the former state of affairs, because in those days pamphlets were published which describe the then state of affairs and the necessary improvements. We may assume that before that time the condition of Scholastic education was rather worse than better.
The following pamphlets and articles may be mentioned:
a - A. J. Vitringa, Tegenwoordige Toestand en Plan tot Hervorming van het
Middelbare Onderwijs, Arnhem, 1860. b - H. Riedel, Het Middelbaar Onderwijs, Tijdspiegel, 1862. c - D. J. Séyn Parvé, Overzicht van de Hoogere Burgerscholen en Burgerscholen, bij het einde van 1868, De Economist, 1869. d - Staatkundig en Staathuishoudkundig Jaarboekje voor 1865, Amsterdam. A. J. Vitringa is of opinion that the modern languages, though deficiënt if compared with the classieal languages in providing exercise for the intellect, are superior as to the development of the mind. But if they were to yield that profit, modern languages should no longer be learned and taught for the sake of practical use for conversational and corresponding purposes, as they were at the French schools. He criticizes the last mentioned institutions very severely: the pupils learned hardly anything. Neither does he think much of the Latin schools, which suffered from the great number of small schools. Concentration would lead to greater efficiency and to the abolition of the ridiculously small schools such as were to be found in Friesland especially. Then there were those grammar schools that had got a second department, where mathematics and modern languages were taught. There were only 25 of these schools in 1860. The first were formed in 1838 (a. p. 181), but these institutions did not flourish, as parents did not trust them because they were practically mere appendices to the grammar schools. Hence they still preferred one of the numerous private schools where mathematics and modern languages were taught. How great this number was is clear from the fact that, apart



and instruction of the boys seem very often to have been bad. The teachers in modern languages were in many cases foreigners and their methods primitive, especially in English and German, these languages being often taught without any grammar, simply by oral reading and translating.
English grammars existed however. As early as 1647 a short grammar appeared as an appendix to an English-Dutch dictionary: A copious English and Netherdutch Dictionarie, Composed out of our best English Authours. With an Appendix of the names of all kind of Beasts, Fovvles, Birds, Fishes, Hunting and Havvking. As also A compendious Grammar for the instruction of the Learner. Het Groot Woordenboek etc. Door Henry Hexham. Tot Rotterdam, Gedruckt by Aernovt Leers, Anno 1647.
The author, who also wrote a book on warfare entitled 77ie Art Militarie, says that this was the first English-Dutch dictionary that had ever appeared. He was an old soldier, who had spent the greater part of his life in the service of the United Provinces, and he had been led to the compilation of this dictii^ry "on account of the many clergymen, students, and other Dutchmen'' who were desirous to learn English at that time.
From a grammar, published in 1664 by a certain Francois Hillenius, we learn that there were many more books of a similar kind. The full title of the book is:
from the French schools, there were in 1858 333 boarding schools in our small country.- Besides there were 691 private teachers (554 gentlemen and 137 lady teachers) of whom the greater part was not connected with any school (a. p. 36). Riedel did not think much of the former methods of these private teachers and he says he had a fifty years' experience. "Many hundreds of pages of Cazelle with words and idiomatic phrases were learned by heart and reams of paper were consumed in writing out conjugations and exercises of Agron, in order to learn French. German and English were generally taught without any grammar by reading and translating orally." (£>. p. 12 verso).
There seem to have been many foreigners among the teachers in modern languages. Though Steyn Parvé proves that there is no reason to talk of an 'influx' of foreigners after 1863, his figures suggest a great many alien elements in the above mentioned class of teachers. The total number of teachers at the secondary schools was 421. Out of these there were 197 for languages, history, political and commercial science. Three fifths of this number we may assume to have taught the three foreign languages approximately, hence about 120. Fifty-two of these, so nearly half of them were foreigners.



Den Engelschen ende Ne'erduitschen Onderrichter, geschikt in Twee Deelen; Van welke 't Eene begrijpt / korte ende Noodtwendige Regelen / tot Onderwijzinge van de Engelsche Sprake, 't Ander, 't Zamen-praatjes / gemeene Redenen / Discoursen / Zend-brieven / en Zin-spreuken; om daar door tot de wetenschap / en 't aanstaan der selve gerieffelijk te komen. — The English, and Low Dutch Instructor, Disposed, in to two Parts: The First, whereof containeth, Brief, and Necessary Rules, for the Instructing of the Dutch Tongue. The Second Common dialogues, Communications, Discourses, Letters, and Sentences readily for to come therby to the knowledge and liking of the same. Francois Hillenius, Rotterdam 1664.
Some lines in a clumsy laudatory poem to "Mr Francois Hillenius, EngUsh and Dutch Schoolmaster, residing at Rotterdam," seem to indicate that the book was in the first place intendedTbr EngUshmen learning Dutch and in the second for Dutchmen learning English. Hillenius tells us in his pref ace that, "though many other books of a similar kind had appeared", he was led to publish his own book for the benefit of his pupils, having been authorized since 1637 by the Magistracy of Rotterdam to keep an English and Dutch school. It might be instructive to learn something more of this schoolmaster, who, according to the laudatory poem, stiU^carried on hls profession in 1664; but nothing further seems to be known of him.
In 1677 another grammar appeared:
Anglo-Belgica, d'Engelsche en Nederdugtsche Academy, in drie deelen. Behelsende de, Naaukeurigste Grammaticale Regelen, Allernuttelijkste Discoursen en Brieven, met een Bondigh Woorden-Boeck, bequaam gemaackt tot het begrijp van allerly soort van Menschen .. door Doctor Edward Richardson, t'Amsterdam lbll.
It contains a grammar for Englishmen learning Dutch and one for Dutchmen learning English, English-Dutch texts in the form of quotations from the Bible and from Epictetus* Enchiridion, proverbs, dialogues, commercial and private letters, and lastly an EngUsh-Dutch dictionary. It is significant of the way in which modern languages were then appreciated that the author, Dr Edward Richardson, repudiates the idea that the compositum of such grammars was beneath the dignity of theologians, appeaUng to the examples of the "highly learned Professor Vossius and the renowned Doctor WalUs a Theologue and Professor in Oxford", adding, "yea also,



learned classes a knowledge of English was an exception again. Hence a reading public for English books did not exist at all. A change for the better is apparent towards the end of the 17th century, but even then an acquaintance with English remained restricted to individual cases. The system of education is at once an explanation and an ilustration, for in this field, too, there is always interaction between supply and demand: English was not taught at schools because peolpe did not require it to be taught there. The explanation of this indifference to the language of the neighbour nation is the conviction of the average Dutchman that his own culture, including literature, was superior to that of England. He was willing, sometimes too willing, to acknowledge the superiority of the Romans and Greeks and of the French and perhaps of the Italian, but the English were inferior.
Thus instead of finding in Holland a nation eager to welcome Milton as a poet, we find a threefold prejudice against him among the Dutch; his politics, his theology, and his very language were so many drawbacks to his reception.
various sermons by J. C Philpot, which were published about 1855 and reprinted several times. (G. A. Wumkes. It Fryske Réveil, Snits, 1911, p. 247-8).



Europa of May and June 1695. When discussing Thomas Pope Blount's De re Poëtica, or remarks upon Poetry (London, 1695) he mentions Milton twice. He says that Thomas Pope Blount is well-known to lovers of books by his fine list of celebrated men: Censura celebriorum auctorum, and he joyfully undertakes the review of this book. Milton also is found among the bright array of authors who are enumerated as praising poetry, though not in a very convincing form: "If Milton, also an Englishman", he says, "may be trusted, Adam and his wife Eve have worshipped God every morning at dawn with songs of praise." At the end of the review Milton (along with Shakespeare) is included among those "English poets who do not interest us Dutchmen very much"! Though Rabus did not regard Milton seriously as a poet, he considered him important as a politician. Official dispatches, quoted by Leti in his La viè d'Olivier Cromwell, he recognized as being by Milton, an edition of whose Letters of State he possessed and esteemed highly "both for the style of the fine pen and for the light it throws on the history of the times in which they were written". (July & August, 1695).
The year 1696 saw the first discussion of Milton's Poetical works on the continent. The Acta Eruditorum of 'that year published a short article on The Poetical Works of John Milton (London, Jacob Tomson, 1695). Though it was rather an exception to discuss the works of an old author, we read, it was done in this case for several reasons. His compatriots considered him by far the greatest among epic poets and as such his genius was recognized by the scholara of Leipzig at any rate, though his fame wat not as yet widely spread. Hence the reviewers thought it due to the admirers of his fame and genius to make mention of him. Paradise Lost is recognized as undoubtedly his greatest poem and its excellence would have been treated at full length but for the above-mentioned general principle. Those who remember the time in which Milton lived, says the reviewer, will find in it a poetical, yet vivid picture of the existing state of affairs.1 The notes given will be welcome, for Milton is rather too lavish with his erudition. Paradise Regained describes "the restoration of the human race" and in Samson Agonistes the
1 These remarks would have stood H. G. Rosdale in good stead in his efforts to make Paradise Lost a political mystification. H. G. Rosedale. Milton: his religion and polemics, ecclesiastical as well as theological. Milton Memorial Lectures 1908, London, 1909.



author portrays "the vicissitudes of Samson, exposed to the mockery ©{ the Philistines". Then follows a mention of various occasional poems now pubUshed for the third time. In this review we find some significant mistakes. In the first place Samson Agonistes is called an heroic poem. It is stated that Milton introduced blank verse into England, where, on account of his example, no versification has been more common of late, especially in drama! Before him, states the reviewer, some Spanish and ItaUan authors had used it, but no Englishman!
Henceforward scarcely a year passed without some reference to Milton. Of great importance is the article on Milton in Bayle's Dictionaire Historique et Critique (Rotterdam, 1697). We have already seen that Bayle was acquainted with Milton's prose writing; this article shows that he was also as well acquainted with his poems as a man ignorant of English could be. It is also worth remembering that Milton was the only EngUsh poet who was discussed in that famous dictionary. It was not as a poet, however, that Milton was discussed in it, it was Milton the "fameux Apologiste du suplice de Charles I". Bayle gives a short life of Milton, such as could be distilled from the author's own writings, adding, as was his wont, notes to amplify certain particulars. Especially these notes are interesting. He dwells on the exact year of the poefs birth, on the calumnies of his enemies, on his writings on divorce, citing Milton's letter to Aitzema. As to Milton's refutation of Salmasius and the rest Bayle admires his Latin and his style, which is vivid and f lorid, but he finds fault with his flippant raillery at the expense of his victims, though he admits that he thus got the laugh on his side. In his last note Bayle discusses Milton's poetry, about which he does not even know whether it was published during his lifetime or not. He discusses Salmasius' criticism of Milton's Latin poetry and mentions the 1645 edition of his poems, Finally he says: "Further, Milton has made two poems in rhymeless verse: one on the temptation of Eve, the other on the temptation of Jesus Christ. The first is entitled Paradise Lost, the second Paradise Regained. The first is said to be one of the most beautiful poems that have been published in EngUsh. The famous poet Dryden has made a drama from it which was much applauded. The other is not nearly so fine, which made some wits remark that MUton could be found in Paradise Lost but not in Paradise Regained. These poems were translated into Latin



blank verse was considered by the Journal Literaire inferior to Fénélon's prose would hardly tend to increase the Dutch appreciation of blank verse. All this throws light on the fact that the first Dutch translation of Milton's Paradise Lost, which was in blank verse, was so soon followed by a rhymed version, which immediately supplanted its predecessor. *
The reviewer summarizes the argument of Paradise Lost in some six pages. Several passages are praised, such as Adam's description of the first sensations after his creation, his first sight of Eve. The critic finds fault with the graphic way in which Milton describes the change that has come about in Adam's and Eve's love after their sin. The description, he thinks, tends more to exite similar desires in the hearts of readers than to instill horror of sin.
Of more importance to us is what the author says of the subject of the poem generally and especially of Milton's peculiar theological opinions in Paradise Lost. As to the first he is very explicit. It seems rather the choice of a madman! "Quand on y considere d'abord le choix du sujet, on croiroit plu tót que cette piéce vient des petites maisons, que du cabinet d'un bon sens admirable." But he admits that he is carried away by the grand way in which the poet has executed his task. "Mais dès qu'on appercoit la maniere dont il est traité, on est obligé de revenir de eet étonnement injurieux a 1'Auteur, & de ne s'étonner plus que de la maniere heureuse dont il a executé un dessein si temeraire, & si inconcevable. Ce sujet est le Paradise perdu, dont PEcriture Sainte nous dit si peu de chose, qu'on court risque de le falsifier en voulant le relever par des ornemens Poëtiques. Et c'est-la un inconvenient terrible qui doit influer sur tout 1'Ouvrage. Cependant on a de la peine a le sentir, tant le raisonnement est étourdi par des beautez continuelles qui 1'occupent trop pour lui permettre aucune autre attention." 2
Thus we see from the very beginning that critics are unable to judge Paradise Lost as a work of art only. The poem is too much 'the precious lifeblood of a master spirit', dealing with the most fundamental problems of life, to allow of a purely aesthetic attitude. To one the subject is too holy to admit of poetical embellishment, to another the story is a mere fable, not worth taking seriously. In the case of Paradise Lost there is more as we have seen. It is not
1 see Chapter VII —
• Journal Literaire, IX, p. 178-9.



with State offices or business, and living independently on his country estate. He wrote an English refutation of the Eikon Basilike, which is in the highest esteem among the Parliamentarians. He has also published some Latin Poems; but they have not yet come into my hands. If I further learn anything certain, I will take care to communicate it to you." 1
This news will have been very welcome, for on the 4th of June, bef ore this letter could have reached him, Vossius writes to Heinsius: "you will also oblige me very much by telling me farther whö and what sort of man this Milton is. Be so good as to send me his Eikonoklastes, if you have it." 2 But the next month Vossius himself is able to give better information about the interesting Englishman. On the 8th of July he writes to Heinsius: "I got information about Milton from my uncle Junius, who is on familiar terms with him. He informed me that Milton is Secretary of Foreign Affairs to the Parliament, skilied in many languages, though not of noble, yet of gentle birth, as it is called, a disciple of Patricius Junius,« amiable, affable, and gifted with many other virtues." *
les clients, et servant d'intermédiaire entre eux et leurs correspondants.' Denmark and Italy are mentioned in this respect: there is no evidence that he ever was in England. In the year 1637-8 he settled in Amsterdam, first as a bookseller, later on also as a printer and soon was at the head of a flourishing establishment. He appears to have been a large-minded man, who did not shrink from publishing books that did not fall in with the popular opinion (e.g. Descartes' works), though it is not possible to infer any special preference from his publications. He printed so notorious a book as the Preadamites, decried by both Roman-Catholics and Protestants, whereas we find among his friends men like Holstenius, who became Roman Catholic again, and people who dreamt of reuniting Roman-Catholics and Protestants such as Grotius and the English theologian John Forbes, one of the Aberdeen Doctors (cf. Masson, Life, I, 715; II, 28), whose principal work was published by him. (A. Willems. Les Elzevier. 1880. p. CCIIIff.).
1 Masson, op. cit. p. 318. Burmannus Sylloge Epistolarum III, p. 603 — * MassoH, ib. p. 318 — 3 Patricius Junius, the learned keeper of the King's library in St James's, London, who retained his post for some time during the Commonwealth. (Masson, Life, III, 645-6, IV, 147, 151, 229-30, 597 note) — 4 Burmannus. Sylloge Epistolarum, III, p. 618:
De Miltono jam certior factus sum ab avunculo meo Junio, qui cum eo familiaritatem colit. Is mihi significavit eum Parlamento esse a Secretis in negotiis externis, esse multarum linguarum peritum, non quidem nobili, sed tarnen generosa, ut ipsi loquunter, ortum stirpe, discipulum Patricii Junii, comem, affabilem, multisque alliis praeditum virtutibus.



Here we hit upon a promising channel of information about Milton, which, like so many more, is disappointing in the end. This uncle is Franciscus Junius. Born at Heidelberg in 1589 or 1591, son of professor Franciscus Junius, who was especially famous as a Protestant preacher of uncommon intrepidity, the younger Franciscus was sent, when he was only thirteen years old, to his brother-in-law Gerardus J. Vossius, who had a great influence on his life and development. After studying at Leyden he became a clergyman, but soon he got into serious trouble on account of his Arminian leanings. He was even dismissed from his post (1619). Soon after, he left Holland and went to France, but then crossed over to England, much attracted by the newly opened Bodleian Library. His abilities soon won him the favour of manyNscholars, and through the influence of the bishops Lancelot Andrews and William Laud he was entrusted with the superintendence of the great library of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel and Surrey. Later on he undertook the literary instruction of the young Earl de Vere of Oxford, with whom he stayed from 1642—46 at the Hague, again and again returning to England however. At some time between the 7th of August and the 17th of October 1651,1 he returned to Holland and lived with his widowed sister and her son Isaac Vossius, applying himself with never flagging assiduity to his philological studies, for the sake of which he even spent a couple of years in Friesland to study its
1 According to v. d. Aa's Biographical Dictionary the death of his brother-inlaw Vossius moved Junius to return to Holland, so that must have been some time after 17/27 March, 1649, the date of Vossius' death. The Encyclopaedia Britannica gives the year as 1650, but this is too early; Junius must still have been in England on the 7th of August, 1651, as appears from a letter of that date, written by a German, Christopher Arnold, when visiting England. (Masson, Life, IV, p. 350-1).
John Greaves, the Oxford Professor of Astronomy, and highly accom-
plished in the Arabic and Persian tongues, is also very kind and attentive to me. Francis Junius, the relative of Gerhard John Vossius, and a most cultivated man, is now preparing for the press a Grammar of the Anglosaxon tongue and a Anglosaxon Dictionary, and has told me all about his doings in the kindest manner 
Finally, on the 17th of Oct. 1651 Gronovius wrote to Nic. Heinsius, that he had met Franc. Junius shortly before at Amsterdam (Burmannus. Sylloge Ep. III, p. 286: Franc. Jnnium majorem Amstelodami nuper conveni.), so that we may now conclude that Junius went to Holland some time between 7 August and 17 October 1651.



peculiar language. In his old age, when after a severe illness his friends feared that a great part of his work would remain unpublished and had already fixed upon a suitable abode which would secure him the help of some faithful friends, the longing for his beloved Oxford proved too much for him and in October 1675 he left Holland with all his belongings. For eighteen months he was to enjoy scholarly intercourse there, then, feeling death approach, he went to Windsor to the house of his nephew Isaac Vossius, where he died on the 19th of November, 1677.
It is quite clear that we have here a man eminently fit to play the part of middleman between Holand and Milton. He was personally acquainted with Milton and one might have expected that this intimacy would have roused his interest in the Englishman's later writings, which he would have been able to appreciate to the fuil on account of his thorough knowledge of English, whereas the very fact that they were written in the vernacular must have appealed to this admirer of his native language,1 who had quite outgrown that excessive admiration of Latin that lingered in so many a Dutch scholar's heart.
But then, the very love of his mother tongue led him to make a penetrating and wide study of the various vernaculars around him. His friend J. G. Graevius says in his Latin Life of Junius: 2 "When
1 The drawing up of a list of the paintings and statues in the collection of the Earl of Arundel led Fr. Junius to the writing of his book "De Pictura Veterum", which he translated in the same year 1637 into English. Later on, in 1641, he published it in Dutch and in the preface of this edition his nephew J. de Brune, Jun. praised his Dutch style very highly: "Zijn twintigjarig verblijf hi Engeland heeft hem de zucht tot het nauwpuntigste verstand van zijn moederlyke taal niet konnen ontwringen. Een tastelyke proeve hiervan verstrekt het tegenwoordige boek, geschreven in zulke tarmen, dat thien regels daarvan konnen grondvesten d'achtbaarheyd van een Man, die onze taal verstaat, niet in haar oppervlies, maar wiens kennisse dringt tot den grond toe, als de schoonheid van een diamant." (i.e. His twenty years' stay in England could not wrest from him the desire to have a most accurate knowledge of his native language. A manifest proof of this is the present book, written in such terms that ten Unes of it can make evident the esteem due to a man whe understands our language, not only in the upper strata, but whose knowledge penetrates to the bottom, as the beauty of a diamant.) W. de Hoog. Studiën over de Nederlandsche en Engelsche Taal en Letterkunde. Dordrecht, 1909. I, p. 9 — 3 Franc. Junii, Franc. Filii. Etymologicum Anglicanum. Ex autographo descripsit etaccessionibus permultis auctum edidit Edw. Lye. Prae-



in England he came across many old Anglo-Saxon books, he began to study that language and when he perceived that it was of the
greatest use for the explanatlon of Dutch, German, and English,
and for the investigation of the true origins of these languages, he applied much study and labour to master it thoroughly." Thus Junius became a great linguïst and was one of the pioneers in the study of Old English and Gothic, but he — perhaps we must add wisely — refrained from taking an interest in what happened around him in the literary world. It seems then that we must be content with the exact, though scanty information about Milton he gave to his nephew, at the time when so many false rumours were circulating in Holland.
We return to the Heinsius-Vossius correspondence. What did these friends themselves think of Milton and his book? Vossius did not think it necessary to state his opinion, yet his estimate is fairly clear from the following passage in his letter to Heinsius (Aug. 5, 1651): "(Salmasius is) greatly delighted with the news that Milton's book has been publicly burnt by the hangman at Par|s. There is no need for me to intrude my judgement about that book; but this I know, that it is generally good books whose fate it is to perish or be endangered in this way. Men come under the executioner's hands for the most part for their crimes and depravity, but books for their worth and excellence. Only the labours of fools need fear no such accidents. But they are greatly mistaken who think they can extlrpate the writings of Milton and others in this way, since they rather shine out with a certain wonderful increase of lustre by means of those f lames." 1
Apart from the connections through his uncle Junius, Vossius also had direct connections with English scholars. On his great journey from 1641 to 1645 he had spent six months in England, chiefly in London, where he had been kindly treated by Patricius Junius and especially by Bishop Ussher. His many English connections,
mittuntur vita auctoris et grammatica Anglo-Saxonica. Oxon. e Theatro Sheld. 1743.
The authör of this life is Joh. Georgius Graevius, and the passage quoted reads in Latin:
In Anglia cum incidisset in muitos veteres Anglo-saxonicos libros, illam coepit linguam excollere, quam cum ad Belgicam, quae ei erat vernacula, Germanicam & Anglicam iüustrandam, verasque pervestigandas origines plurimum facere cognoscet, multum studii & operae in illa perdiscenda collocavit. 1 Masson, op. cit., IV, p. 342-3.



tioned in it, of no special interest to us. Of the intended criticism of Milton nothing seems to have come down to us.
The second Dutch scholar that has to be discussed in connection with the Heinsius-Vossius correspondence in Janus Vitius, who has already been referred to.1 He was an able lawyer, settled first at the Hague, but later on went to Breda, where in 1653 he obtained the lucrative post of Recorder, which he retained till his death (1666). He was also well-known for his historical studies, and he, besides, tried his hand at Latin and Dutch poetry. In 1643 he spent some time in England at the country-seat of his uncle Cats at Hadfield-Chase and in December 1651 he managed to get the post of Secretary to the Embassy of Cats, Schaep and van de Perre, which was sent to London in that year. On this occasion he probably made the acquaintance of Milton, at any rate, before starting, he expressed his great eagerness to do so.2 This is, however, merely an outcome of curiosity, not of any sympathy, as is evident from his indignant outburst about the disastrous course the Boyal affairs took in 1651. 3 Nor was there any interest to be expected from him in Milton's literary work, for the same reason as with Fr. Junius, whose rival he was in the study of Anglo-Saxon.4
horum favore in Senatorium ordinem cooptatus est. Vultis ipsum vivis coloribus qualisque a suis (etiam scriptis evulgatis) depingitur, intueri? Egregius simulandi, dissimulandiq; artifex, qui sublatis in coelum oculis, dextraq; pectori applicata, Dei Nomem invocabit, lacrymabitur, precabitur, aget poenitentiam, donec sub quintd costA trajecerit aïloquentem. Taceo de Ambitione, Avaritia, Superbia, quas Democratici nuper ejus Socii plehis buccis objiciunt." i See p. 12 — 2 On the 12th of Jan 1652, when about to start for London, he writes: „Ego Miltoni familiaritatem jam praecepi, Parariis (?) viris doctis, pui mecum eunt."
and when arrived at London he again writes to Heinsius: „Seldenum, dum exequiis defuctae Comitis Cantii intensus est, cujus ingenti ha'ereditate auctus est, hactenüs videre supersedeo: ut & Miltonem, quem adire decrevi."
Burmannus. Sylloge Epistolarum III, p. 742; cf. Masson, op. cit. IV, p. 464, note 5 — 8 Janus Vlitius — Nic. Heinsio, Parisios.
n Deus bone! quid de misera Britannia, legumque pudore nunc diceres,
si'iterum instantem Regi cladem, forsan & caedem, videres? Quanquam pri-
mum tam laeta omnia, ut jam Soli restitutum publicum novum fuerit "
Bredae, XIV. Kal. October, 1651. Burmannus. Sylloge Epistolarum III, p. 739 — * On Nov. 4, 1661 Gronovius informs Heinsius that Vlitius has returned from England, and then goes on: „Aemulationem ejus erga F(ranciscum) J(unium)



Among the many f oreigners that came to know Milton was another Dutchman, namely Lieuwe van Aitzema. We learn this from one of Milton's own letters. On the 29th of Jan. 1654-5 Aitzema wrote the following from the Hague in Latin:1
"To the honourable and highly esteemed Mr John Milton, Secretary to the Council of State, London.
Partly because Morus, in his book, has made some aspersions on you for your English book on Divorce, partly because many have been inquiring eagerly about the arguments with which you support your opinion, I have, most honoured and esteemed Sir, given your little work entire to a friend of mine to be translated into Dutch, with a desire to have it printed soon. Not knowing, however, whether you would like anything corrected therein or added, I take the liberty to give you this notice, and to request you to let me know your mind on the subject. Best wishes and greetings from
Your very obedient
Leo Aitzema."
Milton answered, also in Latin, on the 5th of Febr. 1654-5: "To Leo van Aitzema.
It is very gratifying to me that you retain the same amount of recollection of me as you very politely showed of goodwill by once and again visiting me while you resided among us. As regards the Book on Divorce which you teil me you have given to some one to be turned into Dutch, I would rather you had given it to be turned into Latin. For my experience in those books of mine has now been that the vulgar still receive according their wont opinions not already common. I wrote a good while ago, I may mention, three treatises on the subject: — the first, in two books, in which The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce (for that is the title of the book) is contained at large; a second, which is called Tetra-
in Anglosaxonicis hac perigrinatione mirifice crevisse pon est quod dubitemus." Burmannus, op. cit. III, p. 462.
Yet he seems to have been no more than a dabbler in linguistics, as is evident from such publications as the Lord's Prayer in twenty old Teutonic languages and the „Bredasche Almanak van 1664", which gives the names of the months in various languages, among others in Old English. 1 Masson, op. cit. V, p. 170-1.
2



ehordon, and in which the four chief passages of Scripture concerning that doctrine are explicated; the third, called Colasterion, in which answer is made to a certain sciolist. Which of these Treatises you have given to be translated, or what edition, I do not know: the first of these treatises was twice issued, and was much enlarged in the second edition. Should you not have been made aware of this already, or should I understand that you desire anything else on my part, such as sehding you the more correct edition or the rest of the Treatises, I shall attend to the matter carefully and with pleasure. For there is not anything at present that I should wish changed in them or added. Therefore, should you keep in your intention, I earnestly hope for myself a faithful translater, and for you all prosperity."
The book, if it was ever published, seems not to have come down to us. Yet this information is of great interest considering the character of the man who designed this plan. Lieuwe van Aitzema was born in 1600 at Dokkum in the Province of Friesland. He studied at the university of Franeker and continued his studies of law abroad, taking his degree at Orleans. After having been a barrister at Leeuwarden and the Hague, he became an agent for the Hanse Towns. In this capacity he was in London for some time in the years 1636 and 1652, and in this year the visits Milton refers to in his letters must have occurred. He was a man of keen intellect and uncommon originality, but of an ignoble and cynical character. Being fully convinced that all people sought their own interest and nothing but their interest, he unblushingly practised this doctrine himself and brazenly paraded it in his writings. He even went so far as to provide Thurloe throughout the Dutch-English war with official State documents, which were easily obtainable from the many venal Government officials. Fortunately for us he used the great collection of State papers, which feil into his hands partly on account of his position, partly by bribery, not only for treasonable purposes; he also published them in the valuable survey of contemporary history which appeared in 12 volumes from 1657 to 1668.1 This history is very trustworthy. "For with all his vices, and in spite of his treason, Aitzema was veracious in a high degree. His main faults were contempt of mankind and disbelief in human virtues; he deemed him-
1 Lieuwe van Aitzema. Historie of Verhael van Saten van Staet en Oorlogh.



an antidote to the Rebellion should be administered in good time; and so, as the most learned Salmasius was too far away, I have thrown what water I had at hand upon the sulphurousfire, to keep it down till Salmasius shall drown it with his own full flood."
Does not the printing of the Defence and the refutation together prove that here was. only a sensational interest in this great controversy? Quite in the same way, in 1654 Ulac, the printer, published in one volume both a reprint of Milton's Second Defence and More's answer to it.1 This shrewd man of business was perfectly aware that his book would be all the more spicy, if the amazing personalities on both sides were produced next to one another.
The wide circulation of Milton's Defence on its first appearance is once more corroborated by a passage in the Hollandsche Mercurius. 2 From the year 1650 up till 1690 this periodical discussed in monthly surveys what happened "in Christendom"; it was evidently published annually. We may consider the Hollandsche Mercurius as the reflection of what appeared in the news-sheets and newspapers from time to time. For the month February 1651 (Part II, p. 16) we find the following news item:
"We shall now leave Franee for a while, and cross the sea to England: where against Claudius Salmasius' Defence of King Charles I.,
* Masson, op. cit. V, 151 — 3 P. A. Tiele (De Haarlemsche Boekdrukkers en Boekverkoopers in de 15e—18e eeuw. 1864. Bijdragen tot de Gesch. v/d Nederlandsche Boekhandel, I, p. 458) says that Abraham Casteleyn 'won himself a name by editing and publishing the Hollandsche Mercurius', but this is only true of later years and later reprints. W. P. Sautijn Kluit (De Haarlemsche Courant, in Handelingen en Mededeelingen v/d Maatschappij der Nederlandsche Letterkunde, 1873) says in a note on p. 9: 'Peter Casteleyn was also the first publisher of the Holland-Mercurius, covering the years 1650 up till 1690. The file of 1676 was published in 1677 by the Heirs of Peter Casteleyn, and the one of 1677 in 1678 by Abraham Casteleyn, in a modified form. That the Haarlemsche Courant was used as a source in editing these annual surveys, is obvious.'
The skill and importance of Abraham Casteleyn as a news-agent is illustrated by the fact that the superiority of the newspaper published at Amsterdam by J. van Hilten to the one published by Broer Jansz. has been explained by the connections between van Hilten and Abraham Casteleyn. (W. P. Santijn Kluit, De Amsterdamsche Courant, Bijdragen voor Vaderlandsche Geschiedenis en Oudheidskunde, V, p. 224, 1868). And in 1675-6 A. van Wicquefort declared that 'Casteleyn had such a correct knowledge of the secret affairs of the States, as anybody in the whole country* (ib. where the author quotes: D. Everwijn, Abraham van Wicquefort en zijn proces, Leiden, 1857).



dedicated to Charles II., there has appeared a very succinct and brave Latin Apology for the Parliament, the like of which is not to be found in the same language in these times, and which treats of political affairs. The author is a certain John Milton, one of the Secretaries of the Council of State in London, to whose treatise we refer the interested reader, as it has been translated into Dutch and French." *
Apart from the evidence it is of how easy of access Milton's book was in its translation to the general public, this passage is very remarkable in its tone of unstinted praise. This, however, was not to last long. Under July of the same year we find the following item:
"At this time the book by John Milton, called the Defence of the People of England, written against Claudius Salmasius, was, after mature deliberation, publicly burnt by the hangman at Toulouse and Paris. Bishop Londonderry in Ireland also wrote against it: and because the said Milton was of a strange temperament, his Treatise was read with little relish in Holland." 2
The name of Milton is not mentioned again3 until 1660, when we read that "the books, written by Milton and John Goodwin, were
1 Hollandsche Mercurius, Behelsende het gedenckweerdigste in Christenrijck Voorgevallen, Binnen 't gantsche Jaer 1650. Tot Haerlem, Gedruckt bij Pieter Casteleyn, Boeckdruckker op de Markt, 1651..
The second part, on 1651, I found in two editions to be a reprint by Abraham Casteleyn 'Anno 1678'.
p. 16: „Wy sullen Vranckrijk nu voor een wijle tijts verlaten, en gaen over zee nae Engelant: Alwaer tegens Claudius Salmasius sijn Verdediginge des Conings Carolus de 1., aen Carolus de 2 toegewijt, een seer bondige en dappere Latijnsse Verantwoordinge voor 't Parlement uyt gekomen is, zijnde in dese tijden niet te vinden, die van Politijcke saecken spreeckt: De Autheur is geweest eenen Johan Milton, Engelschman, eene der Secretarissen van den Raet van Staten binnen London, tot wiens Tractaet (als zijnde nu in Nederlantsche, Engelsse en Fransse Tale overgeset) wy den curieusen Leser hier wijzen." — 3 op. cit. p. 70: ,,'t Boeck van Jan Milton, genaemt Verdediginghe des Volckx van Engelant, geschreven tegen Claudius Salmasius, wiert op desen tijt te Toulouse en Parijs, met rijpen rade, door den Beul in 't pubhjck verbrant. . De Bisschop Londendery in Yerlant schreef oock daer tegens; en om dat de voorz. Milton van een vremt humeur was, soo wiert dit sijn Tractaet in Hollant oock met weinigh smaeck gelesen." — 8 In the sixth part (June, 1655) we find the following item (p. 59): "General Major Milton, the last representative of Charles II., left Scotland". This I suppose to be Major John Milton (Melton), Quartermaster to Colonel Pennington in 1642 (Masson, loc. cit. II, 483-4, 484 note).



burnt by the hangman". And here in Holland, too, people wondered at the "great historical puzzle of the complete escape of Milton after the Restauration", as Masson terms it* In December 1660 we find the following entry: "Fortunate, too, was Mr John Milton, who, having been imprisoned in the Tower up till now on account of his writing against C. Salmasius' book for the King, was released now on promises of betterment." 2 Apart from the fact that Milton had not been in prison all the time, this information is fairly accurate, as he was released on the 16th of December, though his dismissal was not such a simple matter as the last words might suggest3 If we now consider what we have found about the reception of Milton's Defensio in Holland, the result proves to be disappointing. Though it is clear that the book caused a great stir in all classes, it was not due to approbation of the contents. It was not welcomed by any group or party, and hence did not receive support from any influential body. Not a single instance of approval is found. The Dutch public appears to have relished the scandal in the book, but not the principles. Masson's enthusiastic assertion that the book made Milton the most widely known man of the Commonwealth in Europe after Cromwell, must be restricted in the sense that by the book Milton had become notorious, not famous. The Defensio was an impediment rather than a help for Milton's reputation in the Republic of the United Provinces. This is strange. We have many reasons to expect a different attitude towards Milton's political opinions. In order to explain what we have found, we shall have to investigate the political atmosphere in Holland.
1 Masson, op. cit. VI, p. 184 — a op. cit. p. 163: „Oock gheluckigh was Mr Jan Milton, die over zijn schrijven tegen de Koning van C. Salmasius dus lang in de Tour hebbende geseten, nu uytging door goe beloften." — 8 Masson, op. cit. VI, p. 162-96.



out how intimate the connection is between the two revolutions. They point to the great exodus of Dutch and Flemish Protestants after the arrival of Alva (1567), who mainly settled in the eastern counties of England. By law these refugees were compelled to take and train one English apprentice each, with the consequence that, probably, fifty thousand English boys and young men went to school, not only in the industrial arts, but also in the republican ideas and liberal notions of the Low Countries.1 This explains how Puritanism, which in the third quarter of the 16th century had found its defenders among the Church aristocracy, lived on, after having lost its hold on the higher classes owing to the Church policy of Queen Elizabeth, among the working class of East England.2 These eastern counties ultimately became a hotbed of nonconformity, the bulwark of puritanism, the recruiting ground of Cromwell's Ironsides and army. 8 A second period of Dutch influence on England occurred thirty years later, when English hospitality was repaid in kind. The religious persecutions in England from 1593 onward caused many dissenters to fly for safety to Holland.4 In a way we may even call this second contact with Dutch thought and institutions a strengthening of the old tendency, as these refugees chiefly came from those same eastern counties. At the outbreak of the Civil War "whole congregations of aggressive Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Quakers, and other Nonconformists, their nerves braced by republican air, and their f aces f lushed with consciousness of coming success at home, crossed the Channel to cross swords with King Charles, and attempt the establishment of a commonwealth." 6 Further we must not forget the thousands of English soldiers who fought in the Netherlands, whether as enthusiastic volunteers or as mere mercenaries. Cromwell received his military instruction from a Dutchman, Dalbier. 6 A Dutch captain drilled the future Ironsides. "Of the men who organized the Parliamentary forces, Fairfax, Essex, Monk, Warwick, Bedford, Skippon and others, as Masson and Carlyle show, were trained in the Netherlands." 7
» Griffis, op. cit. p. 10 — a Campbell, op. cit. I, p. 477ff. — 8 Griffis, op. cit. p. 8 — 4 Campbell, op. cit. II, p. 191 — B Griffis, op. cit. p. 31 — 6 Very remarkable in this respect is what we read in the Hollandsche Mercurius of the year 1652 (Preface). Cromwell is accused of ingratitude as to Holland, the "school of his youth" (sijn Jeugtschool); he is wrongly said to have had his military instruction in Holland — 7 Griffis, op. cit. p. 32.



standing senate, without succession, and accounted chiefly in that regard the main prop of their liberty." * Especially interesting is Milton's remark "that our (i.e. England's) liberty shall not be hampered or hovered over by any engagement to such a potent family as the house of Nassau, of whom to stand in perpetual doubt and suspicion, but we shall live the clearest and absolutest free nation in the world." 2 Here Milton alludes to one of the chief reason why, generally speaking, the English Commonwealth was after all welcomed in Holland with the reverse of brotherly feelings.
The most important reason for this "strong and highly ülogical international antipathy", 8 was no doubt 'jalousie de métier': the United Provinces were the chief commercial country in the world,4 the English their great rivals. England and Holland, for a short time united against Spain, soon became opponents and were to fight three wars for trade interests. It was the genius of Wüliam III. that saw the mistake of regarding England as Hollandss deadly enemy, and thus brought about a union between the two commercial rivals against the threatening supremacy of France in Europe. *>
Yet there were other than commercial considerations that caused the general hostility prevalent in the United Provinces towards the sister Republic across the Channel. In order to realize this we must look more closely at the principles that underlie the foundation of the two Republics..
In England, the task and purpose of James I. and his successors was to make one whole of the heterogeneous parts of which their kingdom consisted, and which not only differed from each other in racial, religious, and ecclesiastical respects, but were all very jealous of their autonomy. The King formed the uniting force, but in asserting his authority, he ran the great risk of offending one or more of the prinvinces. This was just what happened. « James L and Charles I. intended to continue the Tudor policy of strengthening their own position and that of the Church of England, but in endeavouring to force the Episcopal Church upon their Scottish subjects, they roused strong resistance in the north. With the aid of the English Royalist party they attempted to quell the Scottish opposition, but
1 Bohn's ed. Prose Works, II, p. 124 — a ib. 128 — 3 Busken Huet, op. cit. II1, p. 233 — 4 Gosses en Japikse, op. cit. p. 156 — 5 Groen van Prinsterer, op. cit. p. 284-5 — 6 von Ranke. Englische Geschichte, V, Einleitung.



threatening rebellion.1 The badge that soon became the symbol of the Beggars expressed the same thought, showing on one side the image of the King and on the other two clasped hands with the legend: Tidèles au roy jusques a la besace'. 2
The States of Holland and Zealand never became weary of asserting that Orange was the King's Stadtholder, even though he was engaged in a life and death struggle with the same King. They had some reason to do so. The year before the arrival of Alva, Orange had applied to the King for his discharge as Stadtholder of Holland and Zealand, but Philip II. had refused it, since he wanted to lay the full resposibility for events in the troublesome provinces on the Prince. In 1567, however, Orange got leave of absence to settle his private af fairs at Dillenburg, the Count of Bossu being appointed his temporary deputy. Legally therefore the Prince remained Stadtholder, and never afterwards, not even after he had taken up arms against the King, was he officially dismissed from his office. Orange' took up arms, not as a rebel, but as an independent sovereign of the Princedom of Orange, however small it might be, fighting in behalf of the oppressed Protestants. The standards in his army on the Meuse bore the inscription 'Pro lege, rege, grege', his commissions were in the name of King Philip: 3 he came to deliver the Netherlands from Alva's tyranny.4 After some hesitation he assented to resumé the Stadtholdership 'in behalf of the King'. 5 This phraseology was continued. In the year 1572 de Briel was taken in the name of the Prince of Orange, as the King's Stadtholder, 6 and when the Spaniards failed to retake it, the inhabitants swore fidelity to the Prince of Orange, as the Stadtholder of the King. The people still did not think of breaking with the King. 7 In the same year 1572 the States of Holland, unconstitutionally summoned 8, solemnly acknowledged the Prince of Orange 'as the general governor and lieutenant of the
1 Blok, op cit., II, p. 22ff. — 8 ibid. p. 26 — s Campbell, op. cit., I, p. 202-3: "His commissions were in the name of Philip, just as those of the English Long Parliament were in the name of Charles I." Here Campbell alludes to an attitude of the English rebels that is similar to what we have noticed in Holland. We see the same when Parliament speaks of the Kingdom of England. Yet all this changed when the power shifted to the Independents, whereas, as we shall see, this reluctance to revolution is a permanent feature of the whole Dutch Revolt — 4 Blok, op. cit., p. 54 — 8 ibid. p. 66 — 8 J. Th. de Visser, Kerk en Staat, II, p. 64 — T Campbell, op. cit., I, p. 210 — 8 Blok, op. cit., p. 79.



King of Holland, Zealand, West Friesland and the bishopric of Utrecht', pleading that his former Stadtholdership had not been legally revoked.1 They went even f arther, maintaining that the Prince as the chief member of the States General was entitled to defend the Netherlands against every foreign invasion and oppression, and that he was the protector and head of the country in the absence of the King! 2 In the various towns that declared for the Prince newly elected government officials swore fidelity to the King and the Prince of Orange, his Stadtholder. 3 One cannot help thinking the persistence in theoretical fidelity to the King was carried 'ad absurdum' at the establishment of Leyden University. The charter by which the institution was founded says: "Considering that during these present wearisome wars within our provinces Holland and Zealand, all good instruction of youth in the sciences and liberal arts is likely to come
into entire oblivion Considering the difference of religion —
considering that we are inclined to gratify our city of Leyden, with its burghers, on account of the heavy burthens sustained by them during this war with such faithfulness — we (i.e. Philip II.) have resolved, after ripely deliberating with our dear cousin, William, Prince of Orange, stadtholder, to erect a free public school and university, etc." 4 However absurd all this may be, as a symptom it is of importance.
In November 1574, the States of Holland requested the Prince of Orange 'to undertake during the time of dissidence with the King, the superintendence, magistracy, and government under the name of Governor or Regent by the free appointment of the States, vassals, burghers, and countship of Holland', charging him with 'absolute power, authority, and sovereign command in the direction of all af fairs of the Country'.6 Thus Orange was practically sovereign of the rebel provinces, but being convinced that they would not be able to withstand Spain ultimately, he presently advised the States to look out for a new monarch willing to undertake the government of these countries, and to break with a king who had perjured himself by his violation of the privileges and his intolerable tyranny. 6 This was what was actually done in the North, after the South had been reconciled to the King. The Duke of Anjou, brother of the
1 Cf. above — 2 Blok, op. cit., p. 80 — s Campbell, op. cit., I, p. 23 — 4 J. L. Motley. The Rise of the Dutch Republic, part IV, chapter II — 5 Blok, op. cit., p. 101 — 6 ibid. p. 112.
3



French King, was recognized ~as 'prince et seigneur* of the United Provinces.
A consequence of this election of a new sovereign lord was the formal abjuration of the King. Here, then, we have the crucial point as to the 'revolutionary' character of the Revolt. In this Act of Abjuration we find an official summary of the principles that had led the leading rebels in their opposition against Spain. Minutely all the tyrannies they had had to suffer from theKingwere enumerated, culminating in that last and crowning measure of oppression — the ban against the Prince of Orange. For the vindication of the decisive step they took, they appealed to the conception of the Germanic state. 'According to the prevailing views of constitutional law, there was a bilateral pact between prince and people in the state. The contents of this pact were to be found in the law. On it the prince based his claim to lawful obedience and the people their claim to a keeping within the bounds of the law. Hence the people had a right to the execution of the statutes.'1
As to Holland, this idea of mutual dependency had been disseminated by the teachings of Calvin. The great reformer had laid full stress on the truth that God is the only sovereign King. The earthly King is entrusted with power by the Lord God for the special purpose of promoting the general welfare of the people. Being appointed by God himself, the people must unconditionally submit to him. Only in one case, namely when obedience to the King would mean disobedience to God, is resitance allowed, and even required. But then, only a passive resistance is allowed to the people: the 'inferior magistrates', particularly the representative body of the country, taken in an aristocratie sense, being entitled actively to withstand an unfaithful King, even to dethrone him. Calvin became more and more convinced of the necessity that the King should be bound to the laws of the country. And though the interests of the King are considered of much more importance than those of the people, the idea of mutual duties, the idea of the existence of a treaty between prince and people, becomes evident. 2
These theories found then- way to Holland and convinced the oppressed inhabitants of their right to abjure their unfaithful King,
i G. Jellinek, op. cit., p. 37 — a J. Th. de Visser, op. cit., II, p. 72ff. As to 'inferior matistrates' see: Dupplessis-Mornay, Commentaires, 1 Pierre II, p. 118-9, quoted by Doumergue, Calvin, V, p. 501.



after which, very consistently, they looked about for a new King.1 That the United Provinces ultimately became a Republic was in spite of themselves. They sincerely tried to find a new sovereign, not only in order to get help, but also because they thought a King necessary for good government. Their failure in this respect gradually led people to think that ultimate sovereignty was to be found in the States, as representing the subjects,2 and it goes without
1 Motley goes too far, when, though stating that 'the fathers of the commonwealth
did not contemplate a change in their form of government', he comments
in the following way on their way of proceeding: 'Philip having violated the law of reason and the statutes of the land, was deposed, and a new chief magistrate was to be elected in his stead. This was popular sovereignty in fact, but not in words. The deposition and election could be legally justified only by the inherent right of the people to depose and to elect; yet the provinces, in their Declaration of Independence, spoke of the Divine right of kings, even while dethroning, by popular right, their own king!' (op. cit. Part VI, Chapter IV.) The absurd inconsistency of talking of the Divine right of kings while dethroning a king, does not exist. The leading Dutchmen considered a state without a sovereign head an anomaly, and now the present King had forfeited his right to rule, another person had to be found to fulfil this high office, but this did not at all imply that the new prince would be dependent of the magistracy. In Dutch history such an election has actually taken place. In 1813, after the French domination, the Dutch people proclaimed Prince William of Orange King of Holland. And a great authority (A. F. de Savornin Lohman. Gezag en Vrijheid (Authority and Freedom), p. 83ff) maintains that even then i.e. after the French Revolution, this proceeding does not prove anything as to popular sovereignty. He begins by stating that 'the election of a Head or the fact that a person is charged with an office does not by any means always imply the dependence of the person chosen. The guardian of a minor e.g. is chosen by the family council; yet he is independent of that council and does not even derive its authority from it, no more than from the child in whose behalf he exercises that authority, the ward. In het same way the circumstance that the King and the States General have been chosen and that before their election they had not the slightèst authority to rule, does not at all prove that they derive their authority from the electorate.' As to King William I.: 'the people charged the King with the government; but this charge, what was it else but the acknowledgement of the superiory which the House of Orange already possessed in the eyes of the people before this acknowledgement.' The consciousness of this superiority was developing during the period under discussion. As Dr N. Japikse (Gosses en Japikse, op. cit. p. 241) says when discussing the serious attempts to make William III. sovereign prince of the Netherlands in 1675: 'the germs, present in the history of our Republic since 1572, come more and more to maturity: the States are more than half way; Orange is within reach of it.' —
2 Blok, op. cit. p. 182.



over the rest of the provinces on the ground of its indubitable superiority and consequent indispensability.
Yet this Republic was an anomaly. It has rightly been called "a monarchy with an absent sovereign",1 and perhaps this phrase is too weak. For, though the attempts to get a sovereign head from abroad had failed, the course of events made it very likely that the desired prhice would come from within. When the princes of Orange one after the other did credit to their already illustrious name, a monarchical party arose in the Netherlands, which untoward events alone prevented from succeeding in this purpose. Apart from the charm the name of Orange had for the army and the nation at large, and the consequent enthusiasm that was roused everywhere by their splendid military achievements, there was, even from a theoretical point of view, much in favour of considering Prince Maurice and his successors as pre-eminently the men entitled to the sovereignty. When the duties of the Stadtholders were regulated, they were modelled after those of the former Stadtholders under they Rurgundian rule, a proceeding which, now that a sovereign prince was lacking, gave occasion to most remarkable situations. The new Stadtholders, though officials of the States, yet exercised rights that rightly belonged to a sovereign prince only. Small wonder that, when this office was held by a man like Maurice, powerful from his birth and from his wealth, highly esteemed personally as captaingeneral of the Union, commander-in-chief of the army, in general charged with the executive power — small wonder that, with those who were not closely acquainted with the constitution of the Republic, — even, what is of more importance, with the nation in general, — the Stadtholder got the character, and later on the halfmonarchical title, of he 'eminent head' of the country, though the States never left off maintaining their sovereignty in opposition to him.2
At the succession of Frederick Henry a new princely element was added to the practically monarchical position of the Stadtholder. On his deathbed Prince Maurice had compelled his brother to marry, threatening to adopt one of his natural sons if Frederick Henry did not comply with his request. The ensuing marriage laid the foundation of the first Court in the Dutch Republic. Gradually, as Prince Frederick Henry gained world-wide fame through his 1 Groen van Prinsterer. Ongeloof en Revolutie, p. 60 — 9 Blok, op. cit. p. 424.



splendid campaigns and successful sieges, his court became Tune des plus polies'.1 Small wonder that the Stadtholder became king in the eyes of the people. In this respect the newspapers of the time are very Ulustrative. These papers, so conspicuously scanty of news apart from what concerned war and battlefield, become verbose as to matters relating to the Stadtholder and his family. Just as in court news today, the proceedings of 'the illustrious Prince of Orange' are minutely described. All events of any importance in the princery family are made known circumstantially, such as the birth and baptism of a prince, the granting of the order of the Garter to the Prince, etc. Everything goes to prove that in the eyes of the people, the Stadtholder ranked much higher than the States.2 Vondel expressed this popular feeling in an elaborate poem Geboortklock van Willem van Nassau (Birthday Chimes of William of Nassau), written in honour of the birth of the young namesake of the great and beloved Prince William I. Throughout the poem the child and parents are spoken of as the peers of sovereign kings. Very remarkable in this respect is also what Aitzema in his History of Af fairs of State and War > says of the attitude of the people and the Government at the death of Frederick Henry (1647). In the States General some of the members proposed and urgently maintained that the funeral should be officially attended by a triumphal car, adorned so as to symbolize the many victories of the great Prince. The majority of the Assembly, however, objected to the proceeding, as it would be flattery, just as some objected to the way in which some clergymen referred to the Stadtholder's death in their sermons, 'as if he had been the Sovereign of the country'.
Thanks to Frederick Henry's wisdom and tact, his 'high office more and more acquired a monarchical and dynastie character',4 and in course of time a marriage was thought of between the young children Mary, the daughter of Charles I. of England, and the future William II. These negotiations, ultimately successful, introduced an element into Dutch political life which had far-reaching consequences, From the very beginning Frederick Henry seems to have pledged himself to support the English King in his impending conflict with his subjects 5 Thus the House of Orange became the defenders of
1 Blok, op. cit. p. 543 — a Fruin. Verspreide Geschriften, III, p. 356 — 3 See for Aitzema p. 17ff. — 4 Baroness Suzette van Zuylen van Nyevelt — Court Life in the Dutch Republic, London, 1906, p. 18, where Blok (IV, p. 318) is quoted — 5 ibid. p. 45.



the Stuarts, a strange alliance considering what these names came to stand for before many years were past.1
So we see in the Netherlands, at the outbreak of the English Revolution, a Federation of Republics that contained some striking characteristics of a monarchy. 2 Aitzema, writing in the year 1661 on the death of Frededick Henry in 1647, complains of the fact that not many nations are strong enough to be free. 3 The Republican form of government seemed natural to Ancient Rome, to Venice, Genoa and Switzerland. But how ill it became England! And as to the Netherlands, "we do not seem", Aitzema says, "to be fit to be governed by our equals. And as the House of Orange has laid the foundations of this State, nay, cemented them with their blood, it is small wonder that the people is strongly attached to that House and there is no reason to suspect clergymen when they preach in praise of it and pray for it". The adherents of this monarchical party were to be found in Court circles and in the army on the one hand and among the common people under the leading of their clergymen on the other. Their opponents could hardly be called republican, as we have seen; they were oligarchical. This party consisted of the ruling classes, the patrician families that sat in the exclusive towncorporations, which strenuously defended the rights and privileges of the towns and provinces against one another and against any encroachment from the side of the Stadtholder. Generally speaking, these political factions coalesced with the two chief religious and ecclesiastical parties, the adherents of the Stadtholder being sturdy Calvinists, maintaining the doctrine of predestination and impatient of State control in Church affairs, whereas the so-called Republican party were chiefly followers of Arminius, less emphatic on predestination and defenders of the supremacy of the State over the Church. * When we consider these parties with regard to their respective attitudes towards the English Rebels, the affinity of blood that existed between the Houses of Orange and Stuart must not be lost sight of.
1 Baroness Suzette van Zuylen van Nyevelt. Court Life in the Dutch Republic, London, 1906, p. 45 — 8 cf. Fruin, op. cit. IV, p. 352ff. and Gosses en Japikse, op. cit. p. 240-1 — 8 op. cit. VI, p. 351 — 4 As Campbell has pointed out (op. cit. II, p. 289), it was not only their denial of predestination that made Arminians abhorrent to the Calvinists — the same had since long been done by the Baptists, without their being persecuted for it — but especially their maintaining that the State was all powerful in Church matters.



It was this close alliance that complicated English politics in Dutch minds to such a bewildering extent.
In the beginning of the English rebellion, the movement was generally sympathized with in Holland. Dr Geyl says:1 "The cause of Parliament was popular for both political and religious reasons with free-thinkers and Calvinists". This is very clear from Aitzema's History of Affairs of State and War. He tells us that in the year 1643 Parliamentarian messengere came over to Holland to sell goods of Irish rebels and to collect money for the maintenance of Irish Protestants and found much favour here, "for all Calvinists were welldisposed towards Parliament and thought that the whole quarrel was on account of Religion". 2 Even the majority of the contingent of English soldiere in Holland were Parliamentarian and would have refused to fight the English rebels, if King Charles I. had succeeded in persuading the Dutch Government to release them. 3 Then again the King's ambassador complained of the violent preaching in the Scottish congregation in Amsterdam and of the printing of infamous pamphlets to egg on the English against the King, "which things were all connived at in Holland".4 All over Holland collections were made, greatly to the vexation of the King, and it was said that these collections amounted to ƒ 300.000 in Holland and Zealand. 5
When in 1643 a Dutch embassy failed to mediate between the two hostile parties and, on their return home, officiaüy reported their failure, Strickland, the Parliament's representative in Holland, tried to counteract the disappointment this report was Ukely to cause among the Dutch. Though he failed to get admittance to the States General, he was received by the States of Holland and afterwards published his vindication of the Parliamentary cause both in English and Dutch. And, says Aitzema, "the common people, and also all zealous Churchmen were better satisfied with it than with the whole embassy". 6
In discussing Dutch state affairs, Aitzema has again and again to ref er to what was going on in England, in view of the great interest the Dutch took in English affairs on account of the community of interest in religion and commerce. 7 And because people in Holland thought that the quarrel was mainly about religion, many, even in Court
1 Willem II en de Stuarts, Gids, 1923, II, p. 46 — 8 op cit. V, p. 611 (published 1660) — 3 ibid. p. 613 — 4 ibid. p. 615-5 — 5 ibid. p. 714 — 6 ibid. VI, p. 70 — 7 ibid. p. 140.



MILTON IN HOLLAND
A STUDY IN THE LITERARY RELATIONS OF ENGLAND AND HOLLAND BEFORE
1730
H. SCHERPBIER























MILTON IN HOLLAND A study in the literary relations of England and Holland bef ore 1730







MILTON IN HOLLAND
A study in the literary relations of England and Holland bef ore 1730
ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT, TER VERKRIJGING VAN DEN GRAAD VAN DOCTOR IN DE LETTEREN EN WIJSBEGEERTE AAN DE UNIVERSITEIT VAN AMSTERDAM, OP GEZAG VAN DEN RECTORMAGNIFICUS Ma t H. HIJMANS, HOOGLEERAAR IN DE FACULTEIT DER RECHTSGELEERDHEH), IN HET OPENBAAR TE VERDEDIGEN OP VRIJDAG 24 FEBRUARI 1933 DES NAMIDDAGS TE 3% UUR IN DE AULA DER UNIVERSITEIT DOOR
HERMAN SCHERPBIER
GEBOREN TE AMBOINA (N. O. I.)
H. J. PARIS AMSTERDAM MCMXXXIII







AAN MIJN VROUW EN KINDEREN







Nu ik het voorrecht heb mijn academische studie af te kunnen sluiten met deze dissertatie, is het mij een behoefte in de eerste plaats mijn grooten dank te betuigen aan U, Hooggeleerde Professor Swaen, hooggeachte Promotor. Toen ik mij tot U wendde, zij t gij mij met de grootste welwillendheid tegemoet getreden, en gij hebt mij, hoewel in engeren zin niet Uw leerling, door Uw breed standpunt, grootmoedige hulp en wijze adviezen in staat gesteld tot de gewenschte promotie te komen, niettegenstaande velerlei moeilijkheden.
In dit oogenblik zij het mij vergund mijn blijdschap en dankbaarheid uit te spreken over het tot stand komen van het Academisch Statuut van wijlen Zijne Excellentie Dr J. Th. de Visser, waardoor het mij mogelijk werd mijn studie in het Engelsch aan de Universiteit te Groningen op een breedere basis voort te zetten. De scherpzinnige colleges van Professor Kern, het bezielend woord van Professor Sijmons zijn onvergetelijk voor mij. Met dankbaarheid gedenk ik ook in aanraking te zijn gekomen met Professor Kluyver en Professor Gosses: de aard van mijn proefschrift getuigt, dat mijn wetenschappelijke belangstelling mede bepaald is door hun leiding.
Indien ik me nu tot U wend, hooggeachte Mr Falconer, dan denk ik niet alleen aan de vele vruchtbare uren, die ik gedurende mijn studententijd onder Uw leiding heb mogen doorbrengen, maar bovenal aan den steun en de bemoediging, die gij mij hebt gegeven, zoowel bij het zoeken naar een geschikt onderwerp voor een dissertatie, als bij het voortzetten van de ondernomen studie. Wil daarvoor de oprechte betuiging van mijn hartehjken dank ontvangen.
Eveneens dank ik de chefs en het personeel der verschillende bibliotheken, die steeds bereid waren mij behulpzaam te zijn bij het opsporen van de noodige bronnen, en dan wel in het bijzonder Dr Wumkes, den Heer Braaksma en de overige leden van den staf van de Provinciale Bibliotheek te Leeuwarden.



Een gevoel van weemoed komt bij mij op, als ik bedenk, dat het mijn moeder niet meer gegeven werd dit uur te beleven, zij, die, reeds zeer jong weduwe, ons, haar zoons, door haar inzicht en voorbeeld zoo veel heeft kunnen meegeven.
Ten slotte zij het mij vergund hier openlijk mijn innigen dank uit te spreken aan haar, die door haar stille zorg de omstandigheden en de atmospheer schiep, waarin het me mogelijk werd, niettegenstaande een drukken werkkring, mijn arbeid te voltooien. Aan haar en onze kinderen zij mijn boek gewijd.



CONTENTS
Pag.
INTRODUCTION 1
Chapteb I
THE DEFENSIO PRO POPULO ANGLICANO »J HOLLAND 3
Chapteb II
THE POLITICAL ATMOSPHERE IN HOLLAND 24
Chapter III
THE DE DOCTRINA CHRISTIANA IN HOLLAND ... 57 Chapter IV
THE RELIGIOUS ATMOSPHERE IN HOLLAND 65
Chapter V
THE KNOWLEDGE OF ENGLISH IN THE UNITED PROVINCES . . 86
Chapter VI
LATIN, FRENCH, AND DUTCH PERIODICALS AS INTERMEDIARIES 112
Chapter VII
THE FIRST DUTCH TRANSLATIONS OF PARADISE LOST . 132 Chapter VIII
THE RECEPTION OF MILTON'S POETRY IN HOLLAND .... 149
Chapter IX
THE LITERARY ATMOSPHERE IN HOLLAND 163
CONCLUSION . 204
APPENDIX 207







INTRODUCTION
The history of Dutch literature would lead one to expect a warm welcome for Milton in Protestant Holland.1 One has only to think of the Dutch Calvinistic literature of the 17th century, pointing to attempts at a religious epic, and of Vondel's biblical poetry, to realize this. Also the long series of religious epics which appeared up to the end of the 18th century, according to Prof. te Winkel all but unique in the literature of any Western European people,2 suggests that the Dutch literary public would certainly be susceptible to the writings of the great Protestant poet.
Nor is this the only affinity we might have expected to find. In politics, too, one would look for some sympathy in the Dutch Republic for the English Commonwealth. Busken Huet calls the English Revolution of 1648 the most flattering tribute to the Dutch Revolt of 1572; 3 Cromwell dreamt of a close union between the two Republics. Moreover, the two countries were related in religious affairs. CromwelFs plans, which I have just referred to, originated more from religious than from political motives. And Holland swarmed with English refugees, who imported a great many English, especially puritanical, ideas. On the other hand there was a deep-rooted 'jalousie de métier' — trade jealousy — between the two countries, though Prof. Huizinga calls the ensuing conflicts "quarrels between brothers". 4
Should we, however, find that Milton was not welcomed with enthusiasm in Holland, it will be interesting to find out the reason for
1 J. G. Robertson. Milton's fame on the Continent. Brit. Acad. London, 1908 —
2 J. te Winkel. De Ontwikkelingsgang der Nederlandsche Letterkunde.' V, p. 225, Haarlem, 1924 — 3 Busken Huet. Land van Rembrand, II1, p. 233 — 4 J. Huizinga. Engelschen en Nederlanders in Shakespeare's tijd. De Gids, 1924.
1



this indifference. An examination of the extent to which English was known in Holland in the 17th and early 18th centuries will be essential. In the case of an author such as Milton, whose literary work cannot be divorced from his political and religious convictions, it will prove necessary to examine the political and religious as well as the literary atmosphere in Holland. Along these lines it is hoped to arrivé at a clear conception of the attitude in Holland to Milton 'and his writings.



Chapter I
THE DEFENSIO PRO POPULO ANGLICANO IN HOLLAND
It is well-known that it was the publication of his Defensio pro Populo Anglicano in April 1651, that introduced Milton to Continental scholarly and literary circles — in those days of ten synonymous expressions —, including those of Holland. When Masson discusses the impression the book made, he grows enthusiastic. "All Europe", he says, 'was beginning to ring with the name of this Mr Milton. Nothing he had yet done had carried his name so far, or roused such an interest in him beyond the bounds of England, as his Pro Populo Anglicano Defensio in reply to Salmasius. He had been welL even
largely, known within England by his previous writings; but
never bef ore had he stood on the vantage-ground of a subject commanding the immediate attention of foreigners as well as Englishmen. This he had done in his reply to Salmasius. He spoke in that book authoritatively, as the man selected by the Government of the English Commonwealth to defend it bef ore the bar of Europe; he had written it in Latin, that it might be read at once abroad; and he had entiüed it Joannis Miltoni Angli pro Populo Anglicano Defensio. Wherever on the Continent the book reached, an opinion could not but be formed of this hitherto unknown 'John Milton, Englishman', who addressed them as from the battlements of the British Island." i Elsewhere Masson says: "that year (1651), we may say, had made him for the first time, a man of European note. From that year forward his name was more widely known in France, The United Provinces, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, 1 Masson. Life of Milton, IV, p. 316—7. " 



and other foreign countries than perhaps that of any man of the English Commonwealth af ter Cromwell; and from that year we may date the extraordinary eagerness of scholarly foreigners visiting London to see Milton, and be introduced to him" K Masson even goes so far as to call the book "that masterpiece of advocacy, by which more than by anything else except the battle of Worcester, the foreign world had been awakened to the claims and strength of the Commonwealth, and Kings and other Powers had been brought to it almost on their knees." 2 Considering that this formidable attack was aimed at Salmasius, the world-famous professor at Leyden University, it is small wonder that a great commotion was created among Dutch scholars. This is proved by the correspondence of the Dutch scholars Nicholas Heinsius, Isaac Vossius, Gronovius, Janus Vlitius and others, from which Masson quotes when he wants to ülustrate how Milton's Defence was received on the Continent.
This was, indeed, a good beginning for Milton's reputation. "The chief glories of scholarship in the seventeenth century were clustered together in Holland" and "Dutch scholarship was the ripest in Europe from 1600—60." 3 English divines and scholars found it worth their while to keep in closest touch with scientific Holland.* Now for once the tables were turned and the attention of this group was suddenly drawn to the bold Englishman who had dared to attack one of the greatest among them.
Salmasius was at Stockholm at the Court of Queen Christina of Sweden when Milton's crushing attack on his Defensio Regia reached him. He had been introduced to this illustrious patroness of literature and art, (who was afterwards fulsomely praised by Milton in his Defensio Secunda) by Isaac Vossius, son of the famous Gerard J. Vossius and librarian of the great collection of MSS. and books which had been carried away from Germany by Gustavus Adolphus, a post for which the arduous collector of books was eminently qualified. At the urgent request of the Queen to join the group of learned men whom she had collected at her court, Salmasius first sent his son and then went himself (July, 1650). Masson thinks that his leaving Leyden at this moment was due to the disfavour he feil into with the States party on account of the publication of his Defen-
1 Masson. Life of Milton, IV, p. 350 — 3 ibid., p. 428. — 3 Forster Watson. Scholars and Scholarship 1600-60. Cambridge History of English Literature, VII, p. 306-7 — 4 ibid.



sio Regia. i However this may be, this book seems not to have been received in scholarly circles as the author might have wished. At any rate Nicholas Heinsius states in a letter from Paris to his friend Gronovius at Deventer (10 Sept. 1651): "That Royal Defence of his has made him very many enemies in France, so that I now acknowledge the truth of the prediction of Blondel (David Blondel, a French Protestant Theologian); for he declared long ago that there was no scholar in those parts who, if he were also a good man, would approve of that Defence." 2 But then, these three -friends, Heinsius, Vossius, and Gronovius, could hardly judge objectively of Salmasius's work: none of them had reason to feel very amiably disposed towards the great old man. And, as we shall see, their appreciation of Milton's formidable onslaught was rather negative; one suspects a great deal of malicious joy in it. Vossius, though at first a great admirer of Salmasius, had fallen out with him even before his introduction of the learned scholar to his patroness on account of insinuations about his friendship with Nicholas Heinsius. When both were at Stockholm a serious conflict arose between the two men on account of money lent to the youngv Salmasius and they even went to law. The Queen took the side of Salmasius and the dissension resulted finally in Vossius being forbidden admittance to the court (May, 1652). 3
Nicholas Heinsius shared his father's hostility to Salmasius, which dated from as far back as the latter's appointment as a professor at Leyden University in 1632 over the head of Daniël Heinsius, the father. This enmity continued and gave rise to no end of quarrels and conflicts, Daniël Heinsius, who was librarian, once even refusing Salmasius books from the University library. One wonders why such a famous scholar as Salmasius, who could not stand the Dutch climate, while his imperious wife disliked life in Holland, did not accept the advantageous offers to return to his native country of France. But then, in spite of everything he preferred to stay where
1 Masson, op. cit. IV, p. 267-8 — » ibid., p. 343, where Masson quotes Sylloges Epistolarum a Viris Illustribus Tomi Quinque, collecti et digesti per Petrum Burmannum, Leidae, 1727, III, p. 282-3. I have always used and referred to Masson's translation, except in a few cases when passages have not been given by Masson — 8 The details of the lives of these men are taken from van der Aa's Biographisch Woordenbook or from the Nieuw Nederlandsen Biografisch Woordenbook, unless it is stated otherwise.



he was, thanks to "la liberté que j'ai chez les estrangers, de dire, d'escrire et de faire ce que je voudrai, le repos et la tranquillité de ma conscience". The continual bickerings in which he was involved were no doubt partly due to his irascible temper and his vain selfexaltation.
The third friend Gronovius, who af ter a life of strenuous study, also in the libraries of England, France and Italy, had become a professor at Deventer, where he had achieved much fame, had come into serious conflict with Salmasius on being accused by the latter of plagiarism. It was Salmasius, too, who successf ully opposed Gronovius' appointment as 'professor eloquentiae' at Leyden University in 1648.
No doubt these private reasons for hostility gave these men zest in Milton's attack, and naturally roused their interest in Milton, the man. On the 12th of April, 1651, Vossius at Stockholm informs Heinsius, who was at Leyden then, that he has just received Milton's book, but could only hurry through it yet, as the Queen wanted to read it. Very characteristically of the time he adds: "I had expected nothing of such quality from an Englishman." 1 Heinsius, in his letter to Gronovius 2, gloats on the idea how Salmasius stormed and raged when he received the book. Soon he is able to give more details to his friend Vossius. First he dwells on the wide-spread interest that is taken in the book. "The book is in everybody's hands here on the nobility of the matter", he says and then goes on to say that there are already four editions besides the English one, a fifth being in preparation, whereas a Dutch translation is being hawked about in the streets and a French one is expected. He has also some news about the author: "Who Milton himself is people are not well agreed. I have seen some who assert that he is of very low birth, but learned, and promoted to the highest dignity by the popular faction. Ludovic Elzevir3, on the contrary, declares that he has the best evidence that he is a man both of high birth and of wealth, unconnected
1 Masson. Life of Milton IV, p. 317. Burmannus. Sylloge Epistolarum III, pt 595 — a Masson. ib. Burmannus. Sylloge Epistolarum III, 257 — * Louis Elzevir was a very likely man for this kind of information. After studying at Leyden University, he became a commission-agent to his uncles Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir, the worldfamous publishers at Leyden. 'Ses fonctions paraissent avoir consisté principalement a représenter la maison a 1'étranger. Tandis que ses patrons demeuraient a Leyde et prèsidaient en personne a 1'administration et a la
surveillance du magasin et des ateliers, Louis Elzevier parcourait PEurope
en tous sens, s'abouchant en leur nom avec les savants, les gens de lettres,



among whom Bishop Pearson must be mentioned, made him remove to London in 1670 and he spent his last years at his country-house at Windsor in the midst of his huge library which his bibliomania had induced him, and his ample fortune had enabled him, to collect. He does not seem to have taken any interest in Milton's later life and writings, which is no doubt partly due to the circles in which he moved, but chiefly to the character of Vossius himself. The scholar who was said to be at home in all ages except his own, was certainly more interested in an old manuscript or some rare book than is any contemporary poem. Besides, the subjects of Milton's great works would not appeal to a man who, according to Charles II., believed everything except what was in the Bible.
Nor can we expect the two other friends, Gronovius and Heinsius, to take anything but a passing notice of Milton and his works. They were above all latinists. Gronovius' editions of Livy, Seneca, Plautus, and Tacitus are still valuable. He was preeminently a scholar and led a very scholarly and quite uneventful life, differing in this respect very much from Heinsius, who was a humanist and who is a fine example of a man pursuing his studies in spite of all circumstances. Though the best part of bis life was spent on diplomatic missions, away from his books, nothing could make him interrupt the study of his beloved classical authors. Latin poetry was his special fauvourite and it has been said of him: "Les éditions qu'il a données des principaux poëtes latins sont des chefs-d'oeuvre de tact et de pénétration. Certes la critique des textes a fait des progrès depuis lors, mais personne, que nous sachions, n'a fait preuve d'un sentiment plus exquis et plus pur de la poésie latine."1 Hence it is of great interest to know his verdict on Milton's Latin poetry. In answer to a letter that Vossius had written to him telling that Salmasius was hard at work at his answer to Milton in which Salmasius criticized "minutely also Milton's Latin verses", Heinsius writes from Venice (Febr. 28, 1652-3): "Holstenius" (the librarian of the Vatican who was friendly to Milton during his stay in Rome in 1638) "showed me his (Milton's) poems. They have no pretence to elegance. He blunders frequently in prosody. A wide field is therefore open here for the criticism of Salmasius. But with what face will he comment on the verses of others, his own muse being so shabby." 2 For once
1 A. Willems, Les Elzevier. 1880, p. CCXXXH — » Masson, op. cit., IV, p. 475.



the two enemies agreed. For, in the posthumously published reply of Salmasius we find a detailed criticism of Milton's Latin poetry to the same effect.1 All this is exusable in the case of the outraged Leyden professor, but it rather disappointing that such a judge of Latin poetry as Heinsius stopped at the mere prosody and could not find anything to praise in verse that has been called "the finest achievement ever attained in this medium by an Englishman" and which "a great classicist Professor E. K. Rand, finds not unworthy of a place beside its ancient models." 2
Another fact is disappointing. Both Salmasius, and Heinsius evidently read these poems in the edition published in 1645 in London under the title: Poems of Mr John Milton, both English and Latin, composed at several times, and neither seems to have thought it worth his while so much as to allude to the English compositions. Salmasius may be excluded as only wanting revenge for Milton's criticism of his own Latin. But the absence of every allusion to Milton's English poems is typical of Heinsius. He did not follow the example of his great father, Daniël Heinsius, who, being a classicist of European fame, did not think it beneath him to write poems in his native language, thus furthering the national cause in a high degree and even inspiring a foreigner, Martin Opitz, to stir up people in Germany to similar ideals. 3 Heinsius the son, however, could not understand how it was possible for a scholar to take any interest in his native language and folklore. When Vlitius wrote him a letter partly in Dutch,4 he took him to task for it, maintaining that that language was only fit for dispatches to the States. He öncé ironically directed one of his letters to his friends: "Jano Vlitio, antiquitatis utriusque, tam barbarae quam eruditae peritissimo", who retaliated however with the words: "Nic. Heinsio, viro, uti latiae graecaeque antiquitatis indagatori studiosissimo, ita patrii avitique sermonis incurioso". 5 Small wonder that a man who had so much cOntempt for his native tongue, did not take any interest in English, which, as will be shown later on, was th^bught little of by Dutch scholars generally.
Heinsius was more outspoken than Vossius in his opinion of Mil-
1 The book Claudii Salmastii ad Johannum Miltonum Responsio, opus posthumus was out in London in December 1660. Masson, op. cit., VI, p. 206 ff. — 8 J. H. Hanford, A Milton Handbook, 1927, p. 107 — 3 J. Te Winkel, op. cit., III, I, p. 84-5 — 4 See p. 16 — 5 A. Willems, op. cit. p. CCXXXII note.



ton's Defence. On 20 June, 1651, he wrote to Gronovius: "Salmasius is all bent on drubbing Milton, whom he openly represents as suborned and instigated by me, and on this^ account he threatens much mischief to me and my father in the Apology which he is preparing." And on the lst of July he wrote: "That wretched old gentleman (Salmasius) is raving mad. He has sent two letters lately to this city, not deficiënt in sycophantic spite, in which he threatens to turn all his venom against me, because he understands I think well of Milton's book. But what I have said, and will still say, is not so much that a bad cause has been well pleaded by Milton as that Scribonius (nickname of Salmasius) has pleaded most abominably the cause of the unfortunate King... It is a malignant and Salmasian fiction that I am not less the enemy of Kingsjhan Milton is, since I have twice publicly testified what I think of the English Parricide." 1 The question arises whether Salmasius was right in suspecting Heinsius to be one of Milton's informants. This however Heinsius emphatically denies. Evidently referring to some poems of his in which he had criticized the Parliamentarians and to which he was probably also alluding in the last passage quoted, he writes again on the 19th of July to Gronovius: "If any Englishman were to retort upon me for those verses of mine you wot of, shold I not seem ridiculous to you if I swore he was egged on by Scribonius?"2 And in a letter to Petrus Bourdelatius he explicitly stated that he did not know Milton. 3
From the correspondence between these friends we learn the names of some others Dutch scholars who took an interest in Milton. In the first place Graswinkel. Heinsius seems to have informed Vossius that Graswinkel is going to write something against Milton. On the llth of June 1651 Vossius answers: "That is amusing news of yours about Graswinkel: he will come off badly if he touches Milton." 4 And on the 18th of June he says on the same subject: "I am sorry to hear that Gronovius is in bad health. But Graswinkel is in worse health if he is going to oppose himself to that English mastiff — I mean Milton. I thought there was an intimate familiarity between you and Graswinkel: but truly you do not seem to study his interests much; for, if you did, you would neither encourage nor allow his project. The king of Scotland, if he is wise, will at all costs
1 Masson, op. cit. IV, p. 319-20 — 2 ib. p. 342 — 3 Burmannus, Sylloge Epistolarum V, p. 712 — 4 Masson, op. cit. IV, p. 319.



impose silence upon him; but the Parliamentarians ought to forward his undertaking, and even offer to pay him handsomely for it." 1 It is evident that Vossius had no high opinion of GrasWinkel's capacities. However, Graswinkel was not allowed to exposé himself. On the 15th of July Heinsius wrote to Gronovius saying: "Silence has been imposed by public authority on our Graswinkel, who was preparing something against Milton for Elzevir's press: this I had from himself the other day, when I was at the Hague." 2 Small wonder that Salmasius took it ill that Graswinkel was forbidden to proceed in his reply to Milton.' But then, this prohibition was by no means the outcome of any favourable opinion held by the Dutch Government as regards Milton's writings or political creed, but merely dictated by reasons of policy, as will be shown later on.4 It was not the first time that Graswinkel had meddled with English affairs. A refutation of Selden's Mare Clausum had procured for him a pension of 500 guilders from the Government. In 1642 he published De jure majestatis dissertatio in which he maintained the doctrine: "Majestas immediate a Deo non a populo", and in which he attacked Althusius. The same year witnessed the anonymous Copie cTune lettre, touchant Ia justice ou Finjustice des armes du Parlement, contre le roy de la Grande Bretaigne, a Dutch translation of wich was published in the year 1649 under the title of Korte onderrechtinge, raeckende de fondamentale Regeringhe van Engelandt, ende de gherechtigheden soo van den Koning, als het Parlament, By forme van Missive. In this translation the printer asserted that the author was Graswinkel. Apart from his information, the preface is interesting on account of the reason given for this publication of the book in the vernacular. It is meant as an "instruction for many who more possessed of zeal than of knowledge, indulge in their prejudice to such a degree, that, infecting others with their noxious opinions, they win them over to the same error, and feed and make savoury he horrors that, God save the mark, have been committed for the incitement of the rebellious and turbulent spirits and the extirpation of all righteousness and established governments."5 Evidently in the year 1649 there were sufficiënt persons in
1 Masson, op. cit. IV, p. 319 — 3 Masson, op. cit. IV, p. 342 —. 8 ibid. — 4 see p. 43 — B „De voorvallen van den teghenwoordigen tijdt hebben mij doen ghelooven dat de selve geen minder vrucht in onse Nederduytsche Tale gheven en soude, als dienende tot onderrechtinghe van vele, die met meerder



Holland in favour of the English Parliamentarians and their teachings to make such a warning necessary. * The pamphlet itself is a historical investigation of the rights of King and Parliament in England, ia, which English authors, such as Selden, Thomas Smith, Hayward, Raleigh, John Speed, Camden, are freely cited and quoted, thus accidentally showing that the author understood English. It goes without saying that the cause of the King comes off best; in bis opinion people who are in favour of Parliament are led more by their hearts than by their reason.2 A third pamphlet is supposed to have been written by Graswinkel.8 It is in Latin and entitled: Elenchvs motvvm nuperorvm in Anglia; simul ac Joris Regii et Parlementarii Brevis Enarratio, and appeared at Frankfort in 1650. In the preface the author, who signed himself Theodorvs Veridicvs, boasts that he is perfectly qualified for the work he undertakes and has even been admitted "on the proscenium and behind the scènes" in order to investigate English affairs the better, which, if true, certainly does not apply to Graswinkel. * This again is a vehement attack on the Parliamentarians, 6 but, as the name of Milton is not men-
yver als kennisse inghekomen zijnde, haer voor-oordeel soo veel krachts gheven, dat sy oock andere met haer schadeljjck ghevoelen besmettende, in de selve dwalinge trecken, ende de gruwelen die, Godt betert, in dese saecke ontstaen zijn, voeden ende smaekehjck maecken, tot sujvinge van de wederspannighe tumelgheesten, ende uyt-roeyinge van alle gherechtigheden, ende ghestabilieerde Regeeringhen."
1 cf. p. 41ff. — 8 p. 80: „Dit sal ick daer by doen: Dat soo dit schrift in druck koomt, dat daer mogelijk yemant op sal willen stfn seggen hebben, sonderling van die genen die 't Parlement de boven hand pogen te kénnen; hoe wel (naar myn oordeel) meer door de drift van de genegentheydt, als door eenige kracht van recht of reden." — * Knuttel says in the New Ned. Biogr. Woordenboek, III, sub Graswinkel: „Niet onwaarschijnlijk is hij de schrijver van Elenchus etc." — 4 „In utrisque loquor, non raodö ex Fide, sed & familiari Rerum Consuetudine. Illis attestantur Archiva, Rotulaeq; Pariamentariae, & optuna Jurisconsultorum Monumenta. Haec ut meliüs perspicerem, saepe in proscenium, & post siparium admissus sum; eadèmq; quin verè referam, nulla impedit animi aegritudo, vel Horum gratia, vel Illorum odium. Solonianae Legi obnoxius esse malui, quam Civilibus Incendiis frigidam suffundere." — 8 As an illustration of the spirit in which it is written I quote what is said of Cromwell, on p. 51:
„Huic (Thom. Fairfax), Hypo-Strategi titulo, Moderatoris verö in locum, adjungebatur Cromweüius, qui decocto ad assem poenè (sic), nee praelargo patrimonio, resarciendis fortunis novam instituit ex Religione mercaturam, Schismaticorum se turbis ingerens Antesignanum & Propugnatorem, atque



self wise, because he did not allow himself to be deceived by sham virtües; he assumed only evil motives in his neighbours, and he despised them the more if they pretended to act on other, better grounds; he, for one, prided himself in showing his vices openly and undisguisedly. Thus the main feature of his character became an aversion to dissimulation and a love of truth; these virtues, too, are subordinate to his personal interest, but as long as they did not
clash with it, he was ruled by them In his History he portrays
the events as he saw them; he has no reason to flatter the common people, and he ükes to teil them disagreeable truths. From fear of the powerful magistrates he occasionally suppresses his opinion of the government " *
That such a man thought of publishing a Dutch translation of Milton's book on Divorce is, I think, symptomatic of the kind of interest taken in Holland in the Englishman. Obviously such a book could only appeal to the sensationalism of the public, and it points to the absence of all genuine sympathy with Milton's opinions and writings. But more than this. As has been pointed out above, Aitzema published between the years 1657 and 1668 his great historical work. In the sixth part of this work, published in 1662, when describing the events of the year 1651, he discusses how Salmasius' book has been interdicted for political reasons merely, and then goes on: "A certain Milton refuted this book by Salmasius: and a certain learned gentleman from this place wrote that Salmasius had defended a very good cause very badly, Milton a very evil cause very well. 2 To talk of all these and other things according to everybody's mind is as impossible a task as to please and satisfy everybody."» Did Aitzema expect people to resent even the slight praise implied in the words of that "learned gentleman"?
There are surprisingly few mentions of the name of Milton in the Dutch language during his lifetime. As has been said on page 6, soon after its publication there were some five foreign editions of
1 For this characterisation of Aitzema see: Fruin, Verspreide Geschriften, VIII, p. 56ff. The quotation is to be found on p. 67 — 2 Nic. Heinsius is meant; see p. 13 — » Lieuwe v. Aitzema, op. cit. VI, p. 205: „Eenen Milton in Engeland refuteerde 't selfe Boeck van Salmasius; Ende seecker geleert man alhier, schreef dat Salmasius een seer goede saeck, seer quahjck had verdedicht; Milton seer wel een seer quade saeck. Van alle die en andere dingen alhier nae een yeders passie of compassie te spreecken, is alsoo onmogehjck als een yeder te behagen of contentement te doen."



Milton's Defence and a Dutch and French translation besides. Very characteristically the foreign edition seems usually to have been published bound up with that "silly" refutation, as Masson calls it, i of it which John Rowland, an obscure English exile, later on claimed as his work.2 A Dutch translation of such a combination is to be found in the British Museum. It seems almost a joke to read in the volume after Milton's Defence such a preface as the following. s "To the reader: — What the most distinguished Salmasius carefully wrote in defence of the rights and honour of Charles, Monarch of Britain, slain by the hands of wicked men, burst into light in one impression only, and that with great difficulty, with so much hatred in these last times does the world persecute truth; but what the rascally Milton has spitefully elaborated in defamation of the late King and for the subversion of hereditary rule over subjects, of that there are so many copies that I know not to which I should refer the reader, so are men inflamed with the love of lies and calumnies. I have used the volume in 12 mo,4 as the cheapest, unwilling to spend a farthing more than I could help on such an egregious trifler: 'nor would I have bought this copy but that I feared his venom might spread and poison many ignorant people, unless
i Masson, op. cit. IV, 348, 536 — 2 Willems, when mentioning the Latin edition of this book among the publications of Louis Elzevir (Les Elzevier, p 290), adds: "Ecrit servant de réponse a la Defensio de Milton, avec laquelle on le trouve habitueUement relié." — 3 I have quoted Masson's translation (IV, p. 348). The Dutch text is: Tot den Leser. — 't Gene den allercierlycksten Salmasius tot voorstant ende de eere van Karei coninck van groot Brittangien door schelmen handen omgebracht, gheleerdeüjck geschreven hadde, is met eenen Druck, ende dat met groote moeyte alleenlijck in 't licht voortgebroken, met soo grooten haet in dese laetste tyden vervolght de Werelt de Waerheyt; maer *t gene den allervileynighsten Milton tot scheuringhe des overleden Conings fame, ende tot omverwerpinge van sijn Erffelijcke Heerschappye over sijne Onderdanen boosehjck bearbeyt heeft, daer van sijn soo ontalujcke exemplaren, dat ick niet en weet aen wien den Leser te wysen, soo geheelijck sijn de Menschen op loghens en quaetspreken versot, ick hebbe my selven beholpen met een bladt in 12. van seer geringhe prijs, want het verdroot my eenen Duyt aen soo een Beuselaer te kort te hanghen, dan dat ick vreesde dat sijn fenijn doordringhen ende menige onwetende Menschen besmetten mochte, ten ware een Remedie teghen de Rebellie tijdehjck geappliceert wierde: Ende dewyl de seer geleerde Salmasius verre van hier was, tot blussinghe van desen Solpherigen brant, hebbe ick het water 't geen ick by my hadde, daer op ghegoten, tot dat het Salmasius met synen Stroom t'eenenmael sal weghspoelen." — 4 Masson has 16mo.



Chapter II
THE POLITICAL ATMOSPHERE IN HOLLAND
It was as the champion of Republican ideas that Milton first stepped into the foreground. It might consequently be expected that he would have met with a wide response in the neighbouring Protestant Republic. We have already partly quoted Busken Huet's words: "Cromwell seemed to be especially fitted for winning the affections of his Dutch contemporaries. The English revolution of 1648 was the most flattering tribute to the Dutch revolt of 1572." » The English Republicans, like the Dutch, held that it was lawful to resist a tyrant and that "a prince who, instead of protecting his subjects, tries to oppress them, to destroy their ancient liberties and to treat them as slaves, is to be considered, not a prince, but a tyrant." 2 Also those sturdy Calvinists, the backbone of the Dutch Republic, could not but sympathize with the English Puritans in their religious and ecclesiastical difficulties. Those very Puritans even looked up to the Dutch constitution as an example. 3 For "it is successf ul precedents that rule the world", as W. Elliot Griffis put it.4 But even this is not all. The same author and still more.Douglas Campbell6 have pointed
1 cf. p. 1 — 2 Act of Abjuration, see Groen van Prinsterer. Handboek der Geschiedenis van het Vaderland, p. 159, Motley. The Rise of the Dutch Republic, TH, p. 496, etc. — * von Ranke. Englische Geschichte, XIII, Einleitung; Gosses en Japikse. Handboek der Staatkundige Geschiedenis van Nederland, 157-8; cf. Blok. Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche Volk, II, p. 622 — 4 Wm. Elliot Griffis. The Influence of the Netherlands in the making of the English Commonwealth and the American Republic, 1891 — 5 I have only seen his book in the Dutch translation: De Puriteinen in Nederland, Engeland en Amerika, door Douglas Campbell, vert. door J. W. G. van Maanen, Sneek, 1895.



Milton himself seems to have been well acquainted with the state of affairs in the Low Provinces and often refers to them in his political pamphlets.1 In his Tenure of Kings and Magistrates (Febr. 1648-9) he points to their encouraging example: "In the year 1581, the States of Holland, in a general assembly at the Hague, abjured all obedience and subjection to Philip king of Spain; and in a declaration justify their so doing; for that by his tyrannous government, against faith so many times given and broken, he had lost his right to all the Belgian provinces; that therefore they deposed him, and declared it lawful to choose another in his stead. From that time to this, no state or kingdom in the world has equally prospered", adding very significantly: "but let them remember not to look with an evil and prejudicial eye upon their neighbour, walkihg by the same rule" 2 And again in the Ready way to establish a free Commonwealth (March, 1660): "Trade flourishes nowhere more than in the free commonwealths of Italy, Germany and the Low Countries". 3 He does not always write in this admiring vein; on occasion he criticizes the constitution of the United Provinces freely. In the last mentioned pamphlet, while advising that the Commonwealth should split up into the smaller republican bodies of the counties and cities, he foresees the danger of the absence of a central authority and insists the every county or city "shall submit to the greater number of other counties or commonalties, and not avail them to any exemption of themselves, or refusal of agreement with the rest, as it may in any of the United Provinces, being sovereign within itself, ofttimes to the great disadvantage of that union." 4 Even in his defence of a senate composed of members chosen for life, he finds an argument in the constitution of the Dutch Republic: "So in the United Provinces, the States General, which are indeed but a council of state deputed by the whole union, are not usually the same persons for above three or six years; but the states of every city, in whom the sovereignty has been placed time out of mind, are a
1 cf. Dr Mart. Visser. Milton's Prozawerken, Rotterdam, 1911, p. 134ff. When Campbell (op. cit. p. 328 note) asserts that Milton, though writing with the example of the United Provinces in his mind, did not mention them in his famous address to Parliament, the Areopagitica, on account of the recent war between England and Holland, he is greatly mistaken, seeing that the pamphlet was published in Nov. 1644. The same note contains another error in saying that Milton studied in Holland — 8 The italics are mine. Bohn's ed. Prose Works, II, p. 27 — 3 ib. p. 137 — 4 ib. p. 135.



achieved just the reverse: the Scottish movement gained influence in England. The Scottish army invaded England only to defend their own rights, but once in England, they insisted on two measures as important for England as for themselves, viz.: the punishment of the King's chief advisers and the reassembling of Parliament. This meant a revolution in the English system of government.1 As yet, however, there was no struggle between absolute monarchy and democratie republic. The Royalists did not want the King's government without Parliament, the Parliamentarians did not want parliamentary government without a King. Even after the defeat of the King the mass of the people would have been satisfied without the humiliation of the King, if Parliamentary Government had only been restored. The vicfory, however, had not been obtained by Parliament in a parliamentary way, but had been effected by deeds of arms. In the end the Independents got the upperhand; their principles were solemnly proclaimed in the 28th of October, 1647, in the Agreement of the People, the originality and importance of which have been demonstrated by G. Jellinek,2 who points out how here for the first time the inalienable rights of the people were recognized in actual state policy. So that we may finally say that "the Republic in England arose, not from old parliamentary rights that had somehow increased from stage to stage, but from another train of thought", viz. the democratie, "as much opposed to the institution of Parliament in the form in which it had existed up till then, as it was opposed to kingship itself". 3
These new principles are clearly brought out in Milton's Defence. He bases his defence of the proceedings against Charles I. on the principle that the people is not for the king, but the king for them,4 that it is lawful to depose a tyrant, 5 citing as a matter of course the great Protestant authorities Calvin, Hotman, Buchanan and others. And in accordance with what these authorities taught, he duly distinguishes between 'inferior magistrates' and 'private persons'. 6 Yet Milton goes father than any of these Reformers. The right of the
1 von Ranke. Englische Geschichte, VIII, Einleitung — 8 G. Jellinek. Die Erklarung der Menschen- und Burgerrechte 3, 1919, p. 44ff. — 8 Von Ranke, op. cit. XI Buch, 1 Capitel — 4 Bohn's edition of Milton's Prose Works, Vol. I, p. 21 and passim, on which, as the succeedmg notes show, I have drawn very largely for the statement of Milton's views — 6 ibid. p. 22, 28 — 6 ibid. p. 67 and passim. Cf. p. 10 and 31.



people is as much from God as the right of kings* i Milton denies «that there were ever any such kings in the world that derived their authority from God alone". All kings who "reigned of Davids posterity, were appointed to the kingdom both by God and the
people; but all other kings, of what country soever are made
so by the people only."2 Who are meant by the people? Milton himself gives the definition: "Under the word people we comprehend all our natives, of what order and degree soever; m that we have setüed one suprème senate only, in which the nobihty also, as a part of the people, (not in their right, as they did before; but representing those boroughs or counties for which they may be chose,) may give their votes". 3 He meets the objection that the common people are "blind and brutish, ignorant of the art of governing' with the words: this is "true of the rabble, but not of the nuddle sort, amongst whom the most prudent men, and the most skdlf ul in affairs, are generally found; others are most commonly diverted either by luxury and plenty, or by want and poverty, from yirtue, and the study of laws and government." 4 Nor does he restrict the people to those that are represented in boroughs: "the people is the people though they should live in the open field". 5 The right of the people comprises the power of judicature as well as that of legislature e hence it is not only lawful to depose a king, but also to punish him according to his deserts.7 It cannot be maintained that Milton has succeeded in making a logical system of his political creed; this becomes very evident when he tries to defend the legahty of the Rump Parliament It still represents the people, according to Milton. "For whatever the better and sounder part of the senate did, m which the true power of the people resided, why may not the people be said to have done it? What if the greater part of the senate should choose to be slaves, or to exposé the government to sale, ought not the lesser number to interpose, and endeavour to retain their liberty, if it be in their power?" « A glimpse of the jesuitical dictum that the end justifies the means is seen in the assertion: "Whatever things are for the universal good of the whole state, are for that reason lawful and just".» . We shall presently see how fundamentaüy different all this is
1 Bohn's edition of Milton's Prose Works, Vol. I, p. 10 -• ■ ibid. p. 40 * ibid. p. 155 - * ibid. - * ibid. p. 169 - • ibid. - 7 ibid. p. 22 - ibid. p. 143 — 9 ibid. p. 15.



to Dutch Republicanism. There is another side to the Defence, however. It was in the first place meant to be an answer to Salmasius' Defensio Regia. This determined its form as well as its contents. Milton does not give an exposition of his political creed, but follows his opponent's argument closely and refutes him page by page. In doing so he interlards his arguments with vicious personal abuse. However repugnant it may be to us, this feature gave a zest to the book in the eyes of Salmasius' many enemies and was perhaps in many cases what appealed most to Milton's Dutch readers.
As Salmasius was a professor in Leyden University, Milton's pamphlet seems in many respects specially composed for Dutch readers. Milton was craftly enough to express his surprise that such a shameless defender of the divine right of kings should be tolerated in the "famous commonwealth of Holland", that "sanctuary for liberty". i The Low Countries are held up as an example to prove that commonwealths are generally the most prosperous. Milton appeals to the Dutch Republican party and talks in a contemptuous way of the House of Orange, congratulating Holland on the death of Prince William II. "Consider with yourselves, ye most illustrious states of the United Netherlands", he exclaims2, "who it was that put this asserter of kingly power upon setting pen to paper? who it was, that but lately began to play Rex in your country ? what counsels were taken, what endeavours used, and what disturbances ensued thereupon in Holland? and to what pass things might have been brought by this time? How slavery and a new master were ready prepared for you; and how near expiring that liberty of yours, asserted and vindicated by so many years of war and toil, would have been ere now, if it had not taken breath again by the timely death of a certain rash young man."
This combination of democratie principles and contempt of the House of Orange, however logical it might have been in the case of Milton, proved to be fatal to the acception of his book by the Dutch. The underlying principles and the development of the Dutch revolt against Spain were monarchal. From the outset repeated protestations of fidelity to the King were made. It was indeed, as everybody knows, actually embodied in the Dutch national anthem.
1 Bohn's edition of Milton's Prose Works, Vol. I, p. 31, 83 2 ibid
p. 6.



For a long time the rebels actually sought for a new sovereign, in order to obtain protection, it is true, yet consistently with their 'revolutionary' principles. In the 'Beggars' Song's Alva is represented not as King Philip's servant but as the hangman of the Pope. * The wrath and hatred of the population is chief ly directed not against the King but against the Pope.
The successive attemps to maintain fidelity to the king, even though this was carried on 'ad absurdum', are of great importance: the later history of the Netherlands prove that this was the line along which the history of the new-born state was to develop.2 We notice this tendency from the very beginning of the dissensions. When in 1561 Prince William of Orange and the Duke of Egmond wrote to the King to complain of the fact that the Council of State had only affairs of minor importance to deal with, while Granvelle kept everything else to himself, they from the first took up that remarkable attitude: the King was appealed to as if he was unaware of what his representatives were doing 3 And when they threatened to give up their seats in the Council in 1563, they all the while expressed their fidelity to King and religion.
The Noblemen's League pledged themselves to oppose the introduction of any f orm of inquisition as contrary to the country's rights, at the same tinie alleging their adhesion to 'la saincte foy catholique' and their fixed intention to maintain the King's authority and to crush any insurrection. And in the Request that they solemnly presented to the Regent Margaretha of Parma on the 3rd of April, 1566, the occasion which gave rise to the nickname 'Beggars' — in that Request, too, they asserted that, being 'bons et loyaulx serviteurs et fidèles vassaulz' of the King, they were obliged to oppose the measures that were to be taken and to warn their Sovereign of the
1 E.g.: Hy heeft gheseyt dat hy hier qüam,
Van 'sConinks weghen het lant innam,
Valschelyk heeft hy 't geloghen.
s Paus beudel was hy, met moede gram,
s Conincks landen bedroghen. (i.e. He said that he came here and took the country in the name of the Ring; he lied falsely. The hangman of the Pope he was, grim of mood; the King's countries are deceived.)
Quoted by Busken Huet, op. cit., II1, p. 15 — 2 Gosses en Japikse, op. cit p. 241 and passim — 3 Blok, op. cit., II, p. 7.



saying that the States, which had had to sanction each new choiee, began to feel themselves the highest authority in the State.
We need not relate in detail he various attempts to find a King. The Duke of Anjou spoilt his chances by an abortive 'coup d'état'. After his death, Henry UI. of Frence was appealed to, but in vain. Then the negotiations with the Prince of Orange, which had already been begun in the time of Anjou, were resumed and finally settled. The new Count was to become sovereign of Holland and Zealand. He had to maintain the privileges of the Union and was among other things not allowed to confer new privileges or to conclude treaties without the consent of the States. Thus the Prince of Orange would have become Sovereign of the United Provinces, had not a Spanish fanatic assassinated him.
The States immediately proceeded to entrust the Council of State 'provisionally' with the government,1 and then looked about again for help from abroad. The words addressed by the Dutch Embassy to Queen Elizabeth, when she was asked to accept the Sovereignty of the Low Countries, are very notewothy. They pointed out the desirability for provinces that now hung so loosely together, to have a sovereign lord who could defend the general interests against the private pretensions of the provinces — a very remarkable plea for monarchal government in the mouth of rebels!2
Again foreign interference failed. When Leicester accepted from the hands of the States General the sovereignty of the United Provinces (1586), he and the States met with a stern rebuke from Queen Elizabeth. Gradually the States General and the governor became at variance. They were vexed to see him seal official papers with his own seal, which they considered as an encroachment upon their sovereign rights. Above all things they disliked his proceedings, when it proved that Leicester, who professed to be an ardent Calvinist, tried to curry favour with the common people. He was very successful in this, especially in Utrecht, which he endeavoured to make his stronghold from which to attack the States. The issue of this struggle throws a remarkable light on current Dutch political ideas. When Leicester was absent in England for a short time, the English member of the Council of State, Wilkes, maintained in a pamphlet and in a discourse before the States General, that in the absence of a 1 Blok, op. cit. p. 222: 'bij provisie' — 3 Blok, op. cit. p. 231; and especially Motley.



legal prince the sovereignty of the state rested with the common people, and he set up this authority, which favoured Leicester, in opposition to the power of the States.1 In answer to this a Justification or Deduction was published for the States of Holland, in which it was maintained that 'for 700 years this country had been governed by Counts and Countesses, whom the Noblemen and Towns, as representing the people, had legally charged with the sovereignty", that 'the town-councils were as old as the towns themselves, so that there was no memory of their origin^' Towns and noblemen represented the whole state and the whole body of burghers, who 'are averse to all ambition'. 2 Generally speaking this was in keeping with the national character, though there were many who agreed with Wilkes, especially most of the clergymen of the Reformed Church. The state party on the other hand thought these democratie ideas worse than monarchy and were of opinion that they would lead to anarchy. 3
Leicester's attempt to obtain absolute power failed; the States came off victorious. Only then, after Leicester's resignation, now that all efforts to find another sovereign had been in vain, was the Republic of the United Provinces at last formed, though the name was not yet used,4 and this meant at the samê time the defeat of the democratie party. Henceforward the sovereignty rested with the States, being the deputies of the Town-cöuncils, closed bodies, the members of which belonged to a very exclusive aristocracy. Thus Republicanism in the Netherlands had nothing to do with the rights of the people. The States soon lost the character of representative bodies, so that the government soon became oligarchical or, as its adherents called it, 'a government of notables', 'an aristocratie government'. At the same tune, 'Republicanism' stood for that spirit of independency in the federal provinces of the new Republic, which made it a Federation of Republics rather than a State. Holland and in particular Amsterdam, favoured this attitude, seeing in it a way to lord it
1 Blok, op. cit. p. 254: 'De souvereiniteit by gebreke van een wettelijk Prince behoort de Gemeente toe en niet Ulieden, mijne Heeren, welke niet dan zijt dienaers, Ministers en Gedeputeerden van dezelve Gemeente', beperkt door instructiën; en 'nog veel minder representeeren Uwe Edelheden de souvereiniteit,' die immers door de 'gemeente' aan Leicester was gegeven door de Staten als haar dienaren — a ibid. p. 264 — 3 Gosses en Japikse, op. cit. p. 100 — 4 ibid. p. 332.



Chapter III
THE DE DOCTRINA CHRISTIANA IN HOLLAND
Besides his political views Milton's theological ideas were in a fair way to become known in Holland. The intended publication of Milton's Latin State Papers and his Treatise of Christian Doctrine at Amsterdam in 1676-7 led to Milton's theology being known in a wider circle in Holland than is generally supposed. Shortly before his death, Milton tried to have the State Papers published by Brabazon Aylmer along with his Latin Familiar Epistles, but the Government prevented such a proceeding.1
On his death the MSS. of the State Papers and the Theological Treatise were left to Daniël Skinner, a young scholar who had for some time been his amanuensis, evidently "on the understanding that Skinner would do his best to have the two books printed in Holland". The poor man was to ruin his career in this attempt. In 1675 he negotiated for the publication of the books by the printer Daniël Elzevir, cousin and partner and later on successor of Ludovic or Louis Elzevir at Amsterdam, who has been mentioned on p. 6 (note 3). "Whether the negotiation was by letter, or with an agent of Elzevir in London, or with Elzevir himself, who is known to have been on a visit to London about this time, does not appear; but it is certain that, in or about November 1675, Elzevir had agreed with Skinner to print the two manuscripts, and that shortly afterwards they were in Elzevir's possession in Amsterdam." 2 In October of the following year, however, there appeared a surreptitious edition of those Latin State Letters of Milton, anonymously published by the
1 Masson, op. cit VI p. 720-1 — 9 ibid. p. 792.



printer E. Fricx at Brussels, i In his annoyance Skinner appüed to Sie Secretary of State, Sir Joseph Williamson, for pennission to aTnoun^e hfe authentie publication of Milton's writings. But he was Tn made aware of Sir Joseph's objeetion to the publication of any of Milton's work, and in the hope, through the influence of this Staman, of getting an appointment in the English embassy at he peace negotiations at Nimeguen, he promises to suppress the ptotication of the manuscript, Failing to pacify ^-g^J * even made Elzevir write to him on the subject. The letter runs as
^r/- It is about a year since I agreed with Mr Skinner to print the Letters of Milton and another manuscript on Theology; but Living "eceived the said manuscripts, and having wWcïl judged fitter to be suppressed than published I resolved to prinTne ther the one nor the other. I wrote to that effect to Mr ISnner at Cambridge; but, as he has not been there for some m£ my letter did not reach him. Since then he has been in this town, S « delighted to hear that I have not begun to « -
treatises and has taken back his papers. He told me that youi were SornTed, Sn-, that I was going to print all the works of Milton colleXely. I can assure you that I never had such a thought, and Sat ï sTould have a horror of printing the treatises which he made £f me def ence of so wicked and abominable a cause, even if i were not independently unbecoming for the son of him who first pTntea the Defensio Regia of Salmasius, and who would have ^n bis tif e if he could have saved the late King o glorieus,„ to print a book so detested by all honest people. I am bound to teil you, Sir, that Mr Skinner expressed to me very great joy over the Let matrhad_not_beg^^
^^^^^
— tW° ElzlvM T'^^t S » by other "Annexes aux Elzeviers , i.e. tte ™ Kleerkooper (Some Milton
printers m this case E. Fricx of Brussels.^ ^ ^ ^
rs^—Vi» ï•» -<*-"»Fre°ch o^,8'"*,
is to be found.



me it was his intention, in case the said book had begun, to buy up the sheets for the purpose of suppressing them, and that he had taken a firm resolution so to dispose of the said manuscripts that they should never appear; and I shall venture to be answerable to you, Sir, for the strong resolution I have seen in him so to dispose of them, and chiefly since he has had the honour to speak with you, and you have shown hun that you would not quite like the said manuscripts to appear; and, as he expects his advancement from you, one need not doubt that he will keep his word. Sir, I cannot conclude without expressing my acknowledgements for your goodness to me when I was in London; and I should desire to have occasion to be able to serve you in anything that would show with how much respect I am, Sir, your humble and very obedient Servant, — Daniël Elzevir.
P. S. I forgot to say, Sir, that neither Mr Skinner nor I had any part in what has of late appeared of the said Milton, and that I never heard teil of it till Mr Skinner told me here. He had indeed informed me before that a certain bookseller of London had received some letters from some one who had stolen them from the late Milton; but neither he nor I have had any connexion with that impression, — of which I pray you will' be persuaded."
This letter, is dated the 20th of November, 1676, but Sir Joseph's mind seems not to have been set at ease about the book. On the 19th (29th) of January, 1677, he wrote the following letter to Roger Meredith, secretary to the English Embassy at the Hague:1
" His Matie is informed of a pernicious Booke, of that late
Villain Milton's, now about to be printed at Leyden, I am commanded to signify to you, that you immediately apply yr selfe, to find out by the best means you may, if there be any such, who is the printer, and by what order he is sett on worke. There is one Skinner a young Scholar of Cambridge, that some time since did owne to have had such a thing in his intentions, but being made sensible as he seemed to be, of the danger he ranne into, in having a hand in any such thing, he promised for ever to lay aside the thoughts of it, and even to give up his Copy. I know not whether this may be the same thing, and whether it came from his hand or some others. But you are to use what means possibly 1 Kleerkooper, Athenaeum, Dec. 19, 1908, p. 212.



you can to find out, what there is of it true, to the end timely care may be taken for the preventing the thing by seizing the impression or otherwise. I am Yr &c.
J. W(flhamson.)
(Foreign Entry Books no. 66.)
Meredith is very prompt in his reply, as appears from the following letters:
"5 Febr. 1677. — I have also in pursuite of His Maty's command given me by Your Honour concerning that book of Milton's wch is designed (as His Maty is informed) to be printed at Leyden, begunne my endeavours to discover ye truth of it, of wch I suppose I shall know some effect by ye next post.
9 Febr. — I have as yet no account of ye inquiry I have begunne after Milton's book, wch I shall pursue with all diligence.
12 Febr. — The person whom I employ at Leyden about Milton s book hath been out of ye way so yt I have not as yet any account of that inquiry."
Finally he answers on the 26th of February:
"I cannot yet geit information of any worke of Milton's about to be printed at Leyden; but I finde ye herewith inclosed printed about three month since at Amsterdam, wch by an vnusuall forgetfulnesse of my bookseller came not till now to my knowledge. By what I could runne over of it this day, I cannot judge whether it be ye book His Maty would have prevented, and presuming yt since ye time it hath been printed, it may have come directly from Amsterdam to your Honour's hands I shall pursue my diligence to finde out wether any other be designed to be printed at Leyden.' In the meantime Sir Joseph seems to have called in the help of Daniël Skinner's father, a merchant in London, in order to get the dangerous manuscripts into his hands, and to this end the latter wrote a letter to Elzevir, the answer to which is dated Amsterdam, Febr. 19. 1676-7, and runs: *
«Sir> _ The honour of yours of the second of this month has
1 Masson, op. cit. VI, p. 803.



duly reached me. It is true that I received by Symon Heere the two manuscripts of Milton, — to wit, his work on Theology and his Letters to Princes; which are still in the same state in which I received them, not having found it convenient to print them. You will know, doubtless, that Monsieur your son did me the honour to come to see me, — who was greatly satisfied when he saw that T had not printed the said works, and begged me to send them by the first opportunity to Nimeguen to the Secretary of the Embassy. But it began to freeze before I could carry out his orders, and I have since received your said son's order from Paris to send them to you by the first shipping opportunity; which commission I will not fail to execute, and shall give them, well packed, to Jacob Hendrincx, who will be the first to leave this for your city. I have been much yexed at not being able to execute his orders sooner; but the frost, which has lasted here more than three months, has prevented the vessels from leaving. At the request of your son I wrote a letter to Sir John Williamson, Secretary of State, in which I assured that gentleman that the said books were still in my hands, that I had no intention to print them, and that Monsieur your son would place them in his hands. Thus, Sir, you have no cause to trouble yourself on this account; for, in the first place, I am sure that your son has no intention to cause them to be printed, but on the contrary to place them in the hands of the gentleman above named, and, for my own part, I would not print them though one were to make me a present of £ 1000 sterling, and this for various reasons. I pray you, Sir, to believe that the said books will be sent you through Jacob Hendrincx, and will be forwarded to you at bis leisure."
On the 16th of March Daniël Elzevir informed the anxious father that the promise was executed:1
"Sir, — The present will be to give you advice that last week I sent you by Jacob Hendrixen (who is the first skipper to leave from here for London after the frost) the Manuscripts of Milton, namely, his works on Theology and his Epistles, which are in the same state as I received them from Monsieur your son. If Monsieur the Secretary of State will take the trouble to compare them with the
1 The French original is to be found in Kleerkooper's De Boekhandel te Amsterdam, p. 214; I have quoted his English translation in Athenaeum.



Epistles which have been printed, he will easily nc-tice the difference there is between the manuscript and the print; for in the print there are diverse letters which are not in the manuscript and in the
manuscript (there are) diverse that are not in the print that
the order of the letters is different. Which I have thought
necessary (?) to advertise you that by might prove that
Monsieur your son has made a proper use of them, afid that he has not at all contributed to this edition.
If you have the honour of seeing Monseigneur Williamson, I beseech you to offer him my very humble respects, and to assure him on my behalf that of the works of Milton which have been in my hands, never an iota has been printed, that I have sent them back as I received them. I kiss your hands and am hearbly, Sir,
Your very humble servant,
Daniël Elsevier.
Thus these Milton MSS. were returned to England and placed in the State Paper Office at Whitehall, where they were accidentally discovered in 1825. *
What then do we learn about Milton's reputaüon m Holland from these proceedings? Without going so f ar as to suspect that Elzevir had a hand in the surreptitious publication of the Latin State Letters, i we may assume, in spite of his protestations, that he would not have forgone the printing of the Milton MSS. that were entrusted to him, unless he had been convinced that it Would be a failure from a commercial point of view, or at any rate too great a risk to endanger for it his commercial interests in Engeland.2 Milton's. political writings had brought him ill-fame, and now his theologica heresies had become known. The man whose advice Elzevir took on the Milton MSS. had been well chosen. If he found fault with the work, it was not likely to find favour in any Dutch circle. Milton s De
i see d 58 note 1 - 2 About the nature of the commercial interests of Daniël mZfeVin EnSand, M. M. Kleerkooper has given interesting details ra Nieuws. mTZor de t^andel, 1909, p. 1012ff., where he gives informat,«i about the journey Elzevier made to England in 1675. It was a v"^**™™* on Augo Grotius' De veritate Religionis Christianae, in consequence of which Lmftwo üTland copies of that book were seized
We farther learn that Daniël Elzevir had helped the English ambassaaor to suppress some infamous libels against the Royal family.



Doctrina Christiana was submitted to the judgement of Philippus van Limborch, professor of the Theological College for Remonstrants in Amsterdam. This we learn from a German, Z. C. von Uffenbach, who visited Holland and England in the years 1709-11 and met several prominent persons, including Van Limborch. Van Limborch advised the bookseller not to print the book, "weil der Arrianismus durch und durch auf das heftigste darinnen zu finden ist." 1 This throws an important light on the attitude to Milton. If we see Van Limborch talking about Milton's work to a casual visiter, some thirty years after he had read it, we may safely infer that he made no secret of his opinion to his friends and acquaintances. In the headquarters of the Remonstrants we might have expected less dread of Milton's heterodox ideas. The reason of the rejection is to be found partly in the character of the De Doctrina Christiana, partly in the development of Dutch Protestantism, as will be shown in the next chapter. Here it will suffice to state the fact that among the prominent Remonstrants Milton was known and condemned as heretic. As we shall presently see, rumours of Milton's fame as a poet among the English began to spread in Holland in the beginning of the 18th century. Hence we may see in Van Limborch's remark about him an instance of the Dutch comment upon this fame. In Holland Milton had to overcome even more impediments to be acknowledged as a great poet than in England, where his theological heresies were known only in so far as they appeared from his poems and where they seem not to have mattered much. Here they were known in advance, and, as we shall see later on, dogmatical soundness was considered of the utmost importance in Holland. Far from being a help to his fame as a poet, the reputation Milton had acquired among the Dutch as a politician and a theologian was an impediment to it. No genuine interest in him was roused in Holland, though the memory of his name must have lingered on in learned circles. Thus we find in a strange book, published in 1685 under the title of Spiegel der Sibyllen (Mirror of the Sibyls) by J. A(ysma), Milton's name among the list of scholars whose works had been consulted.2 1 Z. C. von Uffenbach. Merkwürdige Reisen durch Niedersachsen Holland und Engelland, Frankfurt und Leipzig, 1753-4, 3 vols., III, p. 585 — a J. A. stands for J. Aysma according to J. I. van Doorninck, Vermomde en Naamlooze Schrijvers, Leiden, 1883, I, p. 251. [I have not been able to find out what Aysma borrowed from Milton, nor could I find any information about the author himself.]



Seeing the steady growth of Milton's reputation as a poet in bis native country, people in Holland were bound to hear of him sooner or later as such. But then a third mapediment to the acknowledgement of the EngUsh poet wül become evident in the question how far the EngUsh language was known in HoUand.



Chapter IV
THE RELIGIOUS ATMOSPHERE IN HOLLAND
In view of the obviously religious character of Paradise Lost and of the fact that Milton's De Doctrina Christiana was known in at least one theological circle in Holland, the character of Dutch Protestantism in the 17th and the early 18th century becomes important. The theological ideas of the tractate and the poem are the same, so that from a religious point of view the attitude to the two works will be the same. A discussion of the religious atmosphere in Holland will theref ore throw a light both upon the attitude to the De Doctrina Christiana and upon jhe question whether therë was a favourable | atmosphere in Holland for the reception of Paradise Lost. First we shall have to examine Milton's theological opinions as they appear from his De Doctrina Christiana and Paradise Lost.
In his Treatise of Christian Doctrine Milton set out as an intrepid Protestant to interpret the whole Bible single-handed. Here also in a way he purposed "to justify the ways of God to man." In doing so he deviated from the dogmas of the Dutch Reformed Church. We shall discuss only the chief of these heterodox views and restrict ourselves to Milton's opinions about the Holy Scriptures, The Trinity, Predestination, Baptism, and the Church.
1 - Milton's attitude to the Holy Scriptures
Milton regards the Holy Scriptures as composed under divine inspiration. But he considered that not only every believer has a right to interpret the Scriptures for himself in as far as he has the Spirit for his guide and as the spirit of Christ is in him, but that he is
5



bound to do so, for the expositions of the public interpreter can be of no use to him except in so far as they are confirmed by his own conscience. i It is not therefore within the province of any visible church, much less of the civil magistratè, to impose its own interpretation on us as laws, or as binding on the conscience; in other words, as matter of implicit faith. If, however, there be any difference among professed believers as to the sense of Scripture, it is their duty to tolerate such difference in each other, until God shall have revealed the truth to all. 2 Scripture is the sole criterion of controversies; or rather, every man is to decide for himself through its aid, under the guidance of the Spirit of God. 3
This personal side is strongly emphasized, as might be expected from a man like Milton. In the dedication to the book under consideration, he gives as a reason for the composition of the work that it is only to the individual faith of each that the Deity has opened the way of eternal salvation, and that God requires that he who would be saved should have a personal belief of his own. * He claims for every individual believer that freedom of discussion and inquiry which is granted to the schools, 5 and he has become convinced that, in religion as in other things, the gifts of God are all directed, not to an indolent credulity, but to constant diligence, and to an unwearied search after truth. « He never wearies of asserting not only the right but the duty of every believer to winnow and sif t every doctrine by a comparison with Scripture testimony,7 the authority of which he considered inviolably sacred. 8
Milton does not doubt for a moment that the believer will be successful in his attempts, for the guidance of the Holy Spuit has been promised him. Under the gospel, he says, we possess, as it were, a twofold Scripture; one external, which is the written word, and the other internal, which is the Holy Spirit, written in the hearts of believers, according to the promise of God, and with the intent that it should by no means be neglected.» The external Sripture, or written word, particularly of the New Testament, has been liable to frequent corruption, and Milton thinks it difficult to conjecture the purpose of Providence in committing the writings of the New Testament to such uncertain and variable guardianship,
1 Bonn. IV, p. 444 — 2 ib. — 3 ib. p. 445 — 4 ib. p. 4 — 6 ib. p. 5 — 6 ib. p. 4 _ i ib. p. 6, 7 — 8 ib. p. 78 — 9 ib. p. 447.



unless it were to teach us by this very circumstance that the Spirit which is given to us is a more certain guide than Scripture, whom therefore it is our duty to follow.1 Although the external ground which we possess for our belief in the written word is highly important, and, in many instances at least, prior in point of reception, that which is internal and the peculiar possession of each- believer, is far superior to all, namely the Spirit itself.2
This internal Scripture, as Milton calls it, is evidently what is called in Protestant churches, following Calvin, the Testimonium Spiritus Sancti. Not only the Church, but every believer, is held to be guided by the Holy Spirit, but every believer, and he has a right to appeal under His guidance from the Church creed to the Scriptures.
If we now see how Milton set about interpreting the Scripture, we again and again meet the word 'reason', which has led many to look upon him as a rationalist. Prof. Grierson3 considers that two principles control all Milton's views: a. the individual reason 'than which God only is greater', b. the Bible. This is right except in their order. The Bible came first with Milton. And this makes an essential difference. Prof. Grierson's final conclusion is: "His was rather the soul of an ancient Stoic, blended with that of a Jewish prophet, which had accepted with conviction the Christian doctrine of sin and redemption", and he sees in Milton the great champion of "the fundamental principle of the Renaissance — the emancipation of the Renaissance." In this view the fundamental difference between the emancipation meant by the Renaissance and that meant by the Reformation is neglected. We might define the one as a movement to set man free to be himself quite independently, and the other as a movement to set man free to be himself before God. "The Reformation was not the emancipation of the natural man, but of the Christian."4 And these divergencies do not start from a common basis, but are diametrically opposed. The Renaissance conception of human liberty is in the eye of the Protestant and of the Christian generally the ultimate ground of all sin. The Christian considers himself, together with the whole universe, created by God. He feels himself in every respect dependent on God his Creator. The denial of this dependence and the claim of absolute independence of the
1 Bohn, IV, p. 449 — 2 ib. p. 447 — 3 Encyplopaedie of Religion and Ethics.a Edinburgh, 1925-26, sub Milton — 4 H. Bavinck. Gereformeerde Dogmatiek.9 Kampen, 1918, I, p. 511.



it.1 The Church and also every individual Christian is believed to be guided by the Holy Ghost. It is a logical consequence of these tenets that Protestantism, however frequently the Protestants may have sinned in this respect, implies tolerance: neither the state, nor any church, nor any individual may interfere with the personal conviction of any private person. This tolerance is not the outcome of indifferentism, but of the high conception of every human soul. The obvious possibility of manifold divergencies are accepted in the belief that these divergencies are owing to the sinful shortcomings of men and that God, who never imposes His will from the outside, shall lead the churches through the Holy Ghost to 'una ecclesia sancta catholica.'
To conclude, Milton in his conception of the Scriptures, in his general outlook upon religion and in his method of arguing the tenets of his creed kept to the principles that underlie the Ref ormation and are the basis the calvinistic Dutch Reformed Churches. But the tenets themselves deviate in almost every point from those accepted by the Dutch Churches.
2 - The Trinity
In Milton's eyes the mysterious doctrine of God's Trinity has been logically inferred only from obscure indications in the Rible, and, as it is unreasonable, it is rejected. According to Milton, the Father and the Son are different persons. 2 The Son is the only begotten and the first born. 3 Father and Son are one, not in essence, but in love, in communion, in agreement, in charity, in spirit, in glory. 4 The Son has received the name and nature of Deity from God the Father, in conformity with his decree and will. 5 Milton is in this respect clearly Arian. The Holy Ghost, whose nature is not plainly revealed to us, must be considered a's inferior to both Father and Son, though Milton refutes the doctrine of the Socinians, who interpret the Holy Spirit as nothing more than the virtue and the power of the Father.«
3 - Predestination
Before the Foundation of the world God, out of pity for mankind, though foreseeing that they would fall of their own accord, prei Bavinck, op. cit., III, p. 346 — a Bonn, IV, p. 79 — » ib. p. 84-5 — * ib. p. 93 — 5 ib. p. 95 — 6 ib. p. 167.



bf brotherhood, and so ordered as may best promote the ends of edification and mutual communion of Saints. Discipline ought to be maintainëd in a church,1 but every church, however small its numbers, is to be considered as in itself an integral and perfect church, so far as regards its religious rights; nor has it any superior on earth, whether individual, or assembly, or convention, to whom it can be lawfully required to render submission.2 It is advisable that particular churches should communicate with each other and coopera te for purposes connected with the general welfare.
Thus Milton makes himself the advocate of Independentism, against which the Dutch Reformed Churches f ought so strenuously, especially after the rise of Labadism.
The De Doctrina Christiana shows Milton to have been an extreme case of Protestantism. He is neither Calvinist, nor Arminian, nor Baptist, indeed, it is impossible to group him under any of the sects. From a human point of view we may say that he failed in his bold, but sinceré, attempt to interpret the whole Bible afresh. His doctrine is a strange conglomeration of various creeds. It is a system bristling with heresies both in religion and ethics, from whatever side it is approached. 3 For Milton himself this implied a terrible loneliness; for his fame it was a great drawback, as he made not the slightest attempt to formulate the belief of Christians generally, or even of a group of Christians.
After what was been said of the De Doctrina Christiana, we may bè brief about the religious character of Paradise Lost. Milton believed his picture of the Creation to be literally true. Heaven and Heil were real to him. God the Father and His Son, the angels, Satan, the f allen angels, Adam and Eve, were real persons. The fall of man was historically true and of the utmost importance to mankind generally and to him personally. He embodied artistically in this work a philosophy of life, which enabled him to become -reconciled to earthly life and gave him courage to face eternity. He did not hide his real view under the cloak of Christian symbols, but he sincerely believed in the reality of these symbols. If ever a book might be called "the precious life-blood of a master-spirit", 4 it is Paradise Lost.
This religious character of the poem is the chief objection of the
1 Bonn, IV, p. 461, 468 — 8 ib. p. 463 — 8 Cf. his ideas about the creation, death, man's soul, marriage, falsehood — 4 Areopagitica, Bohn, op. cit. II, p. 55.



present time to the poem. Mark Pattison says: "The demonology of the poem has already, with educated readers, passed from the region of fact into that of fiction. Not so universally, but with a large number of readers, the angelology can be no more than what the critics call machinery. And it requires a violent effort from any of our day to accomodate our conceptions to the anthropomorphic theology of Paradise Lost." 1 Such an objection could hardly be raised in the Protestant circles of 18th century Holland. The religious iconography of Paradise Lost was still generally accepted. Nor was the Old Testament character of Milton's theological conception a drawback. The heresies of the De Doctrina Christiana, however, though less apparent in the poem than in the prose tract, were clearly discernible, as is shown by the many accusations of heterodox ideas in Paradise Lost before the publication of that Latin treatise. A careful scrutiny of the poem could not but disclose that Paradise Lost was a poetical expression of a highly-individual belief, or, as Raleigh expresses it,2 instead of being "a kind of cathedral for the ideas of a nation as it should be," the poem is "transformed by Milton into a chapel-of-ease for his own mind, a monument to his own genius and his own habits of thought." Such a work can only appeal to the religious-minded in a period of highly spiritual life, when sincerity ranks higher than conformity, when private views are appreciated on account of their sincerity. We shall see that in Holland the religious atmosphere was just the opposite.
In examining this atmosphere the Synod of Dort (1618) is of great importance. As the Reformation was an appeal from Church tradition to the Bible itself, different shades of Protestantism inevitably occurred in Holland from the outset. These varieties, however, were soon eclipsed by Calvinism, not only because it was the faith of the courageous minority of "die-hards" in the desperate struggle against Spain, but also because it brought with it a complete church-constitution, formed abroad in Wesel, Embden, and London, to be ready if it should please God "morgen oft overmorgen het land te openen." 8 From the beginning the character of this church was synodal-presbyterian, and as soon as the country became more settled, attempts were made to make the church more united, by fixing its creed and
1 Mark Pattison. Milton, London, 1879, p. 200 — 2 W. Raleigh. Milton, London, 1900, p. 88 — 8 L. Knappert. Geschiedenis der Nederlandsch Hervormde Kerk, Amsterdam, 1911-12, I, p. 6.



settling its relation to the Government. On all hands the possibility was accepted of logically deducing from the Scriptures a system of doctrine and of formulating it in language, thus fixing the creed once for all. A tremendous struggle ensued on the character of this confession between the Arminians and the Gomarists, the first party being favoured by the intellectual section of the people and the government aristocracy, the second comprising the people at large and the majority of the clergy. As is well-known the Gomarists were victorious: the Canons of Dort are genuinely Calvinistic and they were pronounced to be the only true interpretation of the Bible. Thereafter, criticism of these doctrines, even by an appeal to the Scriptures, was forbidden: "Men moet Gods Woord verklaren uit de belijdenis" (God's Word must be interpreted from the confession). 1 There were no 'dubia'. 2 It will be clear that this attitude was unprotestant. Thus we see that the Dutch Reformed Church, which, though never established, was yet most favoured by, and dependent on the Government more than was desirable, was led by a body of clergy, diligently watchful against any deviation from the accepted creed. In course of time this strict dogmatism led to formalism and hair-spUtting scholasticism. It was thought worse to be a heretic than a drunkard. 3 Such an exegetical system as was propagated by Coccejus (1603—1669), who insisted on an interpretation of texts according to the context, the spirit, and will of the author, the analogy of the whole Bible, was hotly opposed as detrimental to the sanctity of Holy Writ, every jot and tittle of which was inspired. It is needless to say that in these circles Milton's theology, if it had been known, would have been denounced as vicious, and that Paradise Lost would have been looked on with suspicion. These circles found literary expression, if any, in the many bibbcal epics of the 18th century, which, as we shall see, breathe an atmosphere fundamentally different from Milton's Paradise Lost.
Opposition was bound to arise against the rigid dogmatism prevalent in the Dutch Reformed Church. In the first place this came from the churches that were suffered to exist by the side of the
1 Bogerman, quoted by L. Knappert, op. cit., I, p. 107 — 9 ib. I, p. 124 — 3 A striking illustration is cited by Proost, Jodocus van Lodenstein (Amsterdam, 1880, p. 4): a widely esteemed minister openly maintained that it is bettér to admit a drunkard and sinner into the pulpit that a pious man who objects to the church regulations. Cf. Knappert, op. cit., I, p. 153.



Reformed Church, the Remonstrants and the Mennonites. Flirther a pietistical movement began, strongly influenced by English puritanism, and lastly a spirit of toleration arose, which was to take the lead in 18th century thought.
From a theological point of view Milton might expect to find kindred souls among the Remonstrants and Mennonites. We have seen that Milton was Arminian as to the doctrine of predestination and Arian as to christology. Arminian and Arian ideas were by no means exceptions in Mennonite circles and it is significant that the first translater of Paradise Lost was a Mennonite. The Remonstrants were undoubtedly more or less Arian,1 and were constantly accused of being so. Yet they as constantly protested against these accusations and, as we have seen (p. 63), Ph. van Limborch refuted Milton's theological treatise on the ground of its Arianism. How is this to be explained? In order to understand this we must realize the horror with which people throughout the 16th, 17th and early 18th centuries looked upon evei^thing that smacked of Socinianism, and Socinianism may be called an extreme form of Arianism. 2 The untiring attempts, both from the side of the Church and the Government to extirpate that hateful heresy, was successful in so far that all endeavours from the side of foreign and native Socinians to institute a regular church here were frustrated. 3 The mere name was so unpopular that heresy-hunters were prone to avail themselves of it whenever they detected any deviation from the tenets of Dort. How dangerous it was to publish a Socinian book is clear from the fact that in 1710 the Amsterdam magistracy condemned the printer of such a work to shut his shop for a year and the man who had commissioned him to print it, though he was neither the author nor the translater, to a fine of ƒ 100; and in the same year the author of a similar book was sentenced to a fine of ƒ 3000, 50 years' solitary confinement and 25 years' banishment afterwards, the printer being exiled for 2 years. 4 In view of this it will be clear why Elzevir hesitated to print, and Limborch did not want to have anything to do with, a book that was so undisguisedly Arian as Milton's De Doctrina.Christiana. Seeing that Limborch mentioned his opinion about Milton's theology to a casual visitor, we may be
1 H. Bavinck. Gereformeerde Dogmatiek,8 II, p. 296, Kampen, 1918 — 2 ib. — 8 J. C. van Slee, Geschiedenis van het Socianisme in de Nederlanden, Haarlem, 1914 — 4 ib. p. 275.



sure that his verdict was well-known in his own circle and detrimental to Milton's reputation. Limborch himself did not know English, but his colleague le Clerc understood it. Le clerc, however, could not afford to bring to the fore a poet who would endanger his theological reputation.
We now turn to the pietistical movement in Holland, which at the outset bids fair to be productive for our investigations. The reaction which arose both against the formalism then prevalent in the Dutch Reformed Church and against the laxity of morals produced by the growing prosperity of the country, was strongly influenced by English Puritanism. But we must not forget that this reaction was at the same time an appeal to the real character of Calvinism.
Puritan ideas were introduced into Holland by Englishmen who had lived here, by Dutchman who had been in England for some time or had come into contact with English Puritans, and by a deluge of translations of English religious works. Amesius is of the greatest importance in this respect. This great pupil of William Perkins had been obliged to fly to Holland in 1610. At the National Synod of Dort he played a prominent part behind the scènes, and he would certainly have been appointed a professor at Leyden, but for the opposition in English Government circles. At Franeker people resisted this English influence and the University there was enabled to profit by the teachings and example of the pious scholar for ten years (1622—1632). From the beginning he struck into a new path. He taught specially what was called practical theology, which emphasired the ethical side of religion: "Theologia est doctrina Deo vivendi". The fact that so many Frisian clergymen later on began translating English puritanical sermons, may be ascribed partly to Amesius' influence.
Amesius himself recommended the writings of Willem Teellinck, the Dutchman who first introduced the English puritanical ideas into Holland. Teellinck (1579—1626) studied law not only at Dutch but also at foreign Universities, among others at St Andrew's. In 1604 he went to England and moved in Puritanical circles there. John Dod of Cambridge and Arthur Hildersun of Aschby-de-la-Zouch had great influence on him. His stay in a Puritan family at Rambury in particular was important to him and he himself gives a circumstantial account of life in that pious circle. His English friends seconded his timid plan to become a clergyman and consequently



he went to Leyden University to study divinity. In the mean time he seems to have married an Englishwoman. In 1606 he got his first benefice in Zealand, and henceforward his influence increased through his preaching, the piety of his life, and his writings. His elder brother Ewoud, though no clergyman — he was chief collector of Zealand — propagated the same ideas, and two of his sons, Maximilian and Johannes, who became clergymen, followed in their father's steps. Nor were the English connections broken off, for both were for a time pastors of an English church at Flushing and Middleburg. The sudden and general response that Teellinck's teaching met with in the Netherlands is very remarkable and only to be explained by assuming the existence of thousands of people who were delighted to hear and read something else than sermons and pamphlets expounding the differences between Remonstrantist and Contra-Remonstrantist doctrine. Here was a man, undeniably orthodox, who had the courage to maintain that religion was something more than dogma, that it meant something for life too.1
In University circles the interest in EngUsh theology soon became apparent. Though they fall outside the Pietistical movement, the writings of Georgius Hornius 2 must be mentioned here. Hornius, a man born in the Upper Palatinate, was for a long time in the service of an EngUsh nobleman and in that function lived by turns in the Hague and England. This acquaintance with EngUsh affairs led to his writing three books: De ecclesiae Anglicanae statu hodierno, pubUshed under the name of Hornius Reggius; Res gestae in Anglid, Scotid et Hibernid; and Rerum Britannicarum libri VII, the last published in 1648. Later on he became a professor at the University of Harderwük and in 1665 pubUshed his Historia Ecclesiastica, which was translated into Dutch and enlarged in 1685 by the well-known clergyman Balthazar Becker. 3 On p. 256-362 of the Dutch translation an exposition of the various sects in England is given. He
1 W. J. M. Engelberts. Willem Teellinck, Amsterdam, 1898. Herzog. Realencyklopddie, s.v. Teellinck — 8 H. Bouman. Geschiedenis van de voormalige Geldersche Hoogeschool en Hare Hoogleeraren, 2 Vols., Utrecht, 1844-47, I, p. 166 — * Kerkelycke Historie, van de Scheppinge des Werelts, tot 't Jaer
des Heeren 1666 In 't Latijn beschreven door Georgius Hornius In
het Nederduyts vertolckt, van den Autheur oversien en vermeerdert. Waaraen is bygevoegt de Kerkelyke Historie, en vervolg op de Werelthjke Historie sedert den jare 1666 tot 1684, door Balthazar Becker. Tweede druck, Amsterdam, 1685.



Jodocus van Lodenstein (1620—1677) studied at Utrecht and Franeker. At the latter place he planned crossing to England and Scotland to visit some of the Universities there, as seems to have been customary in those days.» Nothing, however, came of Lodenstein's plan, but this did not prevent him from acquainting himself with English theological literature. For the greater part of his life he was a clergyman in Utrecht, where his teachings and writings had great influence.
Jacobus Koelman (1632—1695) has perhaps done more to make EngUsh puritans known in HoUand than any one else. Fortunately in his case we know a great deal of his EngUsh connections. Already as a student in Utrecht he had come into contact with EngUsh puritanical writings, as witness his translation of a book by Love (c. 1656). And later on, when he was a minister at Sluis in Zealand, he frequently met EngUsh and Scottish pastors at Flushing and Middleburg Mr Spang, the EngUsh pastor at Campvere he knew personaUy. At Sluis he soon came into conflict with the church-aüthorities on the question of church-ritual and finaUy he was dismissed from his charge. Henceforward he wandered about aU over the Netherlands, preaching, translating, and writing, exhorting people to lead a truly Christian Ufe. In spite of much denunciation and persecution, he remained strongly opposed to separatism. Among his many English friends must be speciaUy mentioned two clergymen. Macward and Brown Macward was a Scottish divine, who had studied at bt Andrew's when the celebrated Samuel Rutherford was professor of theology there. He served this divine in the capacity of amanuensis, when Rutherford went to London as one of the Scottish Commisioners to the Westminster Assembly. MUton refers to Rutherford contemptuously in his sonnet On the new Forcers of Conscience under the Lonq Parliament. .
Macward became one of the leading divines m Scotland, but in 1662 he was imprisoned and later on banished the country for nis secant: vel aliena & fere omnia identidem revocant ad singulos fere titulos, unde tractationis & libri moles mirum in modum. excrescit; vel per Usus & sïna sua ntais spatiose divagantur: non quod illa universè ^obemus, ïcto enim & Panlum Usus indicare Scripturae ad doctnnam, refutationem, correctionem, & redargutionem, II Tim. III, 16 
i We read that Lodenstein's friend Van der Bogaert regretted that his father had seThin to France, instead of England. P. Proost, Jodocus van Lodenstein, Amsterdam, 1880.



opposition to Charles U's church policy. Macward came to Rotterdam and met with a hearty reception. There he collected and arranged the papers of Rutherford and published the Religious Letters of Rutherford (1664). These letters Koelman later on translated into Dutch. Macward afterwards went to Utrecht to help his countrymen who were studying there, repeatedly preaching in the English church. He also won the esteem of the Dutch professors, Voetius and Nethenus, with whom he was on an intimate footing. He showed them a manuscript refutation of the Arminian dogmas by Rutherford that was in his possession, a Latin treatise which was published later on by Nethenus. About 1668 he returned to Rotterdam, where in 1676 he was appointed second minister to the Scottish Church. But Macward, together with another Scottish divine John Brown and a certain Colonel James Wallace, was soon banished from the United Provinces by the persistent instigations of Charles II. He and Brown, however, did not leave the country, but remained in or about Utrecht and shortly afterwards even returned to Rotterdam, where Macward died about 1681. Koelman was an intimate friend of his. He again and again mentions the Scottish divine in the prefaces of his translations as the man who provided him with information about the authors whose works he translated for the Dutch. Macward undoubtedly influenced Koelman's choice in many cases. How intimately connected Koelman was with the English residents in Rotterdam, is perhaps best üiustrated by the fact that he, together with Macward, assisted on the occasion of the ordination of Richard Cameron by Brown, which took place in the Scottish church in Rotterdam in the year 1679.
This John Brown, too, was a well-known personality in Holland. He had been ejected from the parish of Wamphray in Scotland and put in prison for his opposition to the restoration of Charles II. In 1662 he was exiled and in 1663 arrived at Botterdam. He resided partly there and partly at Utrecht and frequently preached in these places. As we have seen, he was not left at peace, but suffered from Charles' wrath even in Holland. Brown, too, died in Botterdam (1679). He had many Dutch friends: "Professor Leydekker and Spanheim, and
Messrs Borthius, a Brakel and Koelman " we are told "were his
intimate friends; and by their united and individual commendations and labours, did all that in them lay, extensively to disseminate the able treatises on practical religion, written by Mr Brown during
6



bis exile." Koelman was even allowed to translate one of bis works from the manuscript before its publication in English.»
Melchior Leydekker (1642—1721), from 1678 professor in Utrecht, was born in Zealand, where he may have picked up his knowledge of English. He was highly conservative in his religious opinions and we know of him that he was pleased with the practical religion of the English.
James Borstius (1612—1680) acquired his knowledge of English, when a student at Leyden. He became acquainted with Hugh Goudgier (or Goodyear), pastor of the English Church, who became his counsellor and instuctor. Borstius became so skilied in English, that he repeatedly preached in that language in Leyden, Botterdam, and Dordrecht, and was asked to become pastor of the English church in Amsterdam. He, however, remained in Rotterdam, always in close contact with the EngUsh residents in that place and at Dordrecht. He translated some works by Rutherford and Durham, and also J. StirUng's Naphtali under the title of Historie der Kerken van Schotland tot het jaar 1667 (Rotterdam, 1668), a work to which Koelman refers again and again when discussing the ecclesiastical state of Scotland and England. 2
Wilhelmus a Brakel (1635—1711) was for the greater part of his life a clergyman in various towns of Friesland. He, too, held the practical theology of the English in high esteem and imitated their manner of preaching. He seems to have helped Scottish Presbyterians, when in difficulties through oppression at home, and was an intimate friend of Theodorus Paludanus, the translator of several EngUsh sermons. 3 W. a Brakel was a vehement opponent of the separatism of the Labadists, who had their headquarters in Friesland for a time. *
It is clear that the reUgious contact between England and HoUand was very close. Two things are important to us, because they prove that this contact could not lead to the knowledge and appreciation of Milton. They are fear of independentism and fear of heterodoxy. In Zealand a definite leaning towards independentism is to be observed, which had certainly something to do with English example and which came to a crisis with the arrival of Labadie. As a reaction
* Steven, op. Cit., quotation on p. 72. A. F. Krul, Jacobus Koelman, Sneek, 1901 _ 2 Steven, op. cit., p. 72ff. Nieuw Ned. Biogr. Woordenboek, s.v. Borstius. J. — * See Appendix — 4 F. J. Los. Wilhelmus a Brakel, Leiden, 1892.



against this separatistic movement of the Labadists, the Dutch pietistical movement restricted its field of operations strictly to the Reformed Church,1 and was strongly opposed to independentism. It became more and more an ethical movement within the church. A good illustration is Koelman. Though he was dismissed from his charge at Sluis, he carefully avoided countenancing any movement against the Dutch Reformed Church.
As to f ear of heterodoxy the pietists naturally were at once attacked as mere moralists, striving to gain Heaven by good works, and in consequence we find them perpetually harping on their own dogmatic soundness and displaying a strong aversion to all heresy. This motive is similar to that which kept Remonstrants aloof from Milton. Although, in the insatiable desire for edifying literature among the members of the Reformed Church, English theological works in translation were much drawn on, this did not mean an interest in English Puritanism. Scotch and English Presbyterians, Independents, and Anglican theologians were translated indiscriminately. 2 What was thought of was simply the needs of the common people. Nor were voices wanting to warn against the heresies that were bound to steal in with such an mdiscriminate importation of foreign sermons. Koelman uttered a warning against Baxter, who neglected the divinity of Jesus and represented Him too much as a mere example. 8 And in 1757 Alexander Comrie, one of the last defenders of rigid Calvinism in the 18th century, warned the Dutch Protestants that only those English theologians could be trusted who had lived before 1632, the later English divines being given to Arian, Socinian, Arminian, and Saumurian heresies. * Even such a divine as B. Bekker makes mention, in the diary of a journey through England in 1683, of the heterodoxy of the English clergy.« The pietistical movement could not lead to the reading of Milton. It did lead to the introduction of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, because this work reflected the practical tendency so much admired in the protestantism of the 1 Wilhelm Goeters, Die Vorbereitung des Pietismus, Leipzig, 1911, p. 286 — • See Appendix 3 ib. p. 220 — 4 God verzoend vertoont in vier uitmuntende Leerredenen, door wijlen Stephen Charnock, B.D. Uit het Engelsch vertaald door Jan Ross. Met een korte Historische Voorrede, ter onderrichting aan de Nederlandsche Hervormde Lezers, wegens de uit het Engelsch vertaalde Godgeleerde Werken, door Alexander Comrie.2 Leeuwarden, 1837. (The preface dates from 1757) — B The contents of this MS. diary is discussed in W. P. C. Knuttel, Balthasar Bekker, 's Gravenhage, 1906, p. 165.



Chapter V
THE KNOWLEDGE OF ENGLISH IN THE UNITED PROVINCES
The most arresting quality of Paradise Lost is not the theological system expounded in it, but its imaginative boldness and the grandeur and beauty of its verse. The poem is "not the less an eternal monument because it is a monument to dead ideas." i No one who can read EngUsh and has an ear for music can miss the charm of the verse and the power of the language. This impUes that the work can only be appreciated to the full if read in the original, and that translations are likely to be disappointing. An acquaintance with the English language is necessary for any fair estimation In the case of Milton we must make even a further restnction. If Mark Pattison argues* that only a small percentage of all Englishmen understands the ordinary language of books, and that we leave betond the majority even of these few, "when we pass from a style ui which words have only their simple signification, to a style of which the effect depends on the suggestion of collateral association, it is a priori clear that only a very small number of Dutchmen in th e 18th century could enjoy Paradise Lost in the original. Hence it is important to know not only the extent of he knowledge of Enghsh in the United Provinces, but in particular the sections of the people where this knowledge occurred.
It is always hard to realize the changes that have happened in the relative importance of different countries in the «onrse of time Thus it is hard to realize now, that in the 17tii century HoUand ^was in many respects the superior of England. This is true of the Dutch language. Not only was Dutch then spoken over a wider area than now^days, but it was even used as a kind of international language,
i W. Raleigh, loc. cit. — 8 Mark Pattison, op. cit., p. 210.



as English and French are at present. In the second half of the 17th century Dutch 'strolling players* performed Dutch dramas with success in the Scandinavian countries. Dutchmen corresponded f reely in Dutch with the Kings of Denmark and Sweden. Czar Peter knew Dutch before coming to Holland and preferred the use of this language with foreigners such as Frederick, the future King of Prussia. As is well-known he introduced Dutch nautical phrases wholesale into the Russian language. These technical terms in fact became Western-European, till they were partly ousted by English nautical terms on the arrival of steamships. In England, too, a knowledge of Dutch seems to have been by no means exceptional. Dutch words and phrases occur frequently in English plays published round about 1600, e.g. John Marston's The Dutch Courtezan, William Haughton's A Womtm will have her Wil, Dekker's North-ward Hoe and Shoemaker's Holiday, Heywood's Rape of Lucrece, Wealth and Health and The Weakest goeth to the Wall, by unknown authors.1 Blake, Roger Williams, Cromwell, Milton, all knew Dutch. Viceadmiral George Ayscue substituted Dutch for English in his official reports On the navy to King Charles X. Gustavus. The Swedish ambassador Appelboom at the Hague received letters from an English correspondent in London in the Dutch language. The correspondente between the Board of the Fellowship of the Merchant Adventurers in London and the Rotterdam Magistrate was partly carried on in Dutch till 1655, when "the national self-respect of the English seemed to have developed so much that they did not write to the Rotterdam people in Dutch or Latin any more, but for the first time in English." 2 Some grammars published in 1664 and 1677 3 were as much, if not more, intended for Englishmen who intended to learn Dutch as for Dutchmen wanting to learn English.
Yet even in the 17th century the Dutch seem to have been remarkable for their knack of learning foreign languages. A Flushing scholar, Abraham van der Mijle, published a book in 1612, entitled Lingua Belgica, on comparative linguistics. It is a panegyric ■ upon the Dutch language, which the author considers to be older — and hence better — than any other language, even Greek. On pag. 69-70
1 J. Huizinga. Engelschen en Nederlanders in Shakespeare's tijd. De Gids, 1924 — 2 J. W. Muller. De uitbreiding van ons taalgebied in de zeventiende eeuw. De Nieuwe Taalgids, XV, Groningen, 1921, where Elias, Het voorspel van den Eersten Engelschen Zeeoorlog is quoted — * see p. 105.



of his bóok van der Mijle praises the Dutch gift of tongues: "One and the same Dutchman learns not only his native language but also German, English, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Indian and various other languages. For in this skill our nation excels nearly all other nations. No other people can express themselves so correctly in so many foreign langugages as the Dutch: not only as to words and idiom, but also — what is more difficult — as to the native pronunciation of every language, the sounds, the various intonation, and emotional value of the words. Some rather ingenious foreigner may perhaps learn one or two foreign languages, but it will be a great exception if he should learn several in a thorough Way: he will always retain something of his native language, either in the idiom or the accentuation or the rest of his pronunciation. The Dutchman, especially the Teutonic Dutchman, such as the native of Brabant, Holland, Zealand, for in this respect the Gallic Dutchmen (who are called Walloons) have not the same skill; such a Dutchman, I say, down to the women, the mechanics, and the sailors, speaks the languages of all nations he comes into connection with as per-
fectly as if he were of the same nation I should almost call my
Dutchman a sponge of languages: just as this perfectly absorbs all fluids, he takes in the languages."
Undoubtedly all this must be taken 'cum grano salis', as this astonishing turn for languages in the Dutch is for the purpose of proving the excellence of the Dutch language; besides, van der Mijle naturally had in view the inhabitants of the thriving ports of Flushing and Middelburg.1
These are many reasons why some knowledge of the English
1 A. van der Mijle, Lingua Belgica, 1612, p. 69, 70:
Quis neget, per convictum & frequentationem, gentes adipisci multa inter se vocabula communia, cum notü sit integras linguas tum quosque vernaculam, tum etiam peregrinas alios ab alijs discere, & communes sibi facere, mero commercio & conversatione? Sic Gallus totam Gallicam non modo, sed etiam totam discet Italicam. Sic Belga non popularem modo, sed Alemanicam, Anglicam, Gallicam, Italicam, Hispanicam, Lusitanicam, Indicam, aliasque complures unus idemque discet totas, absolute. Qua quidem dexteritate gens nostra antecellit reliquas fere omnes nationes. Nulla aeque natio tot linguas peregrinas tam exacte expresserit, quam Belgae; aeque ipsa vocabula, non modo & genmnas phrases, sed quod difficilius est, ipsam nativam uniuscujusque linguae pronunciationem, ad sonos, varium modolationem, vocisque affectus omnes usque. Vnam aut alteram forsan linguam peregrinam discat bene ingeniosior peregrinus aliquis, sed ut plures discat exacte, rara illa erit avis: semper ahquid



language in Holland was to be expected. There was much contact between the English and Dutch. Among the chief factors that led to closer contact was trade> Also the English religious refugees, the English troops in the Dutch army, the English stroUing players, and English music, all tended to make EngUsh widely known here.
Holland had long been in direct touch with English Uterature. During the last decade of the 16th century and the first haU of the 17th century English players on their way to Germany gave performances in various Dutch towns. These performances were very popular and seem to have had considerable influence on the development of Dutch drama, i Yet no one on the Dutch side was led to dip into the EngUsh sources of these popular plays. The reason is twofold. In the first place the mutilated form in which these plays were presented to the people was not tempting. As the language in which they were performed was, in the beginning at least, strange to the audience, the spectacular element was emphasized, and the plays wère cut and changed almost beyond recognition. Fortunately so, we might say with Moltzer.2 if one judges by the quality of the Dutch imitations. The second reason is that the adherents of the non-classical school, who by the success of the EngUsh actors were strengthened in their conviction that what was seen on the stage was of more importance than what was said and who turned away from the classieal drama as practised by Hooft and Vondel, did not belong to the best writers. "Though the non-classical tragedy no doubt hit the popular fancy more than the classieal drama, few talented men were to be found among its representatives and hence it never f lourished." » The opportunity of
aut phrasis, aut accentus, reliquaque pronunciatio trahet a vernaculo. Belga, Gerroanissans imprimis, ut Brabantinus, Hollandus, Zelandus, nam non aequa est dexteritas, in isto, Belgarum Gallissantium (qui Wallones dicuntur:) Belga, ïnquam, talis usque ad milierculas, opifices, & socios navales, tam perfecte loquetur linguas omnium illarum nationum, cum quibus justo aliquo tempore consue-
tudinem coluit, ac si ipse nationis ejusdem esset Dixerim fere Belgam
meum spongiam linguarum, ut ista perfecte humores omnes, sic die linguas recipit. , „
i J. A. Worp. Geschiedenis van het Drama en het Tooneel m Nederland, Groningen, 1904,1, p. 312ff.
Cf. E. F. Kosmann, Nieuwe Bijdragen tot de Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche Tooneel in de 17e en 18e eeuw, 's Gravenhage, 1915 2 H. E. Molteer, Shakespere's Invloed op het Nederlandsch Tooneel, Groningen, 1874, p. 64 — a J. A. Worp, op. cit., I, p. 356.



closer contact with English literature was lost, owing to the way in which English drama was introduced as well as to the manner in which the Dutch drama developed. In the course of the 17th century we find some translations of English plays but their number is trifling when compared with those from French. Apart from reprints we find only ten English plays published in Dutch in the 17th century.1
It is difficult to ascertain how far the presence of English soldiers in Holland spread the knowledge of English. But we may safely assume that it did spread it to some extent. One illustration we find in the publication of the first English-Dutch dictionary in 1647, which was compiled by a certain Henry Hexham, an English soldier who had spent the greater part of his life in the service of the United Provinces. 2
English music had an influence. England at that time played an important part in the musical world. The names of Thomas Tallis (d. 1585), William Bird (1543—1623), Orlando Gibbons (1583—1625), Thomas Morley (1558—1603), John Dowland (1562—1615) and John Buil (1563—1628) rank high in the history of music as composers of songs, as lutanists, and players on the virginals. English music and EngUsh musicians were well-known in Holland. The latter came either on their own account or in the train of ambassadors. EngUsh soldiers and EngUsh strolUng players popularized the songs and melodies. The famous Dutch composer J. Pz. Sweelinck (1562—1621) was inf luenced by the EngUsh virginaUsts and the numerousDutch song-books of the time all with scarcely any exception contain EngUsh melodies. The language of music, however, is international; indeed instead of giving an indication of the knowledge of English these song-books happen to Ulustrate the ignorance of EngUsh in the United Provinces, for in the books that contain no musical notation we of ten find the tune indicated by the first line of an EngUsh song, and thesë English Unes are often corrupt beyond recognition. We find for instance the words' "Greien sleefs ey tonion met all myn here", which stand for "Greensleeves I love you with all my heart"! The melody seems to have been known so well that this doublé Dutch was the kind of Eflglish it was known by. 3
1 J. A. Worp, op. cit. II, p. 117-130. They were published in the years: 1618, 1633, 1638, 1645, 1648, 1650(?), 1652, 1654, 1666, and 1668 — 8 See p. 105 — 3 D. F. Scheurleer. Het Muziekleven, in Amsterdam in de zeventiende eeuw,



stationed at the neighbouring town of Gorcum. In the year 1665 the arrival of the Merchant Adventurers led to the founding of an Episcopalian church, but when this congregation became reduced in number the members united themselves to the Presbyterians, who had always been the more numerous body.
As we have seen, Rotterdam was a very important centre of English trade and its commercial intercourse with Great Britain constantly increased. English merchants were induced to settle at Rotterdam, the States General having passed an act encouraging the introduction into Holland of British manufactured cloth and woollen stuffs (1587). At first no church was assigned to them by the city; but they always made a point of retaining a spiritual teacher of their own. Generally these chaplains were Episcopalians, though there is at least one instance of a minister of the Church of Scotland. When the Merchant Adventurers settled at Rotterdam (1635—1666), they were supplied with a church by the town-authorities. Though the Church went through difficult times during the Anglo-Dutch wars, it sodn recovered and was able to erect a new building (1708).
In the years 1623 a small body of Independents formed themselves into a congregation in Rotterdam under the pastorship of Hugh Peters. Up till 1652 this church was strictly CongregationaL but became Presbyterian then. Three, and even four, clergymen have, at the same time, been officiaüy connected with this church and in 1678 the States of Holland agreed to support financially a second minister, and this was continued for one hundred and twenty years.
Apart from the Quakers whose agitations in Rotterdam are mentioned from 1657 upwards and who had a regular meeting-house in the town though their headquarters were in Amsterdam, there was a Scottish Church in Rotterdam, besides the above-mentioned Episcopalian and English Presbyterian Churches. Through the liberality of the Dutch authorities the Scottish Presbyterians in 1642 got a church of their own and a handsome annuity for the minister's stipend. During the last quarter of the 17th century the congregation grew to such a degree that a second minister was necessary and in 1697 a new, spacious church was built. Of high interest in our present connection is the opening of a Scottish school in 1676. The subjects taught were the principles of religion, EngUsh, arithmetic, writing, and geography. Though it was meant as a charity-school, the teacher was aUowed to take other scholars, and as late as 1832, Steven says:
7



"This school has been, and still is, deservedly countenanced by several respectable Dutch and English 'families, who avail themselves of the advantages which it offers." 1 i
As to Haarlem, we know very little of the English community there During the 17th and the first half of the 18th century, some English and Scottish adventurers, most of them employed in the manufacture of cloth, had a chapel there. Between 1665 and 1670 a certain Edward Bichardson, D. D., was minister of this congregation. We further know that in 1708 the EngUsh Quakers had a meetinghouse there. _ , ,
In Amsterdam there were a Brownist body, an EngUsh Presbyterian, and an Episcopalian church. The Brownists flocked in great numbers to different towns of the United Provinces in the latter hatf of the 16th century and from about 1600 the names of various pastors are known though there is no continuous Ust of them. The opinions of the Brownists excited great interest in the Netherlands as « evident from the fact that almost every thing which proceeded from their pen was instantly translated: and not only were their numerous tracts rendered into Dutch, but various reprints and verslons anpeared_at the principal cities in Holland."2 About the middle of the 17th Lentury several of the Brownists joined the Flemish Baptists, and the Quakers, who had their head-quarters in Amstel^m dld s^; t00' William SeweL the historian of the Society of Friends, born at Amsterdam in 1654, was a descendant of a Br°wmstJ
The Presbyterian Church in Amsterdam dates from 1607. In that year the magistracy of Amsterdam provided the numerous British presb^erians with a church and a pastors salary. This, church was fncorp^rated with the Dutch Reformed Church and its ministers 3 by an elder, took session in the classis of Amsterdam. Though Hls always recognized as an EngUsh ^byterian church ti^ nastors were to a great extent Scotchmen, ordamed m the Church of Scotianl, so thafit was also called the Scottish Churcfc Soon an assSant ntinister was necessary and from 1709 a second charge was SstiSted^y person, no matter of what nationaUty, who under^ Südi, was admissible to membership, and many Dutchmen
TpmSitÏcopal Church was not estabUshed definitively till
i Op. cit., p. 348 — * ibid. p. 271 — 8 see p. 107.



1698 and never seems to have flourished like the Presbyterian Church.
At Leyden, for the benifit of the many English students that resorted to the University there, the States of Holland and the magistrates of the town instituted and endowed a Scottish Church in 1609. A spacious church was granted them on application in 1644. In 1688 a second minister was elected, and the Scottish Church flourished especially in the 18th century, when the fame of the great physician Boerhave (1668—1738) attracted some two thousand English students to Leyden.
. The Brownists, too, had a chapel in Leyden, but in all probability this religious sect did not long exist here.
At the Hague the English residents had divine service publicly performed in their own language as early as 1595, though they had no regular minister until 1626, when the States of Holland allowed them to elect a Presbyterian clergyman. The character of the church led here too to Scottish clergymen being chiefly elected. The church, especially during the Stadtholdership, was always much frequented by the royal family, and Princess Mary, William IIPs consort, was a member as well as a great benefactress of the congregation. In 1688 a second charge was instituted in this church, only to fall into abeyance the next year.
In the other provinces of the Dutch Republic the places where British communities settled were generally garrison-towns. Bergenop-Zoom is an example where an EngUsh Presbyterian Church was long estabüshed, though üttle is known of it apart from the name of Mr Doncell, who was pastor there in the year 1676. At Bois-le-Duc, too, there was a British church in the 17th century, and many Scotchmen resided there, descendants of whom repeatedly held official appointments in the towns. The ministers of the English church which once flourished during this century at Breda, were members of the Classis. Gorcum had a garrison chapel for the English soldiers quartered there, but Utrecht is of far more importance in this respect, as it was the winterquarters of several Scottish and English regiments at the beginning of the 17th century. As the troops were here during the winter only, the permanent EngUsh residents in 1622 obtained a minister of their own. From. 1655 to 1748 this church even had two ministers. FinaUy at Heusden a certain George Beaumont, besides being chaplain to Col. CromweU's regiment, ministered to other British residents until 1651, when he removed to the Hague; at



Arnhem in 1632 English residents obtained permission from the magistrates to assemble for public worship in the 'Broederen Kerk'; and at Zwolle English ministers are heard of from 1620—1633.
It goes without saying that in all these English churches there was abundant opportunity for the Dutch to come into contact with English religious thought. The growing interest in English theology, its influence upon Dutch religious life and the clergymen who were specially interested in English theological ideas, have been mentioned above Many of these clergymen were intimately acquainted with English pastors living in Holland. One outcome of this close contact was the wholesale translation of English devotional books into Dutch, a list of which is to be found in the Appendix. The large member of these translations is a proof of an insatiable demand for the writings of English Puritans, a great many of whom were contemporaries of Milton. The translators were generally clergymen, which shows that among clergymen a knowledge of English was less uncommon than in other classes. But even here we cannot speak generally, for some translations were clearly meant for the use of Dutch theologians, and for many of the clergymen some special reason can be given for possessing that unusual knowledge of the language. This knowledge of English in theological circles, however, could be of httle help to Milton's fame; as has been shown above the religious atmosphere in Holland was such as to preclude any interest in the poet
Milton. . ...
Thus even this channel proves to be disappointing, and it we search for other instances of literary men who were acquainted with the EngUsh language, the result is negative in most cases. In his Ockenburgh (1654), Jacob Westerbaen, when discussing the comfort he derived from Uterature, does not mention a single EngUsh aufhor. When the Prince of Wales spoke on behaU of his father before the States General in 1649, his few EngUsh words were not understood and Boswell the Ambassador then addressed the assembly in French. i In the Hollandsche Mercurius, where French is freely quoted, there are only a few EngUsh quotations, and these are not always m King's English 2/Samuel Pepys, too, though praising the general culture of the Dutch people ("Everybody of fashion speaks French or Latin, or both"), rarely met Dutchmen who spoke EngUsh. 3 A scholar Uke i L. van Aitzema, op. cit., VI, p. 617-18 - « ibid., III, p. 10, 11, XII, p. 43 » Samuel Pepys, Diary (Globe ed.), p. 28.



Graswinkel did not seem to trust his knowledge of English for, once, when quoting an English author, he humbly adds: "so far as I have been able to translate it from EngUsh." 1 When staying in England (1674), VoUenhove made the following remark about his study of English:
Ik staamle ook Britsche spraak, maar dit komt langsaam by, Daar zelden 't Neêrlantsch hof de taal spreekt van Britanje. 2
(I stammer a few EngUsh words, but make Uttle progress,
as people but seldom speak the EngUsh language at the Dutch court.)
PhiUppus van Limborch, professor of the Theological College for Remonstrants in Amsterdam, who was personally acquainted with Locke, Henry More, and many other EngUshmen,3 did not know EngUsh.4 With reference to Cudworth, le Clerc said: "peu de gens pouvant avoir recours a 1'Original Anglois." 6
Theré are a few cases of literary men who appear to have had some knowledge of EngUsh and English Uterature. In 1636 Jacob van der Rurgh, in the pref ace to his edition of Hoof t's poetry, mentions "the profound Donne and the witty, but unfortunate Overbury." Then there are Cats, Rodenburgh, Decker, Huijgens and others, but on the whole, in the learned classes, the very people to whom Milton's works might have appealed, a knowledge of EngUsh was rare. We must bear in mind that these classes could and actually did do longest without any knowledge of modern languages, because they could avail themselves of Latin as an international language.
Boys intended for study at the Universities were sent to Latin schools, where they learned Latin and some Greek. But no other language was taught, not even French. Indeed it seems as if the pupils were intended to forget even their native language as quickly
* Korte onderrechtinge, raeckende de fondamentale regeringhe van Engelandt, Ende de gherechtigheden zoo van den koningh, als het Parlament, 's Gravenhage, 1649, p. 10. This pamphlet, which was first published in French, is according to the preface of the Dutch version by D. Graswinckel — 2 A. L. Lesturgeon. Bloemlezing uil de Gedichten van Johannes Volhove. Klassiek, letterkundig Panthéon, p. 18 — 3 Z. C. von Uffenbach, op. cit. III, p. 585 — 4 Abr. Des Amorie van der Hoeven. De Joanne Clerico et Philippo a Limborch dissertationes duae, Amsterdam, 1843, (the part on Limborch, p. 19) —
* Bibliothèque Choisie, Vol. II, Avertissement, 1703, quoted by W. J. B. Pienaar, op. cit. p. 44.



as possible. In various Leges Scholae of the Latin school at Leeuwarden i we find it was a special offence for pupils of the higher forms to talk Dutch instead of Latin at school or in the street. 2 In 1701 this rule is somewhat relaxed, as the street is no longer mentioned. As late as the year 1786 we read for the first time that teachers have to see to the knowledge of Dutch, and we have to wait till 1850 before we find modern languages in the curriculum at the Leeuwarden Gymnasium, as the school was called then. In that year we read that attendance at the lessons was compulsory, except those in English. And the Leeuwarden Gymnasium was no exception. Similar things we learn from the accounts of other Latin school.3
If such was the state of affairs in the middle of the 19th century, it is clear that in the 17th century it was quite possible for a young man to arrivé at the University without any knowledge of modern languages. Yet after all such a thing wül have been an exception, for though Latin would suffice a scholar in the narrow circles of the University, French was indispensable for him as a man of the world. If the knowledge of French had not been acquired by private instruction, the student could generally make up this deficiency at the University. Not that he would find any scientific study of the modern languages there. For this we again have to wait till the middle of the 19th century. In the 17th and 18th centuries the knowof French or any other modern language was considered as an accomplishment, like the art of dancing, drawing, or f encing. * Only at the University of Leyden have the names of teachers of foreign languages come down to us.5 In the 17th century 23 masters of French are mentioned, 6 of Italian, 1 of Spanish and 2 of English, one in 1687 and the other in 1688. In the 18th century there were
* Stedelijke Bibliotheek, Leeuwarden - • cf. A. J. Vitringa. Tegenwoordige Toestand en Plan tot Hervorming van het Middelbaar Onderwus, Arnhem, 1860 p 27 29 — 3 cf. A. Ekker. De Hieronymusschool le Utrecht, Utrecht, 18M. H J Reynders. Gedenkboek van het stedelijk Gymnasium te Amersfoort, 1376^-1926, Amersfoort, 1928. K. J. Riemens, Esquisse historique de \Enseigt*ment du francais en Hollande du XVIe au XlXe siècle Leyde, 191»,:P- 127.
A similar state of affairs we find in Paris at the "colleges de la facultc de. art", cf. M. Braunschvig, Notre Littérature étudiée dans les textes, « Paris, 1923, T n 721 — 4 B. Siimons. Academia Groningana, p. 418, also quoted by K. J. Riemens, op. cit. p. 142 — 5 K. J. Riemens, op. cit. p. 141, 183ff., and further Album Studiosorum Academiae Lugduno Batavae.



56 teachers of French, of whom 6 taught English at the same time, 4 Italian, 3 German, 1 Spanish and Portuguese. Besides there were 7 teachers of English, 14 of Italian, 11 of German and 1 of Spanish. That makes 13 for English, scattered over the years between 1711 and 1790.
Of the University of Franeker we read:1 "Since 1648 modern languages, too, were instructed at the university, especially French, and the teacher was given the title and rank of supernumerary professor." Not till 1754 do we find that in addition to the professors of French a teacher of EngUsh was appointed, Phüippe Dorée, who remained till his death in 1781, when the post was discontinued for the sake of economy. The words of the resolution to discontinue the teaching of EngUsh are very characteristic of the appreciation of modern languages. It was decided "to retain the drawing, dancing and fencing masters, but to allow the post of professor of French and the post of EngUsh teacher to die out." In 1829 we again find a teacher of English, J. H. Behrns, who came from Oldenzaal, where he had taught of Dutch, French, EngUsh and EucUd in the Latin school.
One other group of schools faUs to be mentioned here. For by the side of the Latin schools, so-caUed French schools had originated for the instruction of all those young people who, though not intended for the University, wanted some wider instruction. At first the French language was of especial importance for commercial purposes. But gradually the old tradition that French was the language of the court, caused it to be taken up by the upper classes. Hence it penetrated into all classes, so that by the end of the 17th century it was impossible for a well-educated man to be ignorant of French. This naturally occasioned a great demand for French schools and thus by the middle of the century we find a French school or schools in every town of some importance. Bayle says: "II y a en HoUande douze Ecoles de Francois pour une de Latin." It goes without saying how important this was for the knowledge of French literature in Holland: "a 1'époque même de 1'éclosion des ouvrages classique il s'est formé en HoUande un pubUc capable de les lire." 2
As yet no other modern language was taught at these French schools. Not before the end of the 18th century were EngUsh and
1 W. B. S. Boelens, op. cit. p. 40 — a K. J. Riemens, op. cit. p. 143.



He that made the late English & Netherdutch Instructer had been in his day a publick Preacher." 1
From these publications it is evident that from the middle of the 17th century onwards a desire to learn English was growing, and they also prove that this want originated with the theologians and was to some extent supplied by clergymen.
The best English dictionary of the time was compiled by W. Sewel, the second edition was published in 1708:
A Large Dictionary English and Dutch, in two Parts: Wherein each Language is set forth in its proper form; the various significations of the words being exactly noted, and abundance of choice Phrases and Proverbs intermixt. To which is added a Grammar for both Languages. — Groot Woordenboek der Engelsche en Nederduytsche Taaien: Nevens eene Spraakkonst derzelver. Door W. Sewel. TAmsterdam, 1708.
The dictionary wa/ repeatedly reprinted down to 1766, and deserved to be so, for from the outset it was of considerable excellence. The various meanings of both the English and Dutch words are ülustrated by expressions, and by means of marks the author indicates whether a word is obsolete or slang, and whether an expression is a proverb. The pronunciation of both languages is indicated by occasional accentmarks and is further discussed in appended short grammars for both languages. There are some not very successful attempts at etymology, but of more importance is the information Sewel gives about English institutions when he discusses terms relating the Government, the jurisdiction, and the Church. Evidently the author not only wanted to teach the language but also English life and thought. Trade is not forgotten; hence the insertion of commercial and nautical terms and of the names of herbs and Indian cloths.
W. Sewel (1654—1720) was the grandson of a Brownist refugee. He was skiïled in many languages, and did much to spread the know1 It is probably, judging from the similarity of the title, that this "publick Preacher" is Francois Hillenius, mentioned above, but there may also have been other grammars with similar titles. Gerard Vossius published: Grammatica Latina, ex Decreto Ord. Holl, which was reprinted four times during his lifetime. John Wallis (1616—1713) was an eminent English mathematician, logician and grammarian, who was for some time professor of geometry at Oxford and among whose numerous works we find a Grammatica Linguae Anglicanae.



ledge of English and the English in Holland by teaching, translating, and writing, so much so that he had to defend himself against the accusation of being an "Engelsagtig Batavier", i It will be interesting to know Sewel's opinion about the EngUsh language and literature. Both appear from his dictionary. In a Latin dedication he highly praises the language which he had tried for so many years "to equip" for the pubUc, quite disinterestedly, as he adds. English is worth being learned by foreigners "not only because of the many excellent works that appeared in that language, but also because of the rich and sometimes nervous diction, by which it seems to excel among other languages." To prove this, and also to refute the idea that the maby loan-words in EngUsh are a sign of poverty, he goes on: "For the EngUsh, though not afraid of enriching their language with foreign words, daily form new compounds and derivatives from their own words, in about the same way as we do. This 'copia verborum' does not make the language languid and enervated, but rather graphic and manly; for they strive and manage to say much in few words, and this to such an extent that their concise way of putting things cannot generally be imitatëd and expressed hy foreigners however much they try. That this is the case, everyone knows who has taken pains to learn the language. Yet many Dutchmen have allowed themselvès to be persuaded to the opposite view, just Uke the English When they happen to speak about our language; for they can hardly believe that anything beautiful is to be found in it, though it is second to none in richness of words and dignity of style."2 From
i Boekzaal, 1707-8, quoted by Pienaar, English Influence in Dutch Literature and Justus van Effen as Intermediary, Cambridge, 1929, p. 42 — 2 "Ad Anglicam vero quod attinet, quae Sparta fuit, quam multis jam abhinc annis in publicum commodum (mihi enim hic nee seritur nee metitur) exornare studui, est ea, ut mihi visum, digna sanè ut ab exteris discatur, non solum propter varia egregiae indolis specimina, quae ista lingua publici juris facta sunt, sed etiam ob copiosum illud ac simul nervosum dicendi genus, quo inter alias excellere videtur. Angli enim, sicut non verentur exteris vocabulis suum ditare sermonem, ita ex propiis vocibus quotidie Composita & Derivativa fingunt, simili ferè modo ac Nostrates. Haec autem verborum copia nequaquam locutionem illorum languidam efficit aut enervatam, sed significantem potius & masculam: nam paucis multa dicere & student & possunt; adeo ut brevitas eorum in dicendo plerumque ab extraneis, sedula quantumvis imitatione, adumbrari, proprioque idiomate exprimi, nequat. Verum hoe esse sciunt omnes quotquot addiscendae huis linguae haud perfunctoriam dedêre operam. Haec licet ita sint, multi tarnen inter Belgas praesumpta existimatione in contrariam se



the last words the mutual contempt of the English and Dutch for each other's language is clear.
Sewel gave his opinion of English poetry at the end of the book "to fill up an empty page or two." His opinion will be fully discussed later on; here it will suffice to state that according to him English poetry had "much advanced beyond what it was three score years ago," yet "it could be scrued up to a higher perfection, if they would,
in hnitation of the Dutch, be more nice in their Rune" and
metre. It was a pity that no English poet had set a high Standard of perfection such as Vondel had done for the Dutch. It is evident that the Dutch feit themselves the superiors of the English in poetry. It is also evident that they did not know English poetry.
Another instance of this contempt or ignorance of the EngUsh language and üterature is to be seen in the way in which some Dutch scholars and poets defend their attempts at rhymeless verse. In the course of praise of the Dutch language in opposition to the classieal languages, A. van der Mijle is confronted in his Lingua Belgica by the scarcity of great poetry in Dutch compared with the wealth of it in Latin and Greek. This is owing, he says, to the greater difficulty of writing poetry in Dutch than in classieal languages on account of the additional requirements of accent and rhyme. His advice is to drop rhyme and in order to prove that it is quite possible to do without it, he refers to Petrarcan, French, and German rhymeless verse. He does not mention EngUsh examples, however, though he knew the language very well. I But then the book appeared in 1612.
Again in the year 1649 the collected poems of G. Brandt were published, the author of a bombastic sensational drama, Veinzende Torquatus (The feigning Torquatus), on the same story as Shakes-
rapi opinionem passi sunt, perinde atque Angli, si quando de nostrate loquuntur sermone: vix enim hi credunt praeclari aliquid eidem inesse, etiamsi fortè nulli aliae linquae opulentia vocum, vel dictionis gravitate, cedere necesse habeat."
1 W. de Hoog {op cit. II, p. 61) says that van der Mijle had, by the study of English poetry, come to the conviction that blank verse would be fine in Dutch, too. This seems very improbable, as van der Mijle, though he quotes Italian, German and French poems, does not at all mention English examples when discussing this question. On the other hand, this very absence of all reference to English poetry in case of an author who knew English, is illustrative of the extent of the neglect of English literature in Hólland.



peare's Hamlet. Among his poems there is a panegyric of the peace of Westphalia, written in rhymeless alexandrines. In the preface he cites and quotes French authorities, refers to Italian practice and draws attention to Spanish plays without rhyme, but does not mention English dramatic verse.
As late as 1656 we still find an attempt at rhymeless verse on purely quantitative principles. In that year Conradus Goddaeus, rector of Vaassen, a small village in Guelders, pubUshed his Nieuwe Gedichten, Sonder rym, naa de Griexe en Latynse Dichtmaten, op allerhande soorten van Verssen, ingestelt (New Poems, without Rhyme, done in various sorts of verse on the Greek and Latin principles of metre). It would have been unnecessary to mention the name of this blundering poetaster, but for the preface he wrote in defence of his spelling exercises. He there discusses what had been achieved in this respect abroad and in his native country, freely quoting from German, French and Italian authors and translating them, generally after having "improved upon" their attempts. EngUsh authors were apparently not worth his while. When he agrees with Van der Mijle in his praise of the Dutch language which has remained the purest of aU other languages, he continues: "For Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. are only off-shoots of Latin, mixed with the tongues of foreign nations they have governed. The Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish languages are the off-spring of German, also much changed and corrupted after the lapse of years. English is considered by many to be the scum of languages, though it is Old Saxon or Dutch (Germanic), corrupted by the Norman language."
The result of this enquiry into the extent of the knowledge of EngUsh in the United Provinces in the 17th and the early 18th century is therefore again disappointing, though opportunities of contact with EngUsh and the EngUsh were not lacking. In certain trading circles there was some knowledge of EngUsh, it is true, and in some cases this knowledge may have occasioned an interest in English life and thought, but these cases can only have been rare.1 In the
1 A good illustration of such a case is the following. There lived at Heeg, a small village in Friesland, an "eelskipper to London" called Gerke Nieuwland (d. 1846), who was fond of reading English sermons, which he translated into Dutch for his own use. To save his eyes, his little son Japik had to look up words for him in a dictionary. And in this way the boy learned English, which enabled him later on, though he was only a simpte artisan, to translate



Chapter VI
LATIN, FRENCH, AND DUTCH PERIODICALS AS INTERMEDIARIES
We now proceed to tracé the way in which Milton was further introduced into the Netherlands. The central position Holland occupied in the cultural life of the latter half of the 17th century inevitably led the Dutch public to hear of Milton's growing reputation as a poet in his native country and on the continent. The international character of the average Dutchman of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th centuries is very striking. Bayle says that when he began to write his Nouvelles de la Republique des Lettres, he thought that "la HoUande étoit le Pays du monde le plus propre pour cette entreprise," for "je voiois qu'il avoit un nombre prodigieux de Libraires .& d'imprimeurs, je voiois que ce Pays est le Magazin général & comme le receptable de tout ce qui se trouve dans les autres." * Bayle's expectations were disappointed, as will be seen presently, but an investigation of the catalogues of a hundred private libraries, offered for sale between 1700 and 1750, proves this universal character very clearly: the books had to be classed under the following heads: French, Dutch, Spanish, Italian, EngUsh, German and Greek-Latin. 2 As to Milton, there were three channels through which his fame as a poet might have entered Holland — directly through EngUsh, indirectly through Latin or French. As we have seen above, the comparative ignorance of English among the Dutch made a direct discovery of the merits of the great EngUsh poet rather unlikely. Bayle is
1 Nouvelles de la Republique des Lettres, Mars, 1686: Avertissement de 1'auteur
2 S. A. Krijn. Franse lektuur in Nederland in het begin van de 18e eeuw.
De Nieuwe Taalgids, XI (1917).



very surprised to find how scarce English books were at Rotterdam. In the same passage from which we have already quoted he says: "Mais ce qy'il y a de plus surprenant c'est que nous sommes dans une disette effroiable des Uvres qui s'impriment en Angleterre, quelque beaux & nombreux qu'il soient, & a nos portes pour ainsi dire." « Yet though this may be true of Rotterdam, there are some indications that at the Hague the state of affairs was or became better, as will be seen later.
As far as Latin is concerned, we have in the first place the Latin translation of Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained, and Samson Agonistes in 1690 by a Scotchman, William Hog.2 In the second place, all over Western Europa a famous periodical provided scholars with announcements and critiCisms of what was important in the world of letters, namely the Leipsic Acta Eruditorum, published from 1687 onwards. We may assume that as soon as Milton was discussed in these publications, he was introduced to Dutch as well as to German and French circles.
In general it was through French that English literature became known in Holland. Krün's investigation of catalogues shows that EngUsh books were rare in those private libraries, but French translations were rather frequent. He gives the following list of the chief EngUsh authors of whose works French translations occurred in the hundred catalogues he studied:
Paradise Lost was the only poem of Milton's that occurred, and, besides, was generally classed not under the head of beUes lettres but of Theology! 3 Dr W. J. B. Pienaar has shown in detail that it was the French journals especially that drew the attention of Dutchmen to the writings of EngUshmen, first in science, then in literature. They started with books that were pubUshed at that time and then went on to discuss EngUsh Uterature generally.4 Milton is 1 also quoted in C. Serrurier. Pierre Bayle en HoUande, Apeldoorn, undated,
p. 78 2 Paraphrasis poëtica in tria Johannis Miltoni poëmata, London, 1690
— 8 op. cit. p. 177 — 4 W. J. B. Pinaar, op. cit.
Locke 25
Swift 15
Steele 14
Defoe's Robinson Crusoe . . 7
Milton's Le Pardis Perdu . . 6.
8



no exception to this rule. Though much has already been recorded by others in this respect, not everything has been discussed, nor have the minor periodicals been examined, so that it is worth givmg a chronological summary of the periodicals and what they teil us of
Milton's fame. , We find that from 1684 onwards an increasing number of trench periodicals was published at Dutch printing establishments. The fact that these pubtications were printed in Holland need ^ ^essanly imply that they were intended for Dutch use. The skill of the Dutch prmters, together with a comparative liberty of the press m Holland were undoubtedly the cause of many foreign books being. issued from Dutch printing houses. But in the case of the above-mentioned periodicals, there are several indications that, though not mtended for the propagation of Dutch literature and science specially, they were chiefly meant for Holland, as will be shown when these journals are discussed. Even if we take into account the thousands of French refugees that stayed here, it is quite impossible that they were pubUshed for them alone, however much these periodicals may have owed to the energy and spirit of enterprise of these exiles. In general we may say that the French works published at Dutch prmting-offices weJe intended as much for HoUand as for France, ü not mo^ Besides, the reading pubUc in HoUand was generally kep wel posted up in what appeared in France, and this want was also supphed by the journals. Mr Krijn states in the study already referred to that, apart from Latin and Greek, French books were by far the most numerous in those private liberaries, and he gives the following list of the French periodicals found in them:
Bibliothèque universelle 30
Journal des Savants ^
Bibliothèque choisie ƒ7
Nouvelles de la République des Lettres . . 22
Bibliothèque ancienne et moderne ... 18
Jugements des Savants J5
Histoire des ouvrages des savants .... ld.
Among the French publications in Holland must first be mentioned thosTof the famous Pierre Bayle, not only his Dictionmre Histonque Tcritique (Rotterdam, 1697), but especiaUy his Nouvelles de la



Republique des Lettres, * Bayle began this periodical in 1684 in avowed imitation of the Journal des Scavans, which had been started as early as 1665 in Paris and a reprint of which appeared in Amsterdam in 1684. The monthly instalments of Bayle's journal consisted of a series of articles and short announcements of newly published books. Theological and philosophical controversies bulked large in them, in keeping with the character of the author and the age. 2 The suecess of the Nouvelles led others to publish similar periodicals, so that as early as 1694 Bayle could write: "On commence a se lasser de cette sorte d'écrits." 3
Jean le Clerc is next in importance to Bayle and from an English point of view even more important. He was born in Geneva4 and trained to be a Calvinistic preacher, but his heterodox ideas made hun unfit for this career. He finally found a congenial home in Amsterdam (1684—1736) among the Remonstrants. He was a French polyhistor: theologian, philosopher, philologist, historian, all at once. As an historian and a philologist, however, he was a failure; as a theologian he was a collaborator and partly a successor of Van Limborch, though handicapped by being suspected of Socinianism; as a philosopher he was an advocate of the theories of Locke, a friend of his, whose empiricism he introduced and spread in Holland. His most important achievement, by which he attained European fame, was the publication of three successive periodicals: Bibliothèque universelle et historique (Amsterdam, 1686-93), Bibliothèque choisie (Amsterdam, 1703-13) and Bibliothèque ancienne et moderne (Amsterdam, 1714-27). These journals abound ih reviews of English religious, philosophical, historical, philological and scientific books and researches. Le Clerc did much to make the Spectator known on the continent, indeed according to Dr Pienaar he wrote the best review of it that occurred in any of the journals.6
In 1692 a periodical in the vernacular under the title of De Boek1 For Bayle see especially: C. Serrurier, op. cit The Histoire des Oavrages dés Savans by Henri Basnage de Beauval (Rotterdam, 1687—1709) could not be had at any of our public libraries. Quite recently the periodical has been discussed in detail by Dr H. J. Reesing in her dissertation L'Angleterre et la littérature anglaise dans les trois plus anciens périodiques francais de HoUande de 1684a 1709 (Zutphen, 1931). Of importance to us is a long article on Toland's Life of Milton in the year 1699 (see below, p. 122) — s ibid. p. 77 — 3 In a letter to Minutoli, quoted by C. Serrurier, op. cit. p. 81 — 4 Nieuw Nederlandsen Biographisch Woordenboek, sub Clericus (Joannes) 8 op. cit., p. 202.



zaal van Europa was started by Peter Rabus, headmaster of the Latin School at Rotterdam. Its special importance is the great number of literary articles in it. After the death of Rabus in 1702 it was continued by the above-mentioned W. Sewel till 1705, when J. van Gaveren became the editor.
As yet, however, the French periodicals continued to be more numerous and of more importance. The Histoire Critique de la Republique des lettres, tant Ancienne que Moderne (1712—1718) was edited by Philippe Masson "ministre de 1'église réformée a Dort". At first it appeared in Utrecht, but soon it was removed to Amsterdam. The "Avertissement" of the first volume sounds rather promising: "On se propose entr'autres, de parler ici de ces excellens Ouvrages de Littérature & de Critique, qui ont paru depuis qu'on a vü renaitre les Belles Lelres; surtTut de ceux qui sont & lesmoins com- J ff muns & les plus solides en même temps. On aura aussi soin, de rendre compte au Public de plusieurs Livres Anglois qui ne sont guères connüs au-deca de la mer, & qui sont pourtant tres dignes de 1'attention de tous ceux qui cherchent un solide scavoir. La Grande Bretagne a été trop fertile en grands Hommes, pour ne lui pas rendre toute la justice qui lui est düë. Cette scavante Nation nous a fait part d'un trop grand nombre de beaux Ouvrages, pour souffrir qu'ils demeurent a jamais inconnüs au reste de 1'Europe." i The "Nouvelles Litteraires" from England are indeed rather extensive, and we meet with the names of Pope, Shaftesbury, Steele, Swift, Addison, Spenser, Sidney and even of Chaucer, whose Prologue to the Canterbury Tales (1.1-42) . is actually quoted. 2 But on the whole the journal specialized in "Livres Sacrëz", and the name of Milton does not occur in it.»
The most important among the French periodicals is undoubtedly Le Journal Literaire (the Hague, 1713—1736). This quarterly made good its title. Its contributors were to be found in the United Provinces, France and England and the articles were read and rearranged, if necessary, by a staff of editors residing at The Hague. Such men as Justus van Effen were among its contributors, and from the outset the articles attained a high Standard. Small wonder that a reprint of the first volumes was soon necessary (1715—1717). In course of time, however, interest waned, the quality of the articles diminished, 1 also quoted by Pienaar, op. cit., p. 188 — * Histoire Critique de la Republique des lettres, X, 1715, p. 345 — 8 I have been able to lay hands only on Vol. I—V, VII—XII, XIV.



correspondente stopped their contributions, and after 1722 it was discontinued. In 1729 the publication was revived in the original way with a great staff of contributors. It is clear that the Journal Literaire was meant specially for Dutch readers. The Dutch point of view is expressed in various ways and Dutch literature is not neglected. Its pubUsher, T. Johnson at the Hague, seems to have made a point of introducing EngUsh books into Holland. Again and again he advertised his "Recueil des meilleures Piéces du Théatre Anglois and affected surprise that they "se vendent beaucoup moins qu'en Angleterre, oü elles ne se trouvent point si bien imprimées." » When a new edition of Pope's works is announced from London, the reader is advertised that the volumes can be had "bien imprimés en petit 8 . chez T. Johnson, a la Haye." 2 The order of the languages is also very remarkable in such an annojcement as: "on trouve chez lej_l* même Libraire généralement toutes sortes de Livres Anglois, Francois, & Latins, a fort juste prix." » ,
Soon after the appearance of Le Journal Literaire a spirit of competition in Journal-writing becomes observable; keen business men tried to forestall the monthly, bi-monthly and quarterly announcemente of new books in the regular journals. Thus we find from 1715 onwards the Nouvelles Litteraires, a weekly published at The Hague and intended for the above-mentioned purpose and at the same time setting up to be a general index to many foreign regular periodicals. * These Nouvelles provide us with a definite proof that they were speciaUy intended for the reading pubtic in Holland. For in an advertisement we are informed that the weekly appears every Saturday in the principal tf/is of Holland and can be had at definite // W booksellers' in Amsterdam, The Hague, Utrecht, Rotterdam and Leeuwarden. As time went on the Nouvelles were published at longer intervals and finally they became a common journal (till 1720).
Italy and Germany already had their representatives among the periodicals read in Holland. On 7th November, 1716, we read m the Nouvelles Litteraires the announcement of a journal that was to restrict itseU to books published in England. The editor of this Bibliothèque Angloise (1717-1728), Michel de la Roche, was a Frenchman by birth, Uving in London. He had already published for some years an EngUsh journal Memoirs of Literature, four i Journal Literaire,' I, 1713, p. 479 - * ibid. IX, 1717, p. 480 - » ibid. X, 1718, Avertissement — 4 ibid. III, 1716, p. 3.



volumes of which appeared. M. de la Roche had a collaborator at The Hague, who however broke with him in 1720, and continued the periodical under the same name on his own account. De la Roche now started a new journal Memoires Literaires de la Grande Bretagne (The Hague, 1720—1724), in the pref ace of which he complained bitterly of de Marret's having robbed him of the title of his journal and of his publisher. He complained also of the fact that he has been made suspect in Holland of being anti-Calvinistic, antiReformed and pro-Anglican. The new periodical had no success, apparently, and was discontinued in 1724. He intended to begin a new journal under a different title, but nothing seems to have come of the plan.
In the year 1730 a new periodical was launched under the title of Critique desinteressée des Journaux litteraires et des ouvrages des savans (The Hague), in which we notice an intention similar to that of the Nouvelles Litteraires, though on a bigger scale. The editors, "une Société de Gens de Lettres", set out to make it a journal on the existing journals, though it was to contain the usual reviews of an ordinary journal as well. Here we again find a proof that these French periodicals were meant for Holland. In a discussion on the Journal des SQavans we read that an enlarged reprint of the Paris edition was pubUshed every month at Amsterdam, and according to the author of the review these additional articles in it were often the best.1 It is further stated that the Journal Literaire and the Bibliothèque Raisonnée are the only two periodicals which do not restrict themselves to a definite country. The latter seems to have been a Dutch continuation of a French journal of the same name, but I have not been able to examine a copy.
As late as 1750 a French periodical on EngUsh Uterature was started in Holland: the Journal Britannique (The Hague). It was continued until 1757, and a general index to the whole series was pubUshed in 1763. An attempt to begin a sintilar periodical on the announcement of the discontinuation of the Journal Britannique proved unsuccessful. Only one volume of the Nouvelle Bibliothèque Angloise (The Hague, 1756) appeared.
After this survey of periodical writings it will be necessary to turn to the references to Milton that are to be found in aU pubUcations
that may be supposed to have been known in Holland. ^
1 Critique desinteressée, I, p. 10.



We may ignore a mere mention like Miltoni (Joh ) Epistolarum FaJl^Lner anus. 8. Londiruin Le '^£*3™* the vear 1677 among the books which appeared from 16bo-lb// ana were not cluiered important enongh for discussion. Bayh* belles are of more importance. In the very Preface to the f rst voUme (1684) the author refers to the Milton of the Arep^nco. WhTprS the liberty of the press in Holland hesay*^ure ment si Milton eüt vécu dans ces Provinces, il ne se füt pas av*ede ran-e unLivre de Typographia lioeranda, car ü£ejt point s,nti que les choses y fussent dans la servitude è eet egard. Bayle is not an admter of Milton. On the contrary, he considers mild the punish^ meted out by the authorities of Oxford University to certam rdvocSes of Milton. After announcing the 27 propositions from the wrluTgoi^ Buchanan, Milton and others, which were pronounced herÏÏe and scandaleus, he narrates with evident approval the exSn rf"un des Régens du College de Lincoln'' from the Umversi* tobrtna disregarded them. This tutor had advised his pupüs to smdy Sn's bo'oks and had maintained that the Sovereign^Power was vested in the people, and that the Commons 7nd exclude from the throne those whom they deemed unfit. Thinking ■S^lS-oo«t from France Bayle adds: «On auroi un pen de peine a prouver que les Universitez ca&oU<rae\fy7*,!fA^ narS es choses dans des circumstances de temps semblables. * And rSuSsfïeS» he protests against all Englishmen being accused 3 nX Z similar views to «Buchanan Milton.nd some OÜ1e 'plumes uenales' during the tyranny of C*™^ J^J^Ï Milton on divorce were not forgotten, of ™ cites the De Jure Naturae & Gentium, wherein Puffendorf suspects Z^oi having written in favour of divorce only because he was married to a woman he detested. _ Son's name also occurs in the Acta Eruditorumoï the year^1687, in me revi"w of The Lives of the Most Famous English Poets efc. Cdorsluel Manship, 1687). The book^jnuch admire* esneciallv for the extracts given from the poets work A long Hst ol ZTpoetsLuire discussed is given, among others Shakespeare, Marinwp and Milton, but without any comment.
More expticti te the statement of P. Rabus in the Boekzaal van
i Bayle. Nouvelles, Avril, 1684, p. 142 - * ibid. Aug., 1685, p. 908.



and published in the year 1690 by William Hog, a Scotchman."
In the Journals we often find the names of Milton and John Toland linked together. It certainly did not improve Milton's reputation on the continent to be championed by this notorious divine. Toland was wellknown in Holland. He had studied for two years at Leyden University under Spanheim and Trigland about 1692. His book Christianüy not mysterious specially, in which he maintained that there were no mysteries in the Christian religion contrary to reason, brought him into general ill-odour. In 1698 he published his Life of Milton, together with Milton's prose works. His assertion that the Eikon Basilike was not by King Charles I. but by Gauden still more embittered the party that hated him already. A certain Of f spring Blackball denounced him from the pulpit, decrying hun as a dangerous heretic who had called the New Testament spurious. Toland vindicated himself in his Amyntor; or a Defence of Milton's Life (London, 1699), which is partly a discussion of Miltón and the Eikon Basilike and partly a theological dispute on the canonical books. In 1699 Toland made a tour through Holland and other European countries, In 1710 he was again in Holland and had two books pubUshed at the Hague, which did not fail to arouse opposition.
Bayle, when announcing the Amyntor (Nouvelles, 1699), introducés Toland as "the author of a Life of MUton". This Life was actually discussed in an article of some ten pages in the Histoire des Ouvrages des Savans (1699). In the course of it Milton's most important works are mentioned, of course, but full stress is laid on his poUtical and ecclesiastical writings; the poems come in for only a few words:
"Sa retraite nécessaire lui donna le temps d'achever (en 1666) son Poème héroïque, le Paradis perdu, Paradise lost II fit ensuite le Paradis regagné, Paradise regained: et comme il n'avait pas si bien réussi dans le dernier, ses ennemis disaient malignement qu'on le reconnaissait bien dans le premier mais non pas dans le dernier. La pointe était d'autant plus malicieuse, qu'il n'était pas 1'esclave des opinions du vulgaire sur la Religion." |
The Acta Eruditorum of 1700 also gave a review of Toland's Life of Milton. The beginning of this article is very remarkable. The reviewer was for a long time uncertain about the wisdom of discussing the book, since the author was known to be given to Socinian-
1 H. J. Reesink, op. cit., p. 119.



ism and an enemy of monarchy. His Christianity not mysterious was ordered to be burned by the Irish Parliament. Yet a discussion of this new biography was inserted in the Acta Eruditorum, as the editors generally judged the works according to their contents and not according to their authors. As to Milton's poetry, the review does not contain much that is new. Paradise Lost is praised and Dryden's dramatization is mentioned. Paradise Regained is said to be uniyersally considered as inferior to Paradise Lost. Samson Agonistes is only mentioned. Of some importance is the statement that Milton was greatly appreciated in the time of William III. Further, an anonymous criticism of Toland's Life is mentioned, which appeared under the title of Remarks on the Life of Mr Milton and against which Toland wrote his Amyntor.
Bayle availed himself of Toland's Life, as far as he could made use of the Latin and French extracts he found in various periodicals
— he mentions the Histoire des Ouvrages des Savans (Febr., 1699) 
to complete his article on Milton in the second edition of his Dictionary (1702). It is perhaps worth mentioning that this article remained unaltered up to the last, the llth, edition in 18201 As to Milton's poetry not much is added. His juvenile poetry — Latin, English and Italian — is mentioned and praised in general terms.' The contents of Dryden's epigram on Homer, Dante and Milton are given. Milton the man is said "to have shown both by bis deeds and by his words a profound respect for God".
Yet in 1703 we still read in the Nouvelles, in a review of Dennis's Advancement of Modern Poetrie: "II est bien sür, comme le remarque Mr Dennis, que Molière, Corneüle, Racine & Boileau, sont connus dans toute 1'Europe, mais qui est-ce hors de l'Angleterre qui aït ouï parler de Spencer (sic), de Milton, de Ben Johnson (sic)?"
In the Boekzaal of 1707 (Nov. & Dec.) the Amyntor is discussed. Toland is called a great scholar, though he is considered by many "a half, if not a whole heretic". Though this article only treats of the theological part of the Amyntor, in which he author has hardly anything to say against Toland, the discussion of the origin of the book naturally led to the mentioning of the Life of Milton.
In the next year the Journal des Scavans opened up the discussion of Milton's History of Britain. It occurs in the review of a book called A compleat History of England (London, 1706), which is a compilation of treatises by several authors, the first being Milton's.



Milton is called "famous for his works of prose and poetry", and his thoughts and expressions are said to have something of the majesty to be found in the ancients. His style, however, is oldfashioned and rude ("vieux et barbare").
The Milton of the Divorce Tracts was not forgotten. As late as 1710 we read in the Acta Eruditorium of a book in which Milton's theories are refuted, and the author, who had made a literary voyage abroad, memorizes that Milton is notorious among the English for his repuditation of his sixth wife!
J. le Clerc appears to have known and appreciated Milton's Paradise Lost. In the review of the French translation of the Spectator (1714) referréd to above, he says: "On ne pourroit néanmoins pas traduire en Francois les Poësies Angloises, qui se trouvent en divers endroits, tirées de Poëtes qui avoient déja paru, & quelquefois avec de petites remarques, comme sur le Paradise Perdu de Milton; ou qui n'avoient jamais été imprimées. II n'est pas possible den faire paroitre la beauté, teil qu'elle est en elle même, ni en prose, ra en vers: que Fon puisse souffrir, en une autre Longue." i Himself perfectly acquainted with the English language, he perhaps feit better than any of his contemporaries how much of the essential charm of Paradise Lost was bound to be lost in any translation. Yet it is strange that after all he did not do more to draw the attention of the Dutch to the great English epic. Did better acquaintance with Milton's religious ideas make this friend of van Limborch cautious not to compromise himself by championing the EngUsh heretic?
In a review of the French translation of Steele's Bibliothèque des Dames (Amsterdam, 1716) in the Journal Literaire of 1717 we are again reminded of MUton's hatred of women. The extravagant opinion of Milton, "that author otherwise so grave and wise", is quoted in full: "Elles ne sont toutes que des Fantömes vains d'une vertu solide, elles ne sont toutes qu'une cöte que la nature a (sic) mal tournee; Ha pourquoi le sage Createur, qui ne peupla le Ciel Empyrée que d'esprits maxcuüns, créa-t-il enfin cette nouveauté sur la terre, eet agréable poison de la Nature? que ne fit-il la même chose sur la terre que dans le Ciel? Pourquoi ne la remplit-il pas d'hommes sans y joindre les Femmes? ou que ne trouva-t-il une autre voye, pour la propagation du Genre Humain." 2
1 Bibliothèque Ancienne et Moderne, I, p. 386-7. The italics are mine —
2 Journal Literaire, IX, p. 71.



The same volume of the Journal Literaire, however, contained an article on English literature which was the best that had appeared on the continent. It was occasioned by a sketch of Dutch literature which appeared in 1714.1 In that year the English correspondent of the Journal, announcing Pope's poetic achievements, spoke of his plan to write a similar treatise on English literature.2 This reviewer seems to have been a Dutchman staying in England, and well up in French as well as in Dutch literature — in all probability Justus van Effen. 3 Before carrying out his plan he gave a review of Pope's translation of the Wad, in the course of which he mentioned Milton several times. 4 He still thought it necessary to inform his readers in a note that "Milton and Shakespeare were two English poets, of whom the one excelled in Epic and the other in Dramatic poetry". His opinion of blank verse is remarkable and very uncommon for the time. He thinks it surprising that Pope had not profited by the example set by Milton in doing without rhyme: "plus POuvrage qu'il entreprend est de longue haleine, plus il avoit de fortes raisons de s'épargner un travati, qui dont faire languir trés souvent son stile." He cites Pope's mentioning Milton in the same breath with Statius, Lucan, Virgil, and Homer. 5
Then in 1717 6 we get a long article on English literature. Like the survey of Dutch literature, it takes the shape of a constant comparison between English and French belles-lettres. The two languages are compared, their versification, and the various types of literature. In the discussion of epic poetry we get the first purely literary criticism of Milton, though as yet only as the author of Paradise Lost. In this field of literature, the reviewer says, the French are the inferiors of the EngUsh. The French seem to understand the rules of epic poetry better than how 'to put them into practice. The author, however, is inclined to accept Télémaque as an epic, which he considers to be an undoubted success. 7 The aesthetic question whether an epic could be in prose as well as in poetry had been raised as soon as Les Aventures de Télémaque appréared in 1699 and had found many advocates.8 The great fame Feitama gained by his translation in verse of the book in 1733 is indicative of the general opinion of the Dutch on that subject. The fact that MUton's
1 Journal Literaire, III, p. 177 — 2 ibid. IV, p. 212 — 3 W. J. Pienaar, op. cit., p. 212 note 2 — 4 Journal Literaire, 1716, VII, p. lff. — 5 ibid. p. 4 — * ibid. IX, p. 157 — 7 ibid. p. 178 — 8 J. te Winkel, op. cit. V, p. 256.



only that the poem deals with the most fundamental problems of life, but also that these are treated by a hyper-individualistic mind like Milton's, Whose opinions diverged greatly from those generally accepted. And since these deviations concerned the relation between God the Father and His Son, a question of vital importance to all Christian theologians, it is small wonder that no sympathetic criticism could leave this question alone.
The Journal Literaire says of it: "Par le Plan que nous avons donné de cette piéce, on aura vü apparament le sentiment particulier de M. Milton sur la divinité du Fils, sentiment que plusieurs Theologiens Anglois. de reputation ont taché de prouver, & qui ne paroit pas pouvoir être supposée sans reuve dans un Poëme. L'excuse la plus plausible dont on a pallié 1'extravagance des Dieux d'Ho mere, c'est que ce Poëte a du suivre le Systême populaire, préférablement a celui des Philosophes. Cette raison n'est pas satisfaisante, une des premières vuës d'un Poëte étant 1'instruction, il ne peut pas en conscience confinner ses Lecteurs dans des erreurs grossier es: son devoir est de se conformer aux opinions recues, autant que la raison le permet, & pour satisfaire a son Art, il faut qu'il passé sous silence ses opinions particulieres en matiere de Théologie. Si la dessus 1'auteur a été trop sincere & trop Thélogien, il a été trop amateur du merveilleux & trop Poëte dans les combats entre les bons & les mauvais Anges, & plusieurs autres particularitez qui regardent la chute des Démons, & des hommes. II y a grande apparence qu'il ne faut pas prendre a la lettre le petit nombre de circonstances que les Livres sacrez nous en ont rapportées; si dans d'autres endroits ils nous donnoient la signification propre de ces expressions figurées & Mysterieuses, un Poëte en pourroit faire usage aussi, puisque nous en aurions alors la clef. Mais a present le merveilleux qu'on en peut tirer ne fauroit qu'orner un Poëme par des discours vuides de sens, & qui n'excitent pas la moindre notion dans 1'Esprit."
So from the very first we see that Milton's heterodox ideas are objected to: Milton had given poetical form not to the creed that was commonly accepted, but to one of his own. He had been too frank and too theological. The second objection is directed against the iconography in Paradise Lost. Milton, in giving 'a local habitation and a name', in giving form to sacred affairs, shocked critics as too gross and matter-of-fact. It is like a person witnesssing the performance of a favpurite play or piece of music, when the performers



prove to have a conception of it different from his own: he may admire the technique, but the whole is a disappointment, the more so, the greater the admiration for the work of art is.
One other thing remains to be mentioned in the sürvey of English literature in the Journal Literaire, viz., the criticism of versetechnique. Though as yet French literature ranks higher than English in the eyes of the reviewer, a change has set in. Thanks to the imitation of the French, the English have equalled, if not surpassed them in prose. And as to poetry, if the English poets follow suit and abandon their free ideas of verse-technique, they will soon be as successful. We meet here with an opinion of English poetry that appears to have been common in Holland and was bound to be considered of much importance in a country where poetry degenerated more and more into mere technicalities. As early as 1695 P. Rabus wrote in an article on Oldham's Poems and Translations about this looseness of construction in English verse. He draws attention to the English peculiarity of sometimes making three consecutive lines rhyme, instead of rhyming them two and two as is the custom in other countries. I W. Sewel goes deeper into the question when discussing Edw. Bysshe's The Art of English Poetry, which book could be had, he states, at Steven Swart's, Amsterdam. 2 He repeated his opinions a few years later in English in his Dictionary. 3 Throughout the article we detect a note of disdain on the complacency of Englishmen, who are too proud to listen to good advice. He criticizes the lack of smoothness in English heroic couplets and even in blank verse, "a form which is very much used by them". The English further neglect the right place of the caesura, the regular alternation of masculine and feminine rhyme, and Sewel, too, finds fault with their irregular insertion of tripiets, their overfondness for rhyme, and their slovenliness in rhyme. "However it must be admitted in praise of the English that there have been, and there are still poets among them who have expressed very dignified, pregnant and fine thoughts in lofty, strong and beautiful words, and who, if they were only willing to learn from the Dutch, could improve their poetry still more: for though their language is not so rich in feminine rhymewords, they have yet enough to use them alternately, if they would only cudgel their brains for it; but then it would take them some1 Boekzaal, Jan.—Febr., 1695, p. 106 — a ibid., March—April, 1705, p. 275 a cf. p. 109.



what longer to compose a poem, and they do not like that, as it seems."1 When we think of the slavish adoration of the French which was then prevalent among the Dutch, this self-esteem, however unfounded it may have been, does one's heart good. Besides, it is a striking proof that at the time the relative position of Holland and England was radically different from what we are accustomed to nowadays. This self-respect, it goes without saying, was not favourable to the recognition of Milton's greatness. Yet from more than one side attention was drawn to the English poet.
In one of the first articles of the Bibliothèque Angltyse (1717), i that on Sir Richard Blackmore's Essays upon several subjects (London, 1716), Milton is repeatedly mentioned, and again in the same breath with Homer and Virgil. We are told that, along with le Bossu's Traité, it was Paradise Lost, though long neglected by the English, which had inspired them to write epic poetry. Milton is cited several times to prove Blackmore's statements. He maintains that it is possible to construct a real epic poem, "even when the hero is unfortunate and does not fight a single battle", and Adam, the hero of Paradise Lost is there to prove this assertion. Milton is again brought forward to prove that the Christian religion furnishes material fit for heroic poetry, Milton who "a employé le Christianisme avec succès dans son excellent Ouvrage". Once more Milton's example is cited to corroborate Blackmore's opinion that people advanced in life are as capable of producing works of wit and imagination as youthful authors. "Le célèbre Milton composa son Poëme, intitulé Le Paradis perdu & son Samson Agonistès, pendant les dernieres années de sa vie; & 1'on peut dire que son beau Genie y brille avec plus d'éclat, que dans toutes ses autres productions."2 A note informs the reader that Samson Agonistès "est une Tragedie Angloise, oü il y a de beaux endroits".
In the same year 1717, the Acta Eruditorum3 published Felton's opinion that "Milton owed it to nothing but the Holy Scriptures that he is considered the superior of Homer and Virgil in majesty of thought and glow of diction".
The growing fame of Milton's poetry awakened people's interest
1 Boekzaal, March—April, 1705, p. 280 — a Bibliothèque Angloise, I, 1717, p. 43, 46, 48, 377 — 3 Acta Eruditorum Supplementa, Tomus VI, 1717, p. 469: A. H. Felton, A Dissertation on Reading the Classics, London, 1712.
9



to his other works and thus we find an article on his Tractate of Education in the Bibliothèque Angloise of the year 1718, opening with the words: "Tout le monde sait que Milton étoit une personne d'un mérite distingué. Son Traité de. l'Education n'est point connu dans les Païs étrangers. Nous croïons que les Lecteurs seront bien aises de savoir ce que eet Habile Homme pensoit sur une matiere si importante."i Then follow the contents of the treatise, which the author does not expect to be "approuvé dans toutes ses parties". He concludes the article with an anecdote, which, as he says, he ought to have given when discussing Milton's famous poem Paradise Lost. "Un Ami (note: Mr Dryden, fameux Poëte) de Milton ayant lü le Paradis perdu, lui dit, 17 me paroit clairement par la lecture de votre Poëme, que vous êtes Arien. N'en dites rien, je vous prie, Repliqua MILTON; car le Clergé ne Va pas encore découvert." De la Roche certainly knew what would interest theological Holland!
Milton's treatise on education was translated into Dutch by Pieter le Clercq and published together with a translation of George Savile's New Years Gift under the title of Nieuwjaarsgift aan de Jufferschap, of Raad van een fatsoenlijk man aan zijne Dochter. Waar agter gevoegd is een Brief, over de Opvoeding van Jonge Heeren, van den vermaarden Heer John Milton (undated) 2 Pieter le Clercq (1692— 1759) was a Dutchman of a literary turn of mind, who translated a great deal, more from English than from French. As we nowhere find any tracé that he followed a trade or profession, he may have made a living in this way. He does not appear to have been an original man and seems rather to have followed public taste than to have directed it, thus indirectly illustrating Dutch taste. He translated the Spectator (1720), the Guardian (1730), the Tatler (1733), Addison's Cato and The Drummer, Swift's Tale of the Tub (1735) and the Battle of the Books (1743), Fielding's Tom Jones (1749) and Jonathan Wild (1757). '
In the year 1718 it was still thought unnecessary to include Addison's famous articles on Milton in the French translation of the third volume of the Spectator. The Nouvelles de la République des Lettres (1718), in discussing this translation, explains the omission of this "critique fine et judicieuse du célèbre Poëme de Milton',
1 Bibliothèque Angloise, IV, p. 540 - » The book is discussed in The Nation April 29, 1915, also cited by Miss Niewenhous in Paradise Lost in Dutch (Tijdschrift voor Taal en Letteren, Tilburg, April, 1930).



because '*il n'y a pas d'apparence, qu'il soit jamais traduit en Francois".1
We may however be sure that by this time Milton was fairly well known in Holland as the author of a great epic. The Acta Eruditorum in 1722 2 once more made it known the English considered hun the equal of Homer and Virgil. Nor did Addison's remarks fail to rouse the interest of Dutchman, as appears from a passage in the Boekzaal of 1724. In a review of Geuzeveldt, a poem by Abraham Bogaart, we read: "It is modelled after the Ystroom, the most luxuriant poem we have in our language and which, in our opinion, surpasses in that respect Paradise Lost, a poem by the famous Milton, which for this is lauded to the skies by the English." And in a note the reviewer adds: "Mr Addison asserts that it surpasses all poems, not excluding the Wad and the Aeneid." 3 Here again we hear that typical note of self-complacency which we have already noticed in Sewel. More than that. What is praised in Antonides van der Goes' masterpiece is its luxuriance, the wealth of poetical digressions that is to be found in the poem. The reviewer does not seem to have an eye for the bold conception of Paradise Lost as a whole, but thinks of the details and then discovers that the Ystroom is even more luxuriant than Paradise Lost. This again is characteristic of the 18th century.
It certainly is illustrative of the wide-spread interest taken in Milton, that the Acta Eruditorum of 1724, when reviéwing Aulus Apronius' (i.e. Adamus Ebertus) Reise-Beschréibung durch Teutschland, Holland, Engelland, Franckreich, Italien, und Sicilien, * thinks it worth while to mention that the author had seen in the streets of London a former servant of Milton who became mad.
Presently these many references to Milton were to bear fruit. In the year 1724 J. van Zanten had finished his Dutch translation of Paradise Lost, which was to appear in 1728. From 1696 onwards we have seen Milton's reputation as a poet rise, mainly through the French periodicals. The Dutch public were informed of the high opinion the EngUsh had of their Homer, but from the outset we detect an undertone of distrust and detraction, which is partly due to Milton's questionable theological views, partly to Dutch self-complacency. We have now to discuss the Dutch translations of Paradise Lost and the reception of Milton's poetical work in Holland.
1 quoted by Robertson and Pienaar, op. cit. — 2 Acta Eruditorum, 1722, p. 126 — 8 Boekzaal, I, p. 430 — 4 Acta Eruditorum Supplementa, VIII, p. 362.



Chapteb VII
THE FIRST DUTCH TRANSLATIONS OF PARADISE LOST
Milton had long to wait before a Dutch translation appeared, but at least Holland with one exception was not more backward than other countries. As early as 1682 a German translation had been published by Ernst Gotlieb von Berge, who seems to have been inspired by the MS. translation of part of Paradise Lost by Theodor Haak, a friend of Milton's.1 In case of Van Zanten there was no personal connection, but sünply an interest in EngUsh and in theological poetry generally. He finished his translation in 1724 and published it in 1728. The full title of book is:
't Paradijs Verlooren. Heldendicht in Tien Boeken door John Milton. Uyt het Engels in rijmelooze Maat vertaald door J. van Zanten, M: D. Te Haarlem, Bij Geertruyd van Kessel, 1728. (Paradise Lost. An Heroic Poem in Ten Books by John Milton. Translated from the English in blank verse by J. van Zanten, M. D.).
Van Zanten's translation is a remarkable achievement. It is clearly the work of a genuine admirer of MUton's great epic, as appears in particular from the fact that he retained the form. The translation is in blank verse. We have to wait till 1911 for a second attempt in that verse. 2 Van Zanten was aware of the boldness of his attempt and, only too rightly, feared that the Dutch people, "so accustomed to rhyme", would disUke the form. The attempt was indeed so bold that our curiosity is moved to ask what kind of man Van Zanten was, and whether he had ever tried his hand at poetry.
1 Masson, op. cit., VI, p. 783. J. G. Robertson, op. cit., p. 3 — 2 J. Milton. Het paradijs verloren, Boek I—VI, vertaald door A. Gutteling, Amsterdam, 1911.



Jacobus van Zanten 1 (1658—1750) was born at Leyden, and, being eager to learn, was taught several modern languages besides Latin and Gr eek, so that finally he understood eight different languages, He studied medicine at Leyden University, where he was a fellowstudent of David van Hoogstraten and Johannes de Wit. After taking his degree at twenty-two, he settled as a physician in Haarlem, where he soon distinguished himself in his profession. Later, while still following his profession of medicine, he became a minister of the Mennonite Church there, in which capacity also he was highly esteemed. In his old age he became blind, but his retentive memory enabled him to beguille the time by reciting Homer to himself. His memory still lives on in the "Dr J. van Zanten fund" for charitable purposes. From his MS. papers it appears that as a student he had already dabbled in poetry. He translated passages from Herodianos in rhyming alexandrines, wrote rhyming letters to lady friends and composed love-songs. He also wrote religious poems, including a Vrager and a long, unfinished poem called Zions Traanen (Sion's Tears). There are extant a serious birthday poem addressed to Elizabeth Langedult, his future wife, further a poem in honour of peace, and a Latin poem on the decline of Dutch literature. His knowledge of modern languages is apparent from translations from French and Italian. As early as 1679 he began the translation of Corneille's Polyeucte, but only finished the first two scènes. Together with David van Hoogstraten and Johannes de Wit he published in 1680 a translation of Racine's La Thébaïde ou Les Frères ennemis under the device "In Magnis voluisse sat est". A prose translation of part of Manzini's Fuori della Gioventu dates from 1728 and during the months of April and May 1729 he appears to have been busy writing verse renderings of several of La Fontaine's and of La Motte's fables.
Among his papers are also copies of a few English songs, some in his own handwriting. All of them are of an amorous kind suitable to youth and therefore probably belonging to his student days. Some of them are also highly "conceited", which — I have been unable to indentify their authors — seems to point to a still earlier date.
1 Apart from the biographical dictionaries, details about his life and work can be found in his MS. papers, preserved in the townlibrary of Haarlem. Among them the MS. of his translation of Paradise Lost is to be found, on the fly-leaf of which some information about him is given by Willem Kops (1724—1776).



The MS. of his translation of Paradise Lost shows that it was finished in the year 1724. Evidently he took great interest in English theological writings, for he translated numerous theological articles from the Bibliothèque Angloise and the Mémoires littéraires de la Grande Bretagne, all apparently left ready for the press. He published some three translations of English religious works: Aanmerkingen over den Kinderdoop, by Dr John Gale, Historie van het Sgmbolum of Geloofsformulier der Apostelen, Haarlem, 1707, and Verhandeling van Gods voorwetenschap en 's menschen vrije werking, Amsterdam. He was clearly a many-sided man, who, besides writing devotional books, translated works from Latin, French and English on such widely divergent subjects as gout, Socrates, theology, and pronunciation and gesticulation. But, apart from 't Paradijs Verlooren and some scènes from Racine's La Thébaïde, none of his poetry was published. This was no great loss however, as his version of La Fontaine's La laitière et le pot au lait is sufficiënt to prove, though we may appreciate his attempt to make a Dutch dairymaid of 'la laitière'.
Van Zanten was obviously a dilettante, an admirer of poetry, but lacking creative power, and modestly aware of it. For once the humble statements in the pref ace i of his version of Paradise Lost are true. After reminding his readers of the high praise that is given
* Van Zanten dedicated his book to Willem Six, member of the Town-Council of Haarlem, who, as he said, also admired Milton's epic and had encouraged him to continue his work. This dedication raises a curious question. Willem Six died in 1712. This would prove that Van Zanten knew and began to translate Paradise Lost before 1712. This might be an explanation why he used the first edition of the poem. That he was so long in finishing his work is in keeping with the characterislation given of him in H. E. Knappafrt's Uit de omgeving van Elisabeth Hoofman (Van Oude Tijden, Schetsen uit Haarlem's Verleden Haarlem, z. j.). There we are told that a contemporary of his said of him- , Kortom een man in allen dele weergadeloos, bijaldien Hij in de uytvoering van het beslotene zooveel spoet en voortgang maakte, als H« wel deed in zijn besluyten te nemen" (In short he would have been matchless, if only he had carried out his plans with as much speed as he made them). On the other hand however, it is extremely improbable that Van Zanten should dedicate his work to a man already deceased, without mentioning it. Besides he says that Addison's papers are known to Six, and these papers appeared in 1711-12. Hence we are inclined to think that not Willem but his brother Nicholas Six was meant by Van Zanten. He also lived in Haarlem, was a sheriff or an alderman and died in 1731.



Milton by Addison in the Spectator, where he ranks among the great epic poets, he says: "Leaving that opinion for what it is, I have only to say that the praise and applause given to it roused me to read and re-read it attentively and to a certain extent master his way of writing, though this was somewhat harsh and stilted. I at last resolved to make a trial how his metre would sound in our Dutch language, I undertook it, and it seemed to please me somehow, hence I went on from time to time and so finished it. I had no intention of sending it to press, however, as I feared, not without reason, that such a manner of writing would utterly displease the public, so accustomed to rhyme. Hence it would never have been published, if Mr Pieter Langendyk, everywhere famous for his excellent literary work, had not been willing to look through the work, and had not thought that lovers of poetry would perhaps not be done a disservice by its publication. For, if the metre did not please everyone, the plan of the work, the matter, and especially the clever inventions would not make them entirely disapprove of it. If a pen, as well proved as his, had rhymed this epic after his style, it would no doubt find a better welcome. And who knows whether one of those days someone, who is not displeased with the matter, will not set to work and give it a garment of rhyme." Apparently Van Zanten did not choose blank verse for artistic reasons and because he "realized that the beauty of the poetry depended largely upon the character of the verse".1 It is more probable that he chose or at any rate retained blank verse for negative reasons, because he did not feel capable of rhyming such a long poem. Having once chosen that form, as a kind of afterthought, he defended the use of it by translating Milton's words on the subject and citing Gerard Brand and others. His literary timidity is apparent from the words: "How much or how little all these remarks are worth, I leave to the judgement of the critical reader." And at the end of the preface he repeats his expectation that some readers will regret that Langendyk or some other poet did not rhyme the poem. And at the appearance of Paludanus' version2 he even caused a little panegyrical poem in rhyme to be inserted in it:
Mijn ongerijmd gedicht tot een gerijmd te kneden, En daar een beter uit, als 't ongerijmd te smeden,
1 Wilhelmina C. Nieuwenhous, 1. c. — * see p. 145.



Was 't werk van u, Mijn Heer! Ik dank u voor deze eer.
Brak ik het ijs hier, het ik wrakken, ginder schotsen, Deez' schroomde voor de braak, die stiet zich aan de rotsen, Gij hebt dien stroeven weg gelenigt in uw blaan; Elk kan .dien, zonder vrees van struiklen, nu begaan.
(i.e. To knead my unrhymed poem into a rhymed one, and so make a better poem of it than the unrhymed one, that was your work, sir! I thank you for that honour. If I broke the ice here, if I left debris and floes there — the one f eared the broken places, the other bumped against the rocks —, you have smoothed that rude path; now everybody can walk it without fear of stumbling).
Thus even Van Zanten hailed Paludanus' version and acquiesced in the idea that his translation should be supplanted by the rhymed paraphrase. Yet from this first translation one could get a fair idea of the original, even though faulty translation is sometimes misleading as to the contents and though the harmony of melody and compact thought is lost. A closer itfspection of the first four books will make this clear.
In the first place one is struck by the literalness of the translation. In the preface Van Zanten says that he has mostly translated the English word for word, and, indeed, in many cases he succeeded fairly in his attempt. There are only a few instances where the metre forced him to enlarge upon the original text. In some cases these additions are not at all out of place. Thus we find on p. 14. Klonk onder hen die stem, hun dierste pand Van hoop in vrees en yslyk krygsge\aar, Zoo meenigwerf gehoord in 't heetst gevecht, Daar zwaard op zwaard geklonken vuur en vlam In de oogen dreef; de rechte leus, waar op Elk aanviel, als een leeuw; zij schepten moed, Hun kracht herleefde (P- L- I. 274ff.)
And on p. 15:
en heesch van stem
Riep hy zyn heyr, 't gevallen Engledom, (P. L. I, 300) We find a free but good translation on p. 76:
Geenoever zag
Hy aan deez' Zee, die hij moest kruyssen. (P. L. II, 919)



and on p. 86:
'k Denk ook niet zelden aan twee paar, gelyk
Met my in 't euvel lot (p-L- IIL 33>
But there are cases where one gets the idea of padding; yet they
are rare: _ T 11.
p. 4 in den zochten stroom van Süoa [y.u. 1, n;
En onderneemt een schellen heldentoon
Te zetten op een stof, (p-L-
Stamwortels van het menselyk geslacht (P. L. I, 29)
n 45 Een lot, zoo naar
P' En zoo bedroefd! (P.L.II,146)
p 58 Hy zweeg, stond op, en ging terstond van daar,
(P. L. II, 468)
p. 73 zyn snoode Moêr, niet min verheugd,
Toegeef Igker, sprak haaren Heer dus toe. (P. L. II, 848)
p. 133 De lompzwaare Oolifant, om hunne vreugd
Te kweeken, deed zyn best, en wrong zyn snuyt, Volleedig (P. L. IV, 345ff.)
The expansion of Milton's words "But see!" (I, 169) to „Maar ik bid u, zie eens om" (p. 10) might be called an amusing instance of Dutch ceremoniousness. Some additions are undoubtedly due to Van Zanten's being a clergyman by profession:
p. 94 Had Gods Zoon, in wien op 't hoogst
De volheyd eener goddelyke Liefd'
Gevonden word, zyn Middelaarschap door
Zyn dierbaar bloed niet rustig aangeboón. (P. L. III, 224ff.)
p. H3 Want Mens noch Engel kan
Geveynsdheid, 't kwaad, dat in 't verborgen woont, Onzichtbaar, zien, als God alleen, die haar, Naar zynen wil, in Heemel en op Aard Slechts toelaat, nooyt beveeld, nooyt strafloos laat.
Occasionally we find omission. In one case (p. 17) this means the loss of that outcry with its wonderfuUy appropiate melody:
Awake, arise, or be for ever f allen! P. L. I, 330)



Considering the difficult grammatical construction of Milton's language and his extraordinary erudition, we need not be surprised that several passages were misunderstood. These mistakes naturally mean as many instances of loss of beauty, but they are often worse, as they frequently introducé foreign ideas and sometimes even make no sense at all. In order to get a general idea of these mistakes we shall specify the following classes, arbitrary though these cannot but be:
a - passages that make no sense: e.g.
Hy ziet met oogen, vol van spyt, rondom,
Maar wat hg ziet, is angst, verbaasdheyd, schrik,
Met hoogmoed, haat, hardnekkigheyd verzeld.
(Van Zanten, p. 6)
round he throws his baleful eyes,
That witnessed huge affliction and dismay, Mixed with obdurate pride and steadfast hate.
(Par. Lost, I, 56-8)
b - passages that give a wrong sense: e.g.
Naast hem gelgk in macht, gelyk in schuld.
(Van Zanten, p. 7)
One next himself in power, and next in crime.
(Par. Lost, I, 79)
c - minor errors not afflecting the sense: e.g.
Zij waaren hoofden, die Uyt helsen grond opborlende, en op aarde
Omzwervende naa roof, 
(Van Zanten, p. 19)
The chief were those who, from the pit of Heil
Roaming to seek their prey on Earth, 
(Par. Lost, I, 381-2)
d - stylistic blemishes: e.g.
Tot dat een Held door goddelyke kracht, Ons heeft hersteld, en weder opgevoerd Ter wooning in het zaalig Paradys.
(Van Zanten, p. 3)



till one greater Man
Restore us, and regain the blissful seat.
(Par. Lost, I, 4-5)
The following table will show the results of my investigation of the first four books along the above lines:1
I i ii in rv
a 12 11 7 3
b 17 17 11 8
c 7 7 & 11
d 7 11 2 1
One sees that the first two books are by far the worst as regards correctness; the 12 & 11 uninteUigible passages are especially unfortunate. No doubt such a beginning restrained many readers from finishing the work. If we look at the character of these passages, we note that it is in particular the imaginative parts that are misunder-
i The following are the passages:
Book I- o - LH, 12; 57, 58; 116-119; 122-124; 143-155; 192-198, 256K., 291ff • 322ff.; 567ff.; 623ff.; 763ff. b - 144 45- 79; 94-99; 171-177; 205ff.; 209, 210; 254, 255; 331ff.;
356ff • 526; 547ff.; 562ff.; 573ff.; 587; 595ff.; 619ff.; 792ff. c - 1.183, 184; 381ff.; 428; 522, 523 ; 601; 604; 605; 721. d - 14 5- 14- 68; 84; 267; 388ff.; 691. Book II: a - L52ff.'; 640ff.; 706ff.; 836ff.; 899; 905; 910; 938; 940; 999ff.;
b - 124ff ' 39ff. 46; 48; 99ff.; 445ff.; 468; 524ff.; 552; 711ff.;
721; 735ff.; 815ff.; 873; 917; 955ff.; 1054. c - 144; 73ff.; 752ff.; 847; 849; 874; 989.
d - 1.8ff'; 33ff.; 35ff.; 63ff.; 120ff.; 159ff.; 286ff,; 413ff.; 486ff.; 488ff.; 1007.
Book III- a - 1.57; 74ff.; 222 ; 227ff.; 417ff.; 481ff.; 616ff.
Book III. a «», M*j9tL; '192; 365; 367ff.; 400. 463. 469; 498ff.
c - 1.2; 45ff.; 72; 432; 546; 550; 586; 613ff. d - 1.38; 157. Book IV: a - 1.71ff.; 632; 857ff.;
b - 1.132ff.; 153ff.; 167ff.; 336; 343; 348; 606; 861.
c - 1.127; 159-65; 175; 223ff.; 238; 280; 307; 329; 559; 681ff.; 977.
d - 1.744ff.



stood. The theological parts are best, as might have been expected from a theologian, but the translater had no clear idea of the cosmological structure of the Universe in Paradise Lost, and his knowledge of geography and music was often deficiënt. The following examples will make this clear:
Lack of imagination undoubtedly caused the wrong interpretation of the word 'parts' in the passage describing Satan floating on the fiery waves of Heil (P. L., I, 192-6):
Dit was de taal, die Satan voerde tot Zijn naasten vriend, het hoofd pas steekende uyt Den vuur'gen stroom, en de oogen vol van gloed, En vonken, rondom heenen uytgespat: Zyn ander volk zwom midden in de stroom, En dobberde, uytgedeegen, wydsen zyds Veel mylen verre, opeen gestaapeld, als Een hooge berg; 
(Van Zanten, p. 11)
Lack of cosmological, geographical, and musical knowledge is apparent in the following passages:
a - De Satan onderwijl
Nu af gesteegen wandelende op den kloot Van deeze ronde waereld, steevig en Verduysterd, welker eerste bocht verdeeld De lichte laager kringen, omgevat Van chaos en van de oude duysternis.
(Van Zanten, p. 102)
Meanwhile, upon the firm opacous globe
Of this round World, whose first convex divides
The luminous inferior Orbs, enclosed
From Chaos and the inroad of Darkness old,
Satan alighted walks 
(P. L. III, 418-21)
b - Gehjk wanneer een Gier
Geteeld op Imaüs, wiens sneeuwgebergt Van Tartars, tuk op rooven, word bewoont.
(Van Zanten, p. 103)



As when a vulture, on Imaus bred,
Whose snowy ridge the roving Tartar bounds.
(P. L. III, 431-2)
c - Dan naamen zy hunn' gulde harpen in
De hand, en kroonden die, altyd gesnaard, Die schitterende aan hunne zyden, als Pylkookers hongen. 't Voor geluyd van hun Gezang, zoo heylig, en zoo hoog verrukt, Was als van eene stem, geen' stem ontbrak; Maar alle hielden zy den zeiven toon, Zoo groot is de Eendracht in het heemelshof.
(Van Zanten, p. 100)
Then, crowned again, their golden harps they took — Harps ever tuned, that glittering by their side Like quivers hung; and with preamble sweet Of charming symphony they introducé Their sacred song, and waken raptures high ; No voice exempt, no voice but well could join Melodious part; such concord is in Heaven.
(P. L. III, 365-71)
It would not be fair, however, to dweil only upon the mistakes. We shall therefore examine more closely a passage as a whole, and shall take the beginning of Book III because it is specially praised by the Journal Literaire:
p. 85 Heyl! heylig licht of 's heemels eerste teelt Of uyt die eeuwige meed'eeuw'ge straal Gesprooten, neem ik ongerispt uw naam In mynen mond? Gemerkt God licht is, en 5 Van eeuwigheid een ongenaakbaar licht Bewoont, en dus in u, o heldre glans Van 't helder ongeschaapen Weezen. Of Verkiest gy, dat ik liever u naam Van zuiv'ren stroom, die uyt den Heemel vloeyt 10 Wiens oorsprongk niet is naa te vorssen, geev'? Gy waart voor Zonne en Heemelen, en op Gods stem bekleede gy de waereld, die Uyt duyst're en diepe waaters rees, gerukt Uyt 't ydel, en onvormig eyndeloos,



15 Als met een mantel. U, U zie ik weêr Met stouter wiek, den Stygiaansen poel Ontsnapt, schoon lang gehouden in dat naar p. 86 En duyster hol, terwyl ik in myn vlucht
Door meerd're en mind're donkerheyd, maar niet
20 Met Orfeus lier en stem en toonen, zong Van Chaos, en den Nacht, die eeuwig is, Door goddelyke Zangster onderricht, Om eenen tocht te waagen naa de Hel, En weeder op te klimmen: eenen tocht,
25 Zoo zwaar, en nooyt van iemand onderstaan. U zie ik weeder veylig, en ik voel Uw leevenslamp: Maar gy bezoekt met licht Deeze oogen niet, al vrucht'loos heên en weêr Bewoogen, om uw' stralen, die het al
30 Doorbooren, te bejeeg'nen: maar, helaas! Geen daageraad bejeegend my. Een star, Maar neen, geen star, een dikke zwarte star Heeft mijn gezicht doen taanen, of een prop, Een' zinking oovertoogen met een kleed.
35 Het lust my echter te verkeeren, daar De Zanggodinnen my een' zilvre beek, Beloomerd bosch, of heuvel, door de zon Bestraald, aanwijzen, door een lust, tot zang, Die heilig is, gedreeven: Maar voor al
40 Bezoek ik u in 't midden van den nacht, O Sion, en het eedel bloemtapyt Van uwe beeken, die al dartelend' Langs uwen oever vloeyen, en uw grond Bekabblen met een heylig stroomgeruys.
45 'k Denk ook niet zelden aan twee paar, gelyk Met my in 't euvel lot, zoo ik in roem Slechts haaien kon by zulk een heldenpaar, p. 87 By Thamyris en by Homerus, en By Fineus en Tirezias, al blinde
50 En oude Dichters. Dan vermaak ik my
Met denken, dat vanzelf een' zoeten dreun Van zang verleent: gelyk een Voogel, die In 't duyster zingt, en in den lommer van



♦t Geboomt zyn' stem in 't midden van den nacht 55 Verheft. Saaizoenen keeren yder jaar
Eens weeder; voor my nimmermeer de dag, Noch lieflyke avondstond, noch morgenstond. Ik zie noch lentebloem, noch zomerroos, Noch veld, noch kudde, noch het aangezicht 60 Van Mensen, konstig door Gods hand gevormd. Een neevel, en een' duysternis, die duurt, Omringtme en weertme van den ommegang Met mensen, zoo behaaglyk, en van 't boek Der kennis, dat voor Yder leesbaar is: 65 Voor my, helaas! onleesbaar, uytgewist; Dus dan beroofd van allen toegang, die Tot wysheyd leyd, smeek ik met grooter ernst, Om van om hoog inwendig in myn geest Verlicht te worden: Heemellicht, bestraal 70 Myn' ziel, verëedel haar vermoogens, plant Daar oogen, zuyer haar van allen damp En mist, op dat ik zien en spreeken mag Van dingen, voor geen sterv'ling ooyt te zien.
(P. L. III, 1-55)
If we look at the verse technique of the passage, we perceive that Van Zanten understood the general principles of MUton s blank verse quite well. In Van Zanten, too, it is "a dec&syUabic Une on a decasyllabic basis and in a rising rhythm» i and like Milton s no Une has less than ten syllables. Extrametrical syllables at the end of the Une, which are rare in Milton's Paradise Lost, do not occur in Van Zanten at all. The only apparent case, Une 49, may be explained by eUsion. Like Milton too, Van Zanten did not use them üi the middle of a Une. EUsion is of frequent occurence and is generally indicated by the spelUng. The necessary variaüon is obtained, just as Milton's verse, by variety in the number of stresses, by the inversion of f eet, and by the place of the break. It is, however, no improvement that we find so many Unes where the stress fails in the fifth place, though Van Zanten might have cited Milton for the use of such Unes. This is undoubtedly what the reviewer m the
* Robert Bridges. Milton's Prosody, Oxford, 1921, p. 1.



Journal Literaire meant when he complained of the many "enjambments" in the translation.1
As to inversions, Van Zanten avails himself far less than Milton of this means of producing variety than Milton. In the passage quoted we find 10 instances in the first, 3 in the second, 3 in the third and 2 in the fifth foot.
The caesurae are varied as freely as in Milton's verse and this is indeed Van Zanten's chief means of avoiding monotony. How free he is in this respect is illustrated by the following analysis of III, 1-9:
l + 3 + 6| 103 + 74+5+1-
102+4+4— 9 + 1-
3 + 7-
4 + 69 + l|
Yet, in spite of this prosodie correctness, the Dutch version is disappointing. Even this passage is not arresting, as the original is, and the translation in its entirety is fatiguing reading. How is this? One reason — undoubtedly the chief — is that the Dutch version is not musical. It is wooden, harsh. Another reason is the occurrence of discrepancies in the meaning of the text, sometimes only very slight, that spoil the point of the thought and make the passage flat and uninteresting.
In the opening lines Milton plunges at once into a speculation on the nature of light by asking whether light was God's first creation, or eternal like God, "since God is Light". Van Zanten evidently did not understand these lines; the second line has become meaningless and the third has no logical connection with what precedes it. He translates: "Hail! holy light, either Heaven's first born, or sprung from that eternal co-eternal beam; may I mention your name unblamed?" The next words "since God , is light etc." can only be an explanation of his hesitation to take the name of light upon his lips.
i See p. 150.



In line 6 the use first of the transitive verb 'bewonen' and then of the intransitive verb 'wonen in' for 'to dweil in' weakens the
force of the reasoning of Milton's 'since God never but in un-
approached light / Dwelt from eternity, dwelt then in thee.'
The fear of an extra syllable led to the omission of the definite article before 'naam'.(1.8), which makes the sentence obscure, the more so because of the- clumsy end-position of the verb 'geev'. Nor is the change of place of 'as with a mantle' an improvement (1.15), while the regular order of words in line 11 'Gy waart voor Zonne en Heemelen' is much weaker than Milton's.
'Before the sun, Before the Heavens thou wert.'
In 1.15 and 26 we find 'zie ik weer' as a translation of 'I revisit' (1.13, 21), which is slightly misleading, as it renders the poefs complaint of his blindness at first sight illogical.
The negative translation in 1.20 of 'With other notes than to the Örphean lyre' sounds strange. The reverse occurs in 1.35, where the Dutch version mildly states 'it pleases me to stay' instead of Milton's emotional
Yet not the more Cease I to wander (1.26, 27)
The weighty expression 'in 't midden van den nacht' in 1.40 takes away the stress from 'u? and obtrudes a foreign idea upon the reader.
Thus we might go on. Whereas the original becomes more beautiful, the more closely we look at it, the translation proves disappointing even in those parts that seem fairly successful at first sight. Those who are f amiliar with the poem in English will hear many echoes of Milton in the Dutch version, and this might lead them to admire the arduous attempt of Van Zanten more than it deserves. This is possibly the explanation of Miss W. C. Niewenhous's f avourable opinion of Van Zanten's version, and why she even pref ers it to Gutteling's. * No one with a sensitive ear to the qualities of the Dutch language could ever find Van Zanten's translation anything but wooden. In itself the translation is not such as to convince the unihformed reader of the sublimity of the poem.
Paludanus' version need not long detain us. The full title of it is:
1 Wilhelmina C. Niewenhous, 1. c.
10



Het Paradys Veriooren. Geschetst na 'I Engelsch Heldendicht van John Milton, door L. P., Amsteldam, Evert Visscher, 1730. (i.e. Paradise Lost. Sketched after the English heroic poem by John Milton, byL.P.).
The attempt to take away one of the obstacles to popularity, by changing Van Zanten's wooden blank verse into smooth popular alexandrines, was perhaps in itself a good idea, but the result was disastrous. In Van Zanten's version Milton's Paradise Lost was at any rate to be found, m Paludanus' rhymed amplification it had been changed beyond recognition. It could not but be a failure, as the translation was a second remove from the original, Paludanus being ignorant of the EngUsh language. As a consequence he made blunders which were not his own. "When Witsen Geysbeek, himself a translater of Milton, ridiculed him for taking the consteUation Taurus to be a range of mountains, poor Paludanus was innocent: he had sünply followed Van Zanten, i Paludanus' tautology, however, was his own, and in the passage quoted by the same critic to Ulustrate this glaring defect, only one sUght addition is from Van Zanten. A juxtaposition of the original passage and the two translations wiU suffice to give an idea of Paludanus' wordiness.
Else had the Spring Perpetual smil'd on Earth with vernant Flow'rs (P. L. X, 678)
anders had de Lente altyd Het aardryk toegelachchen met een veld Van bloemen 
(Van Zanten, p. 384) Anders had
De lieve lente de Aarde, en al wat de Aarde omvat, Gedurig met een veld van bloemen schoon van kleuren En verwen, aan de neus behaaglijk om haar geuren, Vermaakt en toegeknikt.
(Paludanus, p. 337) Who was Paludanus? His real name was Lambertus van der
1 P. G. Witsen Geysbeek. Biographisch, Antologisch en Critisch Woordenboek der Nederduitsche Dichters, Amsterdam, 1824, V, sub Paludanus.



Broek, i He tried his hand at many kinds of literature: he wrote some comedies, translated plays from the French and published a volume of poems on biblical subjects. He was a member of a literary society, called "Ars usu juvanda", the existence of which would not have been known but for a satire on the insignificance of its members. In 1736 van der Broek himself admitted with remarkable frankness and insight that he
Nooit opgang kreeg door zijn gedichten, Ontbloot van zenuwen en kracht
(i.e. never became popular through his poems, void of nerve and power).
Considering the character of the man and his work, we are not far from the truth if we construe his way of reasoning when he undertook the rhyming of 't Paradijs Verlooren as follows. Always on the look-out for rhyming materiaL van der Broek pounced upon Milton's masterwork, as soon as echoes of his fame began to resound on the continent. His ignorance of EngUsh was no impediment Van Zanten's translation in blank verse and the Amsterdam edition of Saint Maur's translation in prose were avaUable. From the latter. he borrowed Eüjah Fenton's Life of Milton and the notes, which he occasionally augmented. He dedicated the book to Van Zanten, but at the same time made much of the changes he had been obUged to make, when apprised of the fact that it was the first edition of Paradise Lost that had been used by his predecessor. He even announced his intention of giving a version of aU Milton's poems,2 but nothing came of the plan. The reason is not far to seek. In spite of aU the praise in the periodicals, which in most cases was a mere echo of what was said in England, the Dutch Uterary world did not appreciate MUton. If they had, some better poet would certainly have taken up the task and given a better version. At that time it was considered as great an achievement in art to translate a Uterary work as to create a new one. A case which may serve as an ülustrative contrast is Voltaire's La Henriade. A poor version of it appeared by Klinkhamer, but this did not discourage Feitama from continuing his own version. After some ten years of paintaking self-
1 See the biographical dictionaries and Witsen Geysbeek o. c. — * The Boekzaal of May, 1730, announced the publication of all Milton's poetical works by L. Paludanus.



criticism, he ventured to publish it and was lauded to the skies for his great achievement. If La Henriade could thus inspire one of the most prominent literary men to give his best powers to it, it would have been very natural for Paradise Lost to be treated similarly. But nothing of the kind happened. Of Milton's translators the one was a well-meaning amateur, the other a poor fame-hunting poetaster. And there the matter rested. In view of all this, there is little reason to say hat Paradise Lost "made an overwhelming impression on its first readers in HoUand."1 The poem was laid before the Dutch, but there was no enthusiasm. There were individual admirers, but in general the reception was cold.
It might be objected that a different tale is told by the fact that Paludanus' version went through three editions, "to the third (of which)", as has been said, "the gratified rimer signed his name in Dutch: L. van der Broek."2 A closer inspection of these editions, however, shows that they do not prove anything of the kind. The so-caUed second edition is nothing but a re-issue of old copies of the first edition. At the bottom of the frontispiece the name of the original publisher is replaced by the would-be new printer, 'S. V. Esveldt, Amsteldam', but the original titlepage is retained with the name of 'Evert Visscher, Amsteldam' as the pubUsher. I have been uhable to obtain a copy of the 3rd edition anywhere in Holland, but as the publisher was the same as that of the 2nd edition, it is probable that this was simply another attempt to sell off his surplus copies. Hence even these pretended reprints corroborate what we have found about Milton's popularity in HoUand.
1 Wilhelmina C. Niewenhous, 1. c. — * ibid.



Chapter VIII
THE RECEPTION OF MILTON'S POETRY IN HOLLAND
The general Dutch public had Milton before them, presently in two versions, of which one was in the popular form of rhyming alexandrines.
Van Zanten's translation was reviewed in the Journal Literaire of 1729,1 along with a French prose translation, which, with a life of Milton and Addison's remarks, was published in Paris (1729) and which could be had at Pierre Mortier's, Amsterdam. The reviewer, who, from his style and ideas seems to be Justus van Effen, 2 thinks it a pity that Van Zanten used the first edition of Paradise Lost, even though the 2nd edition contained only 20 lines more, for 'quand il s'agit d'un Poëme comme le Paradis perdu, vingt Vers sont quelque chose de très-considerable." Special attention is drawn to the self-delineation in the speeches of the various demons in the second Rook, to the description of Chaos and to the grand opening of the third Book, which "est une digression a la verité, mais une digression sur laquelle le Genie de Milton, & sa douleur d'avoir perdu la vuë, ont répandu toute les beautez, dont ce sujet étoit susceptible."
The criticism of Van Zanten's work promised well. Passages from the Dutch version and the French translation were compared and Van Zanten came off best. The line
Which, if not victory, is yet revenge, is said to be "parfaitement bien rendu dans le Hollandais":
1 Journal Literaire, XIV, 2, p. 337ff. — 2 I am thinking especially of the Slightly ironical tone, when dealing with De Magny's criticism and Paludanus' version, and of his opinion about rhyme and blank verse.



Feylt de overwinning, 't is tenminste wraak. The fhlal judgement is worth quoting: *
"La Francoise (traduction) nous paroit generalement parlant élégante, quoique foible & peu fidéle en plusieurs endroits; défaut, qui paroitre très-excusable a ceux qui savent combien un Poëme tel que le Paradise perdu de Milton est difficile a traduire.
La Version Hollandoise s'éloigne peu de 1'original, & en exprime d'ordinaire le sens avec force: il seroit seulement a souhaiter qu'une bonne partie de ce Poëme ont (sic) été rendue d'une maniere moins Prosaïque, & que les enjambements d'un Vers sur 1'autre fussent moins fréquens. Ces Vers en auroient été plus coulans & moins durs; & la Lecture en auroit été moins f atigante."
A strange verdict indeed. Though the Dutch translation doubtless keeps closer to the text than the French version, we have seen that it contains many mistakes and passages so obscure that they become clear only when compared with the original text. And the statement that the prosaic character would have been avoided if the lines had bëen end-stopped, makes one wonder what the author thought of Milton's own versification.
In spite of this comparatively favourable criticism Van Zanten's translation seems to have been at once and completely ousted by Paludanus' version. It was not reviewed in any other periodical. The Boekzaal, after announcing its appearance in 1728, 2 did not think it worth while to review it. And when quotations from Paradise Lost were needed for the translation of the Spectator, Van Zanten's version was apparently not even thought of. The reason of this was the overfondness for rhyme then prevalent among the Dutch. The Journal Literaire mentioned this reason when discussing the rhymed version:» "Mr. van Zanten, Auteur de cette Traduction (i.e. en vers non rimez), s'en est tiré avec gloire, & a invité ses Compatriotes par son exemple è secouer le joug d'une Etime qui coute d'ordinaire plus qu'elle ne vaut. Cependant, comme ce genre de Poesie est peu connu, & peut-être encore moins gouté dans nos Provinces, * Mr. Paludanus a cru ne pas desobliger les Amateurs de la Poësie Hollandoise, en rendant le Paradis Perdu en vers Alexan-
drins rimez." ( —
i Journal Literaire, loc. cit. - * Boekzaal, 1728, II, p. 223 - » Journal Literaire 1730, XV, p. 319 — 4 The expression "nos Provinces" proves that the periodical was written for the Dutch public.



In the last mentioned article of the Journal Literaire the poor quahtiea of Paludanus' version were ruthlessly exposed. The work is simply Iaughed at. "C'est done ici une espece de Paraphrase nmee d'une Traduction dé ja connue. Nous 1'appelons Paraphrase, paree que ce qui est ajouté sert quelquefois (suivant 1'usage des commentaires) a éclaircir le Texte, & quelquefois a le rendre plus obscur. D'aüleurs ces Additions étoient nécessaires pour la Rime, qui, n'ayant pas toujours la bonté de s'offrir, oblige souvant 1'Auteur de faire quelque pas pour 1'attraper." The reviewer's final conclusion is: "Entr'autres differences, 1'ouvrage de Mr. van Zanten nous paroit prouver que la Poësie Hollandoise peut fort bien se passer de Rune: celui de Mr. Paludanus fait plus, & prouve que quelquefois elle doit s'en passer."
There were however other voices. The Boekzaal was much milder in its criticism. A very important series of articles was planned and started in this periodical in 1730, but, though begun seriously, it was finished rather abruptly and negligently. The poem itself was praised highly. This excellent work, it says, deserves the attention of everyone, it is not inferior to the Iliad and thè Aeneid according to Addison, and it certainly pleases our imagination as much as these poems and our mind more. "As to the translation", it goes on, "it
is bold And it is almost incomprehensible how Mr Paludanus
has been able to. rhyme this great poem in so short a time, which, however, was but play to him." Then the reviewer quotes Paludanus own preface which made much of the changes he had been obbged to introducé on discovering that Van Zanten had used the first edition of Paradise Lost, though these changes can only have been very slight, as he had only got as far then as Book VII. Paludanus' remark is repeated that he would not have undertaken the work if he had known that the poem was so grand, so sublime, of such high art, so iiiimitable, so full of Religion, Ethics, Political Science, Physics, Geography, Mathematics and Poetry. Then the reviewer goes on: "He, however, has accomplishd it; and, except that one often detects marks of his hastiness in rhyming, one might say perfectly well. But just as some freckles or warts do not make a beautiful face ugly, this translation, in spite of some stains, 'quas incuria fudit', will please the reader by its grandeur and sublimity; and everybody will be compelled to own with us that few poets would have been able to do it as well. as Paludanus in so short a time." Book VII en VIII



are specially praised praised for their beauty, and, after quoting a long passage from the first-mentioned book (1.505-639), the critic declares himself carried away by its beauty. He then proposes to discuss the poem in several articles, the last to be on the poet himself. The first two books are then briefly described and illustrated by ample quotations. In the second article, however, the writer announces that the four or five articles that were to be devoted to the discussion of the poem had to be reduced to two by press of work, though "the beauty, the loftiness and the learnedness of the work" deserved better. We may safely consider this proceeding as a sure sign of lack of interest in the subscribers. The poem is not discussed further though a life of Milton is given which is throughout in an admiring tone. Some remarkable details from the Life are the following: The personal renüniscences that are apparent in the description of the reconciliation between Adam and Eve are duly pointed out, and attention is drawn to the absence of vindictiveness in Milton, as shown by his behaviour to his wife's relatives. The Defensio Populi Anglicani is called "uhcommonly and to the point (zakelijk)." Remarkable romances about Milton's reconciliation with Charles II. seem to have been in circulation. "His friends and many prominent persons who appreciated him highly for his learning, got a special letter of pardon for him and also permission to appear before the King, a favour much greater than he could have expected. Milton, charmed by this generosity of the King, composed a beautif ul poem in honour of hun, which he presented to hun in person. The King read some verses of it and, turning to the poet, said: 'Milton, I think your poem in praise of Cromwell is much finer." This reproach, sarcastically as it was expressed, did not put Milton out of countenance. 'That may be, Sire,' he aswered, 'for we poets succeed better in fiction than in reality.' When rather advanced in years Milton had been persuaded to many for the third time, his new wife being a young lady of noble birth. Shortly after the wedding-day he appeared at Court, and the King, who was in high spirits, asked him: 'Why, Milton, how can this be, that a blind man of your age and intellect could come to marry a young girl?' Clever Milton answered: 'That is a poetical licence'."
Paradise Lost is said to be "everywhere wonderfully fine and lofty", "the most glorious Poem that human mind has created since Homer and Virgil. The greatest intellects have thought it an honour



to point out the beauÜes of it and none has dared to dispute the prize of poetry with him." Samson Agonistès is praised highly: a tragedy worthy of the Greek stage when Athens was in full lustre. Paradise Regained, we are told, Milton ranked higher than Paradise Lost, but many lovers of poetry do not agree with him in this. Then follow more quotations from the last three books of Paradise Lost.
The author of this review in the Boekzaal appears to have been Pieter le Clercq. It was as we see highly favourable on Milton but more reserved on Paludanus' translation of Milton, and when Le Clercq came to use Paludanus' version for his translation m the seventh volume of the Spectator, he found himself obliged to revise his opinion of it. He talks of "signs of the speed of the poet m rhyimng the masterpiece" and of "the clarity of the original piufully dulled and spoiled», and finally made Paludanus re-rhyme the required
lt is clear that the two Dutch versions of Paradise Lost were recognized as failures; they had for a time shared the growing fame of the English poet, but could not and did not in themselves convince the Dutch public of the sublimity of his work, the one through its uncouth, the other through its pitiful form.
The flow of articles on Milton did not stop however. In 17dU an important publication appeared at The Hague under the title:
Le Paradis Perdu, Poëme Heroique de Milton, traduit de l Anglois conformement a VOriginal avec Les Remarques de Mr jddison une Dissertation Critique de Mr. Constatityn de Magny, et La Chute de VHomme, Poëme Francois par Mr. Durand Mimstre a Londres & Membre de la Société Royale, a la Haye. 1730.
The translation of Paradise Lost appears to be the same as that published in Paris, only more complete, for - and this is very significant - "il avoit nécessairement fallu en retrancher, pour que 1'Ouvrage püt paroitre en France." The publication was reviewed in the Journal Literaire and the Critique Desinteressée of the year 1730
This compilation of Milton's poem and of literature on him, along with the review in these two journals must have been of great importance in spreading Milton's fame in Holland and on the continent cenerallv. H is a remarkable compilation. lt consists of a biography of MUton, a prose translation of Paradise Lost, Addison's famous * W. C. Niewenhous, op. cit. p. 102.



Spectator papers on Paradise Lost, a French criticism of the poem, and a French imitation of it. That a publisher took he risk of such a venture is a proof of he wide-spread interest in Milton at that time. The preface of the edition is also remarkable, and provoked the indignation of some continental refugees.1 "Les Francois", says the pref ace, "ont commencé a sentir la superiorité du genie Anglois* & a gouter les Ecrits de cette Nation, qui peut presque passer pour le seule qui pense aujourd'hui." These words are illustrative of the different position of French refugees in England and in Holland. In England they soon lost their nationaUty, in Holland they continued to consider themselves as a superior race.
Addison's and De Magny's critical essays are placed side by side, counterbalancing each other. We have already seen that Addison's papers were mentioned again and again in the journals. It was Addison's criticism especially that was instrumental in spreading Milton's fame on the continent. The dissertation by De Magny on the other hand is a fair representative of the Continental appreciation of the poet and is, moreover, characteristic of pseudo-classical criticism. After an introduction, the several books of Paradise Lost are discussed in ordera. Some three or four things are significant. In the first place, De Magny evidently had not read the original, may even not have known EngUsh at aU! He writes a long article on a poem, when he has only read a prose translation. Yet not only is this done unblushingly, but we even meet with critical remarks based on the gr anima tical structure of the French translation!2 Thus we cannot
i Critique Desinteressée, I, p. 239 — a See op cit., vol. III, p. 22, 68. In both cases the supposed irregulairity is due to the difference between '(ne) jamais' and 'never'. In the French word the temporal side is more prominent, so that the word often means 'never yet', in English the negative side often comes to the fore, so that the meaning verges on 'not at all'. Now we find that the following passage from Paradise Lost
A multitude, like which the populous North Pour'd never from her frozen loyns, to pass Rhene or Danaw, when her barbarous Sons Came like a Deluge on the South, and spread Beneath Gibraltar to the Lybian sands. (I, 351-355) is rendered into French as follows: une multitude teil que le Nord surchargé de peuples n'en fit jamais sortir de ses flanes glazed, quand ses Enfans barbares, après avoir passé le Rhin ou le Danube, fondirent comme un déluge vers le midi, & s'étendirent jusqu'aux sables de Libië.



exoect anything about the poem as such, but only about the contents Sdes we find that the criticism of these contente is ratn^Lou&o», De Magny, great objectionte>™^V~* is the lack of the restraint required by reason. Mdton, he says, i* again and again carried away by his enthusiasm and ^agmation^ «(fue Milton est grand, quand il préfere la sagesse "»~J£ délires de la Poêste!" * Similar expressions recur repeatedly. MUton te a great artist, but he has squandered his talents. If only he had obeyed tt\e dictates of reason! if only he had chosen another.ubjeet tf only he had not been so bent upon imitating Homer and Virgül The choice of the subject was wrong. The very subhmity of the suïjerthampered Milton's imagination, because the danger was great of nassine "les limites que la raison prescrit a tous ceux qui osen U^erTes matieres respectables." * Heil and its inhab tants have not been made infernal enough; they are too **«^J™™ appears to be known there and Satan is capab e of feehng noble emotions. Heaven and the heavenly beings are also toe> human and Zn^Zt dignified enough. The Angels dance, ^ dn* *g One may be surprised that Müton does not J*£ avancer
un malheur pour lui d'avoir fait un si mauvais choix, & j ose avancer pouTsÏÏÓ£e, que s'il eüt pris un sujet tel que 1'Iliade, il auroti été rHome^e de Von siècle." * The scarcity of the dramatis personae had belled the poet to create several allegorical characters such
i?iï«wrr~ 4^ u faut mettre
autrefois ou jadis, au lieu de n'en fUf»™sortirThe second passage is from Book V,
I this Night, Such night till this I never pass'd, have dream'd, If dream'd, not as I oft am wont, of thee,
doit s'être écoulé depuis la création d'Adam.
i Op. cit., m, p. 82 - » ibid. p. 7 - * ibid. p. 76 - ibid. p. 25.



as Sin, Death, Chaos. The allegory, however, is lost by their graphic representation; they are too lifelike, too human. De Magny especially finds fault with the realistic exposition of the incestuous relations between Satan, Sin and Death. The description of Chaos gives rise to the exclamation: "Quelles images 1 & que tout cela seroit beau, s'il pouvoit être moins déraisonnable!"1 Milton's "désir immodéré d'imiter Homere" had repeatedly led the poet astray.2
The greatest objection, however, is that Milton intermingles Greek mythology and sacred history, as in his description of Michael and the band of cherubin that were sent down to drive Adam and Eve out of Paradise:
four faces each
Had, like a doublé Janus; all thir shape Spang'ld with eyes more numerous then those Of Argus, and more wakeful then to drouze, Charmed with Arcadian Pipe, the Pastoral Reed Of Hermes, or his opiate Rod. (P. L. XI, 128-133)
This passage provokes De Magny to the remark: "que le Mercure infernal n'a pas laissé de tromper cette vigilance, comme on 1'a vü
dans un des Livres précédans II auroit été è souhaiter pour la
perfection de ce Poëme, que Milton n'eut pas été si rempli de ceux d'Homere & de Virgile: il n'auroit pas fait un si grand abus de la Fable, & ne se seroit pas dégradé dans Pesprit de ses Juges par eet ihsoutenable melange, qu'il fait presque a chaque page, du prophane avec le sacré." 3 If only Milton had always drawn from the Bible, he would have been great: 4 "il ne donne prise a la censure que dans la fiction." This explains why in De Magny's opinion Book EC of Paradise Lost, which relates the temptation and fall of Eve and Adam, is "sans contradit le plus beau & le plus intéressant." 6
De Magny's criticism is composed of praise and dispraise, but on the whole not calculated to promote Milton's interests.
In the Journal Literaire. De Magny's dissertation is criticized rather contemptously. De Magny, though struck with admiration on first reading Paradise Lost, had on second thoughts come to the conclusion that it contained many irregularites and finally that "il n'est
1 Op. cit., III, p. 41 — a ibid., p. 65, 68, 137 — 3 Also quoted in Journal Literaire, 1730, XV, p. 367 - 4 Le Paradis Perdu etc., III, p. 92 — 8 ibid., p. 135.



pas difficile a un Poëte de mettre du feu dans un Ouvrage quand ü s'affranchit du frein de la raison." The reviewer then proceeds to discuss aU the illustrations De Magny had given of the poefs lack of restraint, and scornfully cusmisses most of them. And mdeed, they are childish. One or two will suffice.
"Monsieur de Magny réprend MUton d'avoir dit que Satan, prwe de sentiment, roula pendant neuf jours au gré des vagues de feu avec son abominable Armée; & que ce Prince des Demons ayant éveülé ses Soldats, cieux-ci s'appergurent du malheureux état ou its étoient, & sentirent Vexcès de leurs peines. A son avis, c'est la une étrangé Doctrine, ou plutót un amas dabsurditez, & un enchainement de chimères." The reviewer repUes to this:
"Voilé bien des termes injurieux, sans qu'U nous paroisse que Milton en merite aucun. Ce Poëte feint que 1'excès de la douleur qu'éprouverent Satan & ses Compagnons, précipitez dans un Etang de feu produisit au commencement en eux une espece d'accablement & d'insensibüité. Qu'y a-t-il la d'absurde? N'a-t-on pas vü souvent des criminels mis a la Torture, défaUUr par la force des tourmens, revenir ensuite a eux-mêmes comme s'ils sortoient d'un profond sommeil, & ne sentir les exces de leurs peines qu'après ce malheureux
réveil?" * •
Again, de Magny had objected to Milton's making Eve entertain angels as if they were human beings: "Quel nouveau genre de merveiUeux, qu'un Ange mangeant & buvant, comme les plus vils am-
maux!" .„ , .
The reviewer comments drily: "Ce genre de merveüleux nest pas si nouveau, qu'on n'en trouve des Examples dans les Chapitres 18 & 19 du Livre de la Genese." 2 _
In some respects, however, the reviewer agrees with de Magny The latter is, he thinks, right in his surprise at the omission of the Holy Ghost in the hymn sung in honour of the Father and the Son when the Son takes upon himself the task of the redempbon of mankind. And he adds very meaningly: "Cela pourroit me jetter dans d'étranger soupcons sur sa foi, s'il nWt pas commence eet Ouvrage par une invocation au Saint Esprit." 3
Then Mammon appears in Heaven to have had mean thoughts already, and Raphael does not seem to Uke his task of guarding the
i Journal Literaire, loc. cit., p. 359 - 2 ibid., p. 360 — 8 ibid., p. 364.



f allen angels in Heil during the creation of the world. "Quoi! les Ordres du Tout-puissant peuvent ils avoir quelque chose de facheux pour ses fideles & zelez Ministres?" 1
Adam's description of the awakening of his own consciousness and his first meeting with Eve are highly praised by both critics but they find fault with the chronicles given in the last two books. "Quelle matiére pour finir un Poëme!" Finally we find De Magny's objections to Milton's use of Greek mythology discussed and approved of.
The two volumes of the Critique Desinteressée (1730) contain several references to Milton. Besides the announcements of Paludanus' version of Paradise Lost 2 and of an Italian translation published in London, 3 and a casual mention of the Englishman's name in an article on Lettres Serieuses et Badines, * we have the statement that
Paradise Lost had a "succès prodigieux en toutes sortes de
Langues" * and an article on the above-mentioned French version of the poem published at the Hague together with Addison's remarks, de Magny's criticism, and Durand's imitation. e
This article is chiefly a discussion of Durand's poem, but as references to Milton's epic could hardly be avoided, we find several remarks on Paradise Lost too. The critic calls Durand's enterpnse bold, in the first place because he tries to imitate and equal a poet "si généralement estimé qu'il s'est déja saisi de presque tous les suffrages," and in the second place because he challenges the English "qui adorent ce Poëte, & dont beaucoup d'entr»eux 1'exaltent jusqu'a 1'Extravagance." The faults found in the French poem are generally traced to the model. It sins against one of the first rules of epic Poetry: "Que son sujet doit être seul & unique." Small wonder, seeing that Milton had not scrupled to combine in one poem three subjects, which, by special invocations, he quite definitely separates from each other. The subjects are: 1 - The Fall, Battle, Defeat and Puiushment of the Evil Angels, 2 - The creation of the World and Man, 3 - The Temptation, Fall and Punishment of Adam and Eve. The chief objection, however, is the flagrant deviation of "le but & 1'oeconomie de tout Poëme Epique (qui) est particuliérement de conduire un
x Journal Literaire, loc. cit., p. 359 - » Critique Desinter'fe'^.^°• ibid d 244, 50 — 4 Lettres Serieuses et Badines sur un Livre intitalè. Etat
prèscnide la Republique des Provinces-ünies. Par Mr F. M Janicon la
Haye 1729 — 8 Critique Desinteressée, II, p. 217 — 8 ibid., p. 75ff.



Héros vertueux, & taché simplement de quelques petites Imperfections, a une fin hónnête & heureuse, au milieu de mille Traverses, qu'il surmonte glorieusement enfin par son Courage & par sa vertil." Why, here Satan is the hero! "Car, quoiqu'on en dire, on ne voit presque point ici d'autre Héros qui agisse." And this hero of the infernal regions comes off victorious "malgré toute la puissance du Souverain Etre." The critic dismisses the excuse that the tragedy is only the truth and that history cannot possibly be changed. A poet is free in his choice, and the very impossibility of changing the story should have prevented the poet from exposing himself "au mortifiant Reproche d'avoir pris pour la Matiere d'un Poëme Epique le Triomphe du Démon sur la Divinité." He altogether objects to the introduction of Divine persons into poetry, which is according to him a defamation of the majesty of Holy Writ, and he quotes Boileau on this point. Deliberately choosing such a subject, therefore, means "non seulement chopper, & même tomber tres lourdement dés le premier pas, mais encore s'exposer indiscrétément & de gayeté de coeur au Reproche de ne pas assez respecter la Majesté Divine, & de l'assujettir imprudemment, si non a 1'Empire du Démon, du moins a sa vengeance, ainsi que Fa dit Milton a peu prés en ces termes:
D'oser troubler sa Paix essaïons le Danger; Si ce n'est triompher, c'esf. au moins se vanger,"
(P.L. II, lOlff., which in a note is quoted in full).
Milton has tried to neutralize the inappropriateness of the subject by inserting a vision of the ultimate redemption, but in vain, "les Consolations de Raphaël ne peuvent guere être regardées que comme un hors d'Oeuvre, & que comme une espece d'Episode ou d'Allengement superflu d'un Ouvrage dé ja tout achevé."
It is the critic's opinion that in some respects La chute de FHomme is superior to Paradise Lost: the plan is simpler and more natural and, generally spreaking, deviates less from Scripture. That jealousy of man was the motive of the rebellion of the Angels seems to him "plus vrai-semblable et moins choquante" than Milton's assumption that it was the elevation of the Son. But "du reste, chez 1'un & chez 1'autre, même Conduite choquante dans le Ciel, mêmes Cabales, mêmes Intrigues, mêmes Révoltes, mêmes Armées, mêmes Combats, mêmes Blessures, en un mot mêmes Imperfections peu convenables



a la Sainteté de ce Se jour de Repos & de Gloire, & par conséquent peu excusables dans ces Poëtes."
The reviewer especially takes it ill that M. Durand, a clergyman, though deviating in many respects from his English model, has not rectified the Arian ideas of the English author about the Son of God. He gives several instances of this heresy. Milton is the greater sinner in this respect and has already been criticized for it by the reviewer. As M. Durand knew of this criticism, he has no excuse for having retained this Miltonic heresy. But like all Frenchmen in England, he has had his head turned by the brilliant reputation of Milton in England, "il paroit un peu trop enivré de Milton."
For some years the periodicals continued to give information about Milton. In a letter from London in the Boekzaal of January 1731 the publication is announced of a book by John Dennis on Paradise Lost, which should prove that Milton surpassed all authors both ancient and modern, and was especially superior to Homer and Virgil in his description of Heil. I doubt whether the book was ever published; I have certainly been unable to find any further tracé of it. Perhaps the autiWs death (1734) prevented its publication.
The Journal Literaire of 1731 discusses Paradise Regained and Milton's other poems in connection with a French translation of them Le Paradis reconquis, traduit de l'Anglois de Milton: avec quelques autres Pieces de Poesie, (Paris, 1730). i The translater, "prudement Anonyme", is laughed at for his translation as well as for his criticism. In spite of the vapid reception of Paradise Lost in France, this anonymous person, who appears to be a Roman Catholic, had ventured to translate Paradise Regained because it is so much shorter, for, says the translater, though Milton lacked ardour and imagination for a long poem, he is much better in his shorter work Besides, in Paradise Regained "la Beligion y est beaucoup mieux servie que dans le Paradis perdu," for in the latter among other blemishes, the Archangel Raphael is "un franc Huguenot sur la mattere de la Justification." The reviewer appears to be a great admirer of "notre Homere Anglois." He would be charmed to quote some remarkable passages from Paradise Regained, if only the translation were better.. He quotes, however, passages from Lgcidas L'Allegro and 11 Penseroso "pour prouver que les trois Pieces de
1 Journal Literaire, XVII, p. 29ff.



Milton, dont nous venons de rapporter quelque échantillons, ont leur merite, en depit même de la Traduction." Besides these poems the Ode on the Nativitg is mentioned. This shows that practically the whole of Milton's oeuvre had now been introduced into Holland.
The sensational emendations of Paradise Lost by the famous classicist Richard Bentley in his new edition of the poem (London, 1732) of course did not escape the notice of the correspondents abroad. The Journal Literaire of 1732 draws attention to the publication and expects a great outcry of protest: "Si ses Compatriotes 1'ont autrefois si mal mené, Iors qu'il ne s'agissoit que des Anciens, dont ils étoient a si grande Distance; que ne doit-il point attendre d'eux aujourd'hui, qu'il s'agit d'un de leurs pricipaux Héros, du Prince de leur Poetes, de PApollon de leur Parnasse?" 1
The poet Milton was known in Holland at last as "the prince of English poets." Had he also been accepted? One is inclined to doubt it. After the year 1732 the periodicals make no mention of him anymore for a long time. The Boekzaal was strangely silent about him. Apart from the abruptly finished article on Paludanus' version. we find only some two or three casual references to Milton2 and these do not sound promising. We havé already mentioned the one in which Antonides' Ystroom was preferred to Paradise Lost. In the Boekzaal of 1732 Milton's work is adduced as an example of how Biblical poetry ought not to be written, and Hoogvliet's Abraham de Aertsvader is opposed to it as a good example of epic poetry. It is the old question of classieal mythology again, and the passage incidentally proves that the reviewer did not know Paradise Regained, in which no classieal mythology occurs. A book by a French professor Rollin is discussed, who strongly objected to the use of Greek mythology in poetry. In the course of the article we read: "This use of the names of Heathenisch Deities in Poetry becomes still absurder, if they are used in sacred matters and Biblical Poetry. In all poems one should at least choose whether one wants to be a Heathen or a Christian, and one should not make a monstrous mixture of paganism and Christianity. Such a mixture is contrary to reason and common sense: however, excellent Poets have been guilty of it,
1 Journal Literaire, XIX, p. 267. For Bentley's edition of Paradise Lost see: J. M, Mackail, Bentley's Milton, Proceedings of The British Academy, Vol. XI (1924—1925), London — 8 Apart from a casual mention of him in an article on an essay by Swift (Boekzaal, 1733, II, p. 189).
11



from lack of insight, as Sannazaro and Milton, otherwise poets not o be mentioned without respect. - Bnt it will be said, if Heamenish Deities are banished, what will become of Poetry, and especially of Epic poetry. We cannot answer this qnestion for the Dutch reader better by referring him to the poem of A. Hoogvliedt, called Abraham de Aertsvader: there he will see that an epic poem without HeaÜienish Deities, can easily exist by the Fable that is to say by the arrangement of the matter of the poem. Tasso has shown the same in his famous poem, called Jerusalem Delivered." *
As we shall see later on, Milton is not mentioned in any of the prefaces to the many Dutch biblical epics Nor do we ftnd any influence of Milton. Had Milton been weighed and found wanting ? In Sis respect the many references which are found in that belated French journal Le Journal Britannique (1750-56) are signi icant Paradise Lost is assumed to be well-known, yet in spite ofall that had been said about it by Addison, Voltaire, Dupre and Racine a new discussion is thought worth while. Even at that tune Paradise Regained is said to be "digne d'être plus connu qu il ne1 est, and in 1753 the editor Maty writes an extensive article on Milton s works, giving extracts from Paradise Regained, Samson Agonistès, l Allegro, 11 Penseroso and Comus. 3.
i Boekzaal, 1732, II, p. 444 - * Le Journal Britannique, III, p. 354 - • ibid., X, p. 97ff., 305 ff.



Chapter IX
THE LITERARY ATMOSPHERE IN HOLLAND
All Milton's poetry is highly scholarly and moral, and later on is even puritan, in character. We need look for appreciation of it in Holland only, therefore, among persons of much education and high moral tone. These circumstances were rather an advantage than a drawback to Milton's fame in Holland. In the second place those two stimulating forces, the Renaissance and the Reformation, took effect upon life and art in Holland and in England in very different ways. In England the spirit of the Renaissance was dominant in the beginning and it was only after the Shakespearean period that the spirit of the Reformation rose "to the full measure of its power as a dominant guiding impulse." 1 In Hólland just the re verse was the case, and for a good reason. The gigantic struggle against Spain was in the first place begun and carried through for religion's sake, and this spirit is naturally reflected in literature. Moreover, a great many of Dutch writers were refugees from Flanders and Brabant, and the religious convictions which drove them into exile, were bound to pervade their works.
When the most dangerous period of the revolt against Spain was over, there was room for the spirit of the Renaissance in the Dutch artistic world, at first chiefly through the growing centre of learning, the University of Leyden, and not directly from Italy but from France. Ronsard and du Bartas were the great names that roused the admiration of Dutch literary people and stirred their activity. And it is characteristic of the character of literary Holland, that at first the influence of Du Bartas was the strenger.
1 W. H. Crawshaw. The making of English Literature, New York, 1907, p. 100.



In the Dutch literature of the 17th century the chief names are those of Cats, Huygens and Vondel. Cats, the most popular Dutch poet of his time on account of his skill as a story-teller and moralist, can be dismissed at once. Though a great scholar, his poetry is pedestrian throughout, so that neither he nor his school could create a sympathetic atmosphere for the reception of such a lofty poet as Milton Huygens and Vondel are of great importance to our investigation, and we shall therefore have to concentrate our attention on them. Before doing so however, there are some minor writers who require our attention. In the choice and the discussion of these authors we shall be guided by the questions, whether they were likely to be interested in Milton and whether they made an atmosphere favourable for him. . .
During the first quarter of the seventeenth century Daniël Heinsius (1581—1655) was considered the greatest poet of the age. The importance of the fact that the celebrated professor wrote poetry in the vernacular has already been mentioned. 2 His Dutch poems were published in 1616 by his friend the learned Petrus Scrrverius, who also wrote explanatory notes on the many classieal and other scholarly allusions which abound in all Heinsius' writings. Especially notorious in this respect is the Lof-sanck van Bacchus written m imitation of Ronsard's Hymne de Bacchus. But Heinsius' fame reste chiefly on his Lof-sanck van lesus Christus, den eemgen ende eeuwigen Sone Godes (Hymn in Praise of Jesus Christ, the only and eternal Son of God). Occasionally this poem becomes epic m tone as for example when, after an introductory meditatiën ou the mystery of Üie Word made flesh, it briefly narrates man's fall the promise to Eve the saving of Noah, the covenant with Abraham, and Üien dwells on the birth of our Lord Jezus, His life death ^d resurrecüon^ Of late it has been highly praised, 3 and it was^undoubtedlyon account of this achievement that Heinsius ranked so^ hightinJhe esteem of his contemporaries, "because he was the poet of the lofty matter', whereas Hooft restricted himself to dramas and the profane lovesong " 3 How closely akin to Du Bartas' Les Sepmaines his fellowpoets feit this hymn to be, was shown, when Heinsius' nephew,
£ J te Winkel. De Ontwikkelingsgang der Nederlandsche Letterkunde,* IU,
n ki — * see d 12 8 W. A. P. Smit. De dichter Revius, Amsterdam, 1928,
l: 76 and before. Cf. Smith's new edition of Revius' Over-Ysselsche Sungen en Dichten, I, Amsterdam, 1930.



Zachariah Heyns, used the Lofsanck van lesus Christus for the sixth 'day' of the second 'week' in his Dutch completion of Du Bartas' vast epic, published along with his translation of the work in 1628.1
This was not the only Dutch translation of Du Bartas r some four appeared within -the years 1609 and 1622. Vondel translated part of it, and it is chiefly on account of Du Bartas' influence on young Vondel that Holland owes lasting gratitude to the Frenchman. The popularity and influence of Du Bartas were very great. "Tous nos aïeux du XVIIe siècle s'accordaient a reconnaitre sans réserve dans Du Bartas, le plus grand poète de leur époque," says Dr A. Beekman. 2 And this popularity in itself is of great importance to us, as it is clear that the circles that took an interest in Les Sepmaines would undoubtedly feel attraced by Milton's Paradise Lost. The various sides of Du Bartas' genius appealed to the Dutch public: he was appreciated as an epic, lyric, encyclopaedic, and prophetic poet, and was in their eyes thrice great, as a poet, as a teacher, and as a scholar. 3 Whereas "the profane poets, of whom Hooft and Breeroo are the chief, wrote the Benaissance type of song," Dutch "religious poetry bore the stamp of Du Bartas, who had not sung, but had declaimed as a preacher — adoring, instructing, meditating, controverting, playing with paradoxes and his own word-f ormations. (The Dutch) religious poets, each according to their nature, directed their attention to one special side of Du Bartas: Heinsius became the adoring epic poet, Cats the epic-didactic poet, Huygens the paradoxloving meditator, Vondel in his juvenile period the meditative adorer." 4 To us it is of chief interest that "from him (i.e. Du Bartas) the ideal of a religious epic is derived, an ideal which we, after Heinsius, shall find again in Revius, Vollenhove, and De Decker." 5 If such a biblical epic really developed Milton was likely to prof it by the interest in this form of literature. Let us therefore investigate this development, and see what its influence on the reception of Milton's epic was.
Revius, one of the poets, just mentioned, almost succeeded in writing an epic on the lofty subject of God and Man. Jacobus Revius (1586—1658) was for a long time a clergyman at Deventer and
1 J. te Winkel, op. cit. III, p. 252 — 2 A. Beekman. Influence de Du Bartas sur la Littérature Néerlandaise. Poitiers, 1912, p. 71 — 3 id. p. 48, 69 — 4 W. A. P. Smit, op. cit p. 105-6 — 5 id. p. 78.



from 1641 onwards had the supervision of the theological studente at Leyden University. He was a stern Calvinist a born fighter, and something of a heresy-hunter. His poetry however, shows us a humble, pious man, terribly conscious of his own unworthmess and feCnty adoring God's love as revealed in Christ His religieus Po7ms, arranged as a great cycle covering the whole field of sacred history, he pubUshed in 1630 under the title of Ovenjsselsche Sangen en D?cMen (Overyssel Songs and Poems). The book did not sell and iu 1634 the unsold copies were reissued, sUghtly augmented as a second edition. A copy of the work is extent with several additions mTTauthor's own handwriting from which it appears still clearer that it was Revius' purpose to make of it a kind of epic, though irregular in form. It chiefly consfats of a string of sonnets bound together by poems and songs in other forms, with even a kind of drama in between. Yet, as Dr W. A. P. Smit has shown, % the whole teTnstetenuTeonstructed and of great beauty. After gtenfying and medUating on God and His attributes, he dwells on the grandeur of the Creation and passes on to the discordant rupture of fl». harmony by man's sin. This leads to an expatiation on the Ten Comniandments and then we get glimpses of
Testament, which are generally used as mere embtems to m drtate unon A póetic rendering of the Song of Solomon, the Lamentations TTJSt. and the tragedy of Haman concludestiie first^bo* The second book is Revius' Lofsanck van lesus Chmto. It^consiste almost entirelv of songs and sonnets and deals with Christ s nirtn, \t VI^ and resurrection, giving at the end an effective Dutch vlreiorofthe well-known Dies irae. Especially the poems on Christ s bXnd death belong to the f inest and best-known of Dutch rehgious
S°For Revius' iU-success three reasons have been given: 2 HoUand's co^emprfor remote Overysset Revius' profession, and his lack of ^ 3 deuce Dr Smit rightly rejecte the last two reasons, but a^ruTufes me general indUference to the underlying message in aïï Re W poetry: know thy sins, - never a welcome message. Revius Ufe rSteX l think, what happened in Dutch rehgious poetry g^LSuy. The man who almost succeeded in writing a great epic
T^TP. Smit, op. cit. pTÜ In the discu^. ot ^ and ^ ^rk I have throughout followed this dissertation - G. F. Haspels. tyd, I, p. 8. Smit, op. cit. p. 108ff.



on the highest of themes, became engrossed in the rebigious conflicts of the time, spent himself fighting all kinds of heresies, and consequently lost his poetic gift. The dogmatical bickerings into which the great Calvinistic movement degenerated, created an atmosphere that made the production of great Protestant poetry impossible. Poets and the poetically minded turned away from all this: Vondel became a Roman Catholic, others turned to 'father' Camphuysen (1586—1627), the wandering exile and most popular religious poet of the time, who emphasized the general Christian sentiment with a Quaker-like aversion from all wordly learning and beauty.
The second attempt at a religious epic was De Decker, Goede Vrydagh (Good Friday). It contains many graphic descriptions of the Passion of Christ, but as a whole it falls short of Revius' aspiring conception and in detail it lacks the touch of the artist. Jeremias de Decker (1609—1666) was to a great extent a self-made man; from his father he inherited a love for study and literature and by private study he mastered a thorough knowledge of Latin, Italian, French, and English. He was only with difficulty persuaded to publish his poetry, yet it was successful with the public and long remained so, as is evident from the many editions of his poems. What is the reason of this difference from the fate of Revius' works? It was probably due to difference in character. People turned away from an extremist like Revius and were attracted by De Decker, who, though a Calvinist, was moderate and averse from dogmatic strife.1 If that was the general f eeling, it was not likely that public attention would be drawn towards the poetry of an English Puritan and archsectarian. De Decker also voiced the general sentiment as regards the political events in England. He hurled his denunciations at the 'tigers and harpies' that dared raise their 'claws' against the Lord's ■Anointed, and stirred up his countrymen to rid the world of this 'impious pack of feil murderers.'2 He wrote a poem in honour of the Restoration of Charles II, naively explaining away the inconsistency of this abundant praise of a sovereign head by a Dutch republican, by asserting that the very nature of the various peoples requires different kinds of government. 3 In the Great Fire of London he saw, like Vondel, Westerbaen, S. van Hoogstraten and
1 J. te Winkel, op. cit. III, p. 90ff. — Groot Britaengien, and Eer-spore — den II.
3 Klagte over de dood des Konings van 3 Herstellinge en Krooninge van Karei



Vollenhove, God's punishing Hand to wipe out that 'den of robbers. * Johannes Vollenhove (1631-1708) is the fourth name Dr Smit mentions in connection with the religious epic, but there seems little reason to call epic his best-known and, in fact, only ambitious poem Kruistriomf, 1656 (The Triumph of the Cross); all epic and even descriptive qualities are lacking and nothing remains but a sustained meditaüon on the meaning of Christ's death. As a poet he belongs to the next period of Dutch literature: "to him poetry consisted in the first place in the use of pure, judicially polished, grammatically correct language." 2 In 1674 he stayed for some time m England, but what he wrote about his stay there is of little importance to us He describes the beauty of Windsor and its surroundmgs and expresses his regret at the corruption and sin he saw around hun, We have already on p. 101 mentioned his admission that he made little progress with the English language. To such a man, English literature must have been a closed book.
There is therefore no indication of the development of a religious epic in Calvinistic circles, the tendency being undoubtedly unepical; the meditative elements got the upper hand in the successive attempts, so that they created a literary atmosphere that was unfavourable to Milton. But a stimulus was soon to come from another side, so that the beginning of the 18th century witnessed the growth of a literary product that closely approached the biblical epic.
We now turn to that variegated group of individualists that hved outside the Reformed Church and that are usually classed under the name of "Reformers" because, in spite of their manifold differences, they had in common a strong desire to reform church and society. 3 To one interested in the extent of Milton's fame n HoUand, these dissenters, who were especially active in the period from 1650 to 1685,4 Seem to offer a promising field of investigation the more so as after 1655 Quakers from England became a stimulating force in this movement. But these Quakers worked only among the common people and hence could hardly be a means of rousing interest in so scholarly a poet as Milton. There was only one group among the 'Reformers' of which the members belonged to the in-
i Op 't Afgebrande Londen. J. te Winkel, op. cit. III, p. 97 - » J. te Winkel op cit Hl p. 99 - 8 C. B. Hylkema. Reformateurs. Geschiedkundige studiën over de GoLienstige bewegingen uit de nadagen onzer Gouden Eeuw. 2dl. Haarlem, 1900-2 — * ib. I, p. 3.



tellectual élite and from whom for that reason we might look for some knowledge of the great English puritan: the so-called Collegiants. i At the 'colleges', the religious meetings that gave these dissenters their name, where the necessity of doing without a clergyman had led to the conviction that this state of things was ideal, "Greek, Hebrew, Latin eruditioh was no more uncommon than philosophic and exegetic subtlety and detailed historical expositions." 2
Originating in the village of Rijnsburg, perhaps under the influence of the English Brownists that lived in Leyden close by, 3 the movement spread to other places, the chief being Rotterdam and Amsterdam. Its most characteristic feature was the liberty of speech which they allowed at their meetings, a practice which on the one hand was the outcome of a wide tolerance, so that Chiliasts, Socinians and Trinitarians were welcome in their ranks, but which on the other hand led to the harren negativism of 'no church, no clergy, no confession.'4 The preference of a passive christianity brought about a general aversion to government offices and a condemnation of all war. Among the many adherents from all ranks and stations, 5 there is only one who promises to be of any use to us, Joachim Oudaen (1621—1692), the chief literary man of the circle.
Oudaen was descended from a family where a knowledge of languages was traditional. His maternal grandfather Was one of seven brothers, more than one of whom, knew besides Latin, French, English, and Italian, whereas one of them became professor of Hebrew at Leyden University. 6 Joachim Oudaen may be reckoned among the scholars, for, though he was no University man, he moved freely among Leyden scholars, was for some time secretary to Scriverius and wrote an important book on Roman archaeology and numismatics. In his poetry, which is mainly religious, he is a vehement opponent of the use of heathen mythology in Christian poetry. 7 In his literary work he shows a fair amount of interest in what was going on in England. In 1648 he wrote a tragedy, Johanna Grey
1 C. B. Hylkema, op. cit. I, p. 80. cf. however p. 205 — 2 ib. I, p. 80ff. — 8 J. C. van Slee. De Rijnsburger Collegianten. Teyler's Godgeleerd Genootschap. Nieuwe Serie. XVe deel. Haarlem, 1895, p. 374-5 — 4 ib. p. 285 — 8 ib. passim; cf. p. 77 — 6 ib. p. 21ff. — 7 esp. Het Godendom ontdekt, J. Oudaans Poëzy (ed. by David van Hoogstraten), Amsterdam, 1712, I, p. 32. Cf. J. te Winkel, op. cit. IV, p. 109.



of gemartelde onnozelheyd (Jane Gray or Martyred Innocence) representing her as a Protestant martyr in opposition to Vondel s Maria Stuart; for, however tolerant, Oudaen was strongly anti-RomanCatholic. The next year he pubUshed Koning Konradyn en Hertog Frederyk (King Conradin and Duke Frederiek) an obvious parallel to the struggle between Charles I and Cromwell. He sides with the English King, as is also evident from the various poems he wrote on EngUsh events. Charles I. is to him a saint "praying for his murderers even on the scaffold", the assassination of Doreslaar, the parliamentarian Ambassador, is a condign pumshme*; he Praises Salmasius for his defence of the King, rejoices at the death of Cromwell, and at the Restoration of Charles II. i Yet, according to his biographer David van Hoogstraten,2 "with the passing of his youth this zeal for the royal house lessened, he acquired an aversior,ito aU monarchical government, as was seen disünctly in aU ^ writings: so that once, when he was offered a good opportunity to uTe in England, he was heard to say that he would no be a subjec of a crowned head." It is certainly remarkable that in a poem of 1688 on the proclamation of WilUam and Mary as King and Queen of England, he passes by Cromwell's reign in silence, though he enumerates the vicissitudes of the EngUsh ^^I^LTZ of the Roses onwards. 3 I have, however, not been able to findany postifve statement of his opinion of the English Commonwealth m Ws later works, nor have I found any tracé of anj; acquamtance wuh MUton. On the contrary I have strong doubts whether Oudaen knew EngUsh. He rendered the French translation of Sir Edwln Sndvs' Europae Speculum or a View or Survey of the State of RetgL * the Westerne Parts of the World into Dutch. Taking fnto account the great number of EngUsh editions, it remains strange that Oudaen should have taken up the single French translation of
^author who of all others was almost *o^^ »™J Milton and his works, was Constantijn Huygens (1596-1687). Though ^ explanation can easily be found in bis potitical conviction^and^ the nature of his poetical genius, yet it remains a puzzle that there
x J. te Winkel, op. cit. IV, p. 367, cf. p. 258 -J David van' Hoogstraten. Hef Leven van Joachim Oudaen, appended to the ^.^«ï™™ o'de Amsterdam, 1712, p. 21 - » J. Oudaans Poezy, A'dam, 1712, I, p. 273. Op de onverwachte Ryksreddering in Groot-Britanje.



is no reference to the Englishman in either his letters or his poetry.1 Huygens' father was secretary to Prince William II of Orange and gave his children a splended education, by which the talented Constantijn profited to the full. Thus he became thoroughly versed in Latin, learned Greek, French, Italian, English, Spanish, and German, so as to be able to speak these languages, write verses in them, and of course translate from them, became a skilful musician and even composer, dabbled in art and science, and did not neglect the usual courtly accomplishments. In a word he was a complete gentleman, according to the ideals of the Renaissance. Still he lost nothing of his nationality; he has even been called the best representative of 17th century Holland, being "a Calvinist and yet a man of culture, a moralist and yet a realist." 2 Like his father he belonged all his life to the ultra-Calvinistic party, but was broad-minded enough to maintain relations with all kinds of dissenters, and even with RomanCatholics. Up to his old age he retained a great interest in the wide field of literature and science. In his Cluys-werck A Hermit's Work), written at the age of 86, when left alone in his house, he says of the authors of his beloved books:
't zijn Wüzen die mij preken,
't Zijn Sotten die mij vreugd aendoen en vrolickheit, 't Zijn oude hoof den die mij 'taller naest bescheid Van d'oudste eewen af ordentelijck verthoonen, 't Zijn Konstenaers die 'k niet en hoeve te verschoonen. *
(i.e. they are wise men who preach to me, they are fools who give me joy and merriment, they are old heads who give me the best information to be had from the oldest ages onward, they are artists for whom I need make no excuse).
Besides his wide literary interest there are other reasons that might have led Huygens to become interested in Milton and his works.
1 I refer throughout to the following editions of his poetry and letters: J. A. Worp, De Gedichten van Constantijn Huygens, Groningen, 1892-99,
J° A. Worp. De briefwisseling van Constantijn Huygens, den Haag, 1911-17, 6 vols. — 2 J. Haantjes, in Opwaartsche Wegen, June, 1928. Cf. the fine characterisation of him by Dr H. E. van Gelder in lus speech at the opening of the Huygens-museum at the restored Hofwijck, 12 June, 1928 — » Poems, VIII, p. 308.



In the first place his religion. "The subject that had his full
attention and which, as appears from all his writings, never lost its hold on him, is the problem of God and the World." 1 Should not this have been a link with the man who set out "to justify the ways of God to men"? Again Milton's verse might have been expected to attract his attention. The poet Huygens, who considered form the principal thing in art, was much interested in verse-technique and even made experiments in rhymeless verse. 2 Even a personal feature might have drawn Huygens towards the great blind singer. He himself feared the loss of his eyesight, as is clear from the poem Ooghentroost (Comfort for the eyes), which he wrote in 1647 for his friend Lucretia van Trello:
En, spreeck ick uyt medoogh, ick schrijf met een matt oogh Dat God weet of het meer of min dan 'tuwe doogh. En ghij weet of 't mij raeckt mijn uyt-sicht te sien mind'ren Daer langs het Brood in moet voor vader en voor kindren, En ghij weet of ick 't voel, mijn macht verkort te sien Om mijner daghen tijd te dienen Dien ick dien. 3
(i.e. And, while I spreak out of compassion, I am writing with a dim eye of which only God knows if it will endure more or less than yours. And you know whether it concerns me to see my view (eyesight) diminish, by means of which bread must come for father and children, and you know whether I feel it to see my power restricted to spend my days in the service of Him whom I serve).
This passage provides a striking illustration of the similarity of their religious attitudes when we compare with it Milton's famous sonnet On his blindness, and mark the analogy in the lines:
"When I consider how 
And that one talent which is death to hide
Lodged with me useless, though my soul more bent
Toserve therewith my Maker "
If finally we remember that Huygens declared a poefs life was quite indifferent to him, that it did not matter to him whether a poet was good or bad if only he wrote good poetry, * it is evident
1 B. J. Buitenhof. Bijdrage tot de kennis van Constantijn Huygens' Letterkundige Opvattingen, Gouda, 1923 p. 93, cf. p. 102, 106-7 - * Poems, I, p. 284ff. s Poems, IV, p. 85 — 4 Buitenhof, op. cit., p. 127.



that it will be important for us to look more closely into Huygen's opinion of England and the EngUsh.
It was an Englishman who taught Huygens at the age of 6 how to play the violin. In 1613 his father charged a Scot, George Eglishem, with the instruction of his boys and some friends in logic and philosophy, but the pupils disliked the lessons of the pedantic man. In 1616 he went to Leyden and there he learned English, after he had already been taught Latin, French, Greek and Italian. In 1618 he went to England in the train of Dudley Carleton, the English ambassador at the Hague, who was a great friend of his father. The many old acquaintances he met in London illustrates the intimate intercourse between the two nations.1 How eager Huygens was to learn English is shown by his envy of a young friend who lived in surroundings that compelled him to speak nothing but English, and by the fact that he considered it loss of time to spend a few days with the father of an Italian friend of bis. 2 He profited greatly by this first stay in England. He moved in the highest society, on one the occasion even playing the lute before King James. He visited Oxford and Cambridge, where he stayed at the house of Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk. 3 It is a great pity that many of the letters he wrote to his parents during the first four stays in England have not come down to us. 4 In 1621 he went for the second time to London as secretary of a Dutch Embassy sent to persuade James I. to help his son-in-law, the King of Bohemia, against Spain. They were unsuccessful, and the ambassadors appear to have been unfit for their task, since they knew hardly any foreign language, and the secretary had to do most of the work. 5 He wrote to say that he did not think England so fine as formerly. e He crossed the Channel again on the 5th of December of the same year, once more as secretary of an Embassy to James I., to get England's open support against Spain now that the Armistice was at an end. Though they stayed for fourteen months in England, the mission was unsuccessf ul. Huygens's opinion of the English people did not improve. In particular he got a good insight into and an unfavourable view of England's irresolute foreign policy. He hoped to be joined to the staff of Caron, the agent of the United Provinces, but nothing came of it. Again he came into connection with a great many prominent people, saw
1 Worp, Letters, I, p. XXXff. — 2 ib. p. 22, cf. p. 28 — 3 ib. p. XXXVI — 4 ib. p. XVIII — 5 ib. p. XL — 6 ib. p. 62.



Bacon, whom he greatly admired but did not sympathize with. In October 1622 he was knighted by James I. Perhaps it was at this time that he met John Donne and Ben Jonson. Of his fourth stay in England, which lasted from 5 March till 5 July 1624, we know little, but his connection with Donne was to bear fruit later on. i After being appointed secretary to Prince Frederick Henry in 1625, to whose house he was faithfully devoted in spite of misfortune and Klaring ingratitude, he began in 1630 to translate some of Donnés poems, which throws a remarkable light on Huygens's poetical
leanings. , . . » a
The form was to Huygens the principal thing in poetry,2 and from a child he had sought to express himself in terse, witty language, which sometimes verged on the contorted, conceited style a tendency that was probably strengthened by the taste of his wife as is süwn by the poem oJgwerck (Daywork), 1627-1638, dedicated to her. 3 Thus it was chiefly the trait of Euphuism or Marinism in Donne's poetry, that appealed to Huygens; its metaphysical quality did not suit Huygens's matter-of-fact character at all.4 ' About 1630 Huygens received from his English friends some twentyfive of Donne's poems, which were, as is well-known, the^rc^a mg in literary circles in London before being printed in 1633. He sent the translations of The Sun-Rising. The Anagram, Upon Parhnge from his Mistris, Faoorite in Ordinary to his friend the famous poet Hooft, the centre of the well-known literary circle "de Muider Kring . One of the members, Maria Tesselschade, requested hun to translate more, evidently owning at the same time that she though them diïficult to understand. In 1633, from the 18th of August to the 6th of October, mostly, as was his custom, "te velde te schepen te waghen, te paerde» (in the field, on board a ship dnving or^„ding) he translated fifteen other poems by Donne, viz. The Fleo Good Friday, Woman's Constancg, Break of dag, Witchcra t by aPicture The Apparition, Song, Twi'nam Gardenn, The Exstacie, Love s Diehe, The BlosZme, A Valediction of Tears, The Dreame, The Leoacy.The triple Fooi. They were highly praised by the literary men of the time,
▼ yt tff » Buitenhof, op. cit., p. 65, 66, 67, 76,79 — 8 Worp, 1 Worp, Letters - J. P-^^™tn betwêen Huygens and Donne see:
the corrections of his statements in an article by H. J. Eymael, in 1891, p. 344-366. cf. Worp, Letters, I, p. XLVlin.



even making allowance for the exaggerated and flowery forms of
praise that were then in vogue. Vondel alone was an exception: he
wrote a naughty little poem Op de diepzinnige Puntdichten van den
Engelschen Poet John Donne (on the profound epigrams of the
English poet John Donne).1 _ 
1 the poem runs: De Britse Donn'
Die duistre zon,
Schijnt niet voor ieders oogen,
Seit Huigens, ongeloogen.
Die taelgeleerde Haegenaer,
Die watertant naer Kavejaer,
Naer snoftobak, en smooken,
Die raeuwe herssens kooken:
Maer dit is ongemeene kost,
't Is een banketje voor den Drost,
En voor ons kameraetje,
Het zoute Tesselschaedje,
O lieve Nymfje Tesselschaê,
Verstaeje 't niet, zoo slaet'er nae,
Of laet het u bedieden:
Want dit zijn hooger lieden,
Dan 't Hooge Liedt van Salomon,
Dat geen vernuft ooit vaeten kon,
Dan hooghgeleerde Smouten,
Van langer handt gezouten.
Maer waerom of mijn oordeel laekt,
Het geen mijn saus, mijn Mostaert, smaakt,
Die zich niet kan verzaden
Met zulleke saladen.
Nu, mannen, eet u zelve moe;
Gebruickt'er eek en pepér toe:
Want wy dees Jekkernyen
U geenszins en benyen. (i e The British Donne, that dark sun, does not shine for everybody's eyes, says Huygens, and right he is. That linguïst from the Hague is keen on caviar, on snuff, on fumes, which boil raw brains: but this in uncommon food, it is a dainty for the Sheriff (viz. Hooft), and for our comrade, the sweet Tesselschade- oh, dear nymph Tesselschade, if you do not understand it, just make a shot at it, or have it explained to you: For these are higher songs than Solomon's Song, which none could understand but very learned Smouts (a hit at a clergyman of that name) who were better pickled. But why do I criticize what is welcome to my sauce, my Mustard (reference to Daniël Mostart), who cannot get enough of such salads. Now, gentlemen, eat to your hearts content, -season it with vinegar and pepper, for we do not envy you these dainties at all).



Huygens himself belittled his own work as contrasted with the great art of the original: *
'T vertaelde scheelt zoo veel van 't onvertaelde dicht, Als lijf en schaduwen, ü e The translated poem differs as much from the original as the body and its shadow), he wrote in the dedication to Maria Tesselschade.
It is very important to compare the admiration in this dedication with the scorn of the English in that which he wrote for the same poems to another lady friend in the year 1654 Latin poems, two on the execution of the Earl of Strafford, a few on the rebellion, and two on the execution of the King, we find hardly any reference in his poetry, or in his letters, to the sümng events that were happening across the Channel. 2 But in the lines addressed to Mrs Luchtenburgh he was very outspoken, and it appears that his dislike of the English includes the very language! Eens was het Engelsch soet om hooren Uyt mannen en uyt vrouwen mond, Nu valt het grouwelyck in d'ooren Bynaer als 'tbassen vanden hond.
Sints dat die schepselen met steerten Versopen zijn in Conings bloed, Zijn wij van all haer doen verveert, en Haer woorden selver zijn als roet.
Soo komtse mij nu wel belegen De moeyte die ick eertyds nam: 'T kind dat ick doemael hebb gekregen Is nu soo tydigh als doe 'tquam.
Lees Engelsch, weew, en sonder schroomen, De gall van 'tEngelsch isser uijt; 'Tzijn door mij overdroomde droomen, Een oud lijf met een niewe huijd. 3 (ie Formerly it was sweet to hear EngUsh spoken by men and women, now it jars upon one's ear, almost like the barking of a dog.
i Wofd Poems II, p. 267. The translations from Donne are to found on p.ÏÏT- »' TPhis is true of alt political events Huygens^ bemg a grea contrast of Vondel in this respect; cf. Buitenhof, op. cit. p. 91ff. - VVorp, Poems, V, p. 122.



Since those creatures with tails were drenched in King's blood, we are afraid of all their doings, and their words taste like soot. So the trouble I formerly took, now stands me in good stead: the child that was born to me then, is as timely now as when it came. Read English, widow, and without fear, the gall of the language has been removed: they are dreams dreamt over again by me, an old body with a new skin).
It is significant that Huygens did not write a line of English verse between 1645 and 1660.
Huygens is a good example of the embarrassment of the average Calvinistic Dutchman with regard to English affairs. Faithfully devoted to the House of Orange, he could not but hate Cromwell, though admitting his capacity.1 He was a supporter of the Stuarts, yet he strongly opposed the attempts of Princess Mary after the death of her husband William II. to lay hands on the possessions of her little son for the benefit of her brothers in exile. His opinion of the English did not improve after the Restoration, though he was delighted at an event which reinstated Charles, with whom he was personally acquainted.2 In 1663, 1664 and 1670-1 Huygens was in England again, chief ly in order to get payments of the debts due to the Prince of Orange, in which he only partly succeeded. Though he writes that he enjoyed the favour of the King and Queen, and saw comedies, balls and ballets, and heard music, he did not think highly of their manners, nor of their morals. "I have known these people's way of doing for fifty years and try to resign myself to it, but it is difficult," he says ref erring to the small progress of the negotiations. And in many epigrams he alludes to the immorality of the people. 3
1 Worp, Poems, V, p. 128, VI, p. 259 — * Worp, Letters, V, p. XVIII — 8 Worp, Letters, VI, p. 290, 291. Worp, Poems, VIII, passim, e.g. p. 1:
Engelsche wet. De mans in Engeland zijn Meesters van de Wijven Haer erffelicke goed, maer sij, schijnt, van haer' lijven: Des isser oock geen Land daer 'tVrou-volck soo gerust Syn kostelixte goed verhandelt als 'them lust.
Londen, 5 (15) Jan. 1671. (i.e. In Engeland the men are masters of their wives' property, but the latter, as it seems, of their bodies: hence there is no country where the women sell so freely their most precious article if they have a mind).
12



^^^^^^
"ÏKno9!,, «ems wiU show how well s.ock.d Hoygeos' lihr.ry w»s wi.h English literary works. Libri Theologi in Folio. 76. Donne, Sermons, London, Ibii.
100. Quarles divine Poems.
101. Quarles Emblemes. 116 Vaugan Sacred poems.
Libri Theologi in Quarto.
30. Quarles judgement and mercy.
31. Herbert sacred Poems. 71. ibid.
125. ibid. .
Libri MisceUanei in Folio. 47. Chancers Works London 1598 Newcastle, London, 1668.
iftf» Poems and Fancies by the uucnesse i» 1„5 S by the Dutchesse of NewcasUe, London, 1668. U5*. EnJlishPoems of divers Authors manuscript. 156. Shakesperaes Works, London, 1623. 170. Cowley Works, London, 1669.
- £^T5ÏÏ«^ mi! P
255*. Playes of Küligrew, Oxford, 1666. 282. Spenser Faerie Queen, 1617.
Libri MisceUanei in Quarto. 187. Jonsons Epigram, London, 1640. 454. The Latine Schoole-Master, London, 1571. 456 Verulams Essayes, London, loi».
Libri MisceUanei in Octavo.
145. Wiats Recrettions.
146. I. Donne Poems.
148. Martial Epigrams.
149. Rumph Songs. 255. Cartwrights Poems.



Intestine Warr in England, "works of King Charles" (Eikon basilike?), and Proceedings against XXIX Regicides, Milton is conspicuous by his absence, and considering the range of Huygens' reading, one cannot but conclude that Milton was deliberately excluded. The reason is clear. Huygens was a thorough royalist, an adherent not only of the Oranges, but a supporter of the Stuarts. Either Milton's tenets were repulsive to Huygens, or, though this is difficult to believe, Milton's reputation was too notorious even for such a broadminded man as Huygens to take an interest in his pamphlets. The entire absence of any reference to Milton by Huygens is an astonishing but must instructive fact. If Huygens neglected him, from whom in Holland was Milton to find favour?
From Vondel? We have already seen that Vondel was the spokesman of the political antagonism to the English Commonwealth. We cannot, however, restrict our discussion of Vondel to this part of his work. In spite of the glaring differences between Milton and Vondel, there is so much similarity in their work, that, as is well known, people have suspected indebtedness on the EngUsh poefs part to Vondel.1 The quesUon arises whether Vondel may not by his works have created an atmosphere favourable to the reception of Milton. His dramas on biblical subjects come first under consideration.
276. Shirleys Poems.
331. Draytons Poems.
377. The Muses Recreation.
381. Randolphs Poems.
382. Owens Epigrams. 385. Poems of R. C.
394. Poems of Catherine Philips.
426. English Poems.
427. Hudibers Poems.
441. Carews Poems.
442. Wallers Poems.
502. Brown Religio Medici.
583. Wallers Poems.
587. Wits Interpreter or English Parnassus.
595. English Proverbs.
636. Withs Recreations.
637. Flecknoe Epigrams. 643. The Life of Sidnei.
1 see G. Edmundson. Milton and Vondel, London, 1885.



Vonders biblical tragedies were the continuation «J^^ of a kind of drama that was in a way the descendant of the mediaeval myster^ and miracle play. * The Latin school-dramas mat were jmfr ten during the Renaissance took their subject-matter chiefly from sacred hSory, and even scholars like Daniël Heinsius and Grotius tóed theU nlnds at this kind of drama and won fame by it» In toe begSning of the 17th century it became a common feature of Western Enrope for Old Testament subjects to be enacted on the lageTand Holland was no exception. We need only men ion Abraham de Koning's Achab, (Ahab), 1610, Jephthahs ende zyn eemghe TcntfTreurspel (The Tragedy of Jephthah
ter) 1615, Hagars vluchte ende weder-komste (Hagar s r- ligöt ana Return) 1616, and Simson (Samson), 1618. About the same time (1612) Stoffii drama was written by Vondel: Het PaScha Passover NowTis very remarkable and of great importance that the spirit oÏL later works did not change. However much the form of fa» teaaediesimproved with the growth of his genius and the study of LX and^reek dramatists, in subject matter he was and remained old f ailed, and soon became isolated in the Dutch hterary world.
^ tUles of the lone list of his dramas show this uniformness ^üTlMSr^opat of the twenty-four original plays he wrote ^rteen were biblical tragedies, the first being the aboverentioneT^cha (1612), the last Noah (1667), three were closely X to these, Maeghden (Virgins), 1639, a dramaüzaüon oAttüa.slachter of St Ursula and her eleven thousand virgin maid , Peter en Platei (Peter and Paul), 1641, and Hiërusalem ^oe^eru^ salem destroved). With the exception of two -Faëton (1663) and BaZische Gebroeders (Batavian Brothers), 1663 - the remaining bitten for special occasions, which made the choice of^ me suSeets accidental. In the prefaces to his various dramas Wel deffnitely states his preference of biblical subjects, but the
■» ttt « ofififf and esDecially the same author's BladTSm CV»*^^af"™l=h.er, Heinsius. ««rode., Mo».»J
Montreux and Claude Billard. Cf. ib. IV, p. 177.



very choice of these subjects intensified the antagonism against the stage in Calvinistic circles, while by the middle of the century a erowing objecÜon to the stage use of biblical subjects is apparent in non-calvinistic circles too. i Here we touch the conflict between religion and the stage, which was paralleled and strongly influenced by what had happened in England.2 This question falls outside our subject. It is remarkable, however, that though the means of attack were borrowed from England, no interest was roused in the positive results this opposition had produced in English literature. The change in public appreciation in Holland is also evident from the declining popularity of Vondel's plays. Up till 1660 they were very popular; it has been estimated that on an average every fifth performance at the Amsterdam theatre was one of Vondel's plays. After 1660 there is a decline, which was partly owing to the personal enmity of Jan Vos, the stage manager, who deliberately neglected the make-up of the performances of Vondel's dramas, thus damaging their reputation. But at the same time this decline must have been due to the increasing interest in the spectacular drama as propagated by the same Jan Vos and his followers, and to the above-mentioned general objection to the representation of sacred history on the stage. 3 Though Vondel's dramas lost their popularity on the stage, they were, however, more and more admired as poetry. In course
1 J. te Winkel, op. cit. IV, p. 177ff.
A G van Hamel, Zeventiende-Eeuwsche Opvattingen en Theorieën over Litteratuur in Nederland, 's Gravenhage, 1918, p. 60ff. The author, when discussing the preface of P. Langedult's tragedy Christus Lydende en Verheerlykt, which was published as late as 1684, says (p. 64ff.): "Langedult's breed opgezet betoog was het laatste pleidooi voor een verloren zaak. Niet dat de puriteinsche vijanden der tooneelpoëzie het gewonnen hebben, en erin geslaagd zouden zijn een naar hun inzicht zondig vermaak den kop in te drukken. Maar de kunstleer zelve ging een andere richting uit. Het rationalisme, dat zich wel kanten moest tegen allegorie en symboliek — de grondslagen van het bflbelsche drama —, kon de spelen naar de schrift niet binnen zijn perken toelaten. Bovendien, iedere functie van het geestelijk leven kreeg voortaan haar eigen plaats: de godsdienst hoorde thuis in de kerk, op de planken het drama. Veel moeite kostte het den Fransch-classicisten en rationalisten niet, om hun leer ingang te doen vinden; immers de praktijk had haar reeds den weg gebaand." — 2 Dr J. Wille's inaugural lecture "Aeslhetisch" of "Puriteinsch", Amsterdam, 1925, p. 13. Prynne is mentioned by Jacob Kofman in his attack at the stage, Schouwspels Beschouwing (J. van Lennep, De Werken van Vondel, IX, p. 339 — 3 J. te Winkel, op. cit. IV, p. 269.



of time Vondel began to be read as a classic; he became the poets' poet This is of great importance to our subject. The Dutch possessed in Vondel's Lucifer and Adam in Ballingschap a poetical treatment of the principal theme of Paradise Lost which was not inferior to the English poem itself, and very superior to the poor translations of it. Thus Milton's epic was in a way superfluous to the Dutch. In this light it is significant to read Paludanus' comment on Milton's assertion that
(his song) pursues Things unattempted yet in prose or rhyme. (P. L., I, 15)
"The Prince of Dutch poets, J. V. Vondel," he says, "has made two dramas, namely Lucifer and Adam in Ballingschap, well known to all lovers of his inimitable art, which correspond in many respects with Milton's excellent work." 1
The objections which people had to biblical dramas, could not of course be called forth by an epic treatment of biblical subjects, and such an attempt seems to be of the greatest importance for our inquiry. However much Vondel, with the whole of the Dutch literary world throughout the 17th century, agreed with Ovid that "Omne genus scripti gravitate tragoedia vincit," * he had from an early age the ambition to write an epic poem, too. Indeed, in theory at least, he seems to have estimated the epic higher than the drama. Though in the preface to his tragedy Jeptha (1659) he expressed the Ovidian line in the well-known couplet
"Hoe hoog men drave in stijl en toon Het treurspel spant alleen de kroon," different views may be gatfaered from his writings. He long meditated an epic on Constantine, studied Tasso among others for this purpose, and actually began to write it in 1632, but afterwards destroyed what he had completed of it. In a letter to Grotius (1639) he explamed that the loss of his wife had broken his courage and had made him give up the plan, so that he had to content himself with something of "less importance", namely dramatic writings. He translated Virgil s Aeneid, first in prose (1646) and later in verse (1660), and then spoke of writing a great epic in VirgiFs style on the mythical ancestral hero of the Dutch, Bato, a plan, however, which he did not carry out.
* Paludanus, op. cit. p. 2, note 4 — 3 A. G. van Hamel, op. cit. p. 48, 82 * G. Brom, op. cit., Notes on the chapter Dichter', no. 22, 24.



But the youthful promise to treat biblical matter m an epical form he did futiïl, when in 1662 he pubUshed Joannes °«B°e%ez^o£ the subject and treatment are so closely akm to those of Milton s greatepS, it is worth our while to look more closely at the poem itseU and its fate in Dutch literary tradition.
In the first book of Joannes de Boetgezant God deputes the Archangel Gabriel to Joannes to announce to him that it is time for him to leave the desert where he lives and go out to «hort the people to repent of their sins, thus preparing the way for the advent of Christ. The appearance of this preacher occasions a great commotion throughout Palestine, as is evident from the conyersation of two distinguished Hebrews, Nicodemus and Joseph of Anmatiiaea m the course of which we hear of John the Baptist's birth and youth and the strange rumours of the coming Messias. In the second book John preaches to the people in a survey of the history of the: chosen people which is nothing but a foreshadowing of the advent of Christ which is now about to happen. In the third book we see the effect of John s preaching and hear more of the admonitions of the various classes of the community. God the Father, in Heaven, proclaims his wul that the Son shall go to John the Baptist and begin his nnssion Jesus becomes conscious of His Father's will and sets out to the Jordan, his journey thither being a triumphal procession in which nature and mankind vie with each other to honour ^^P.1?™; Then follows the baptism of Jesus and the descent of the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove. Jesus retires to the desert to be tempted of Satan. John continues his preaching, but to him, too temptation comes, for a body of priests ask him whether he is the promised Messias. John, however, remains faithful and avows his own wortfalessness and Jesus' greatness, even though his pupüs are astounded at his humbleness. In the fourth book, Lucifer, in HeU, afraid of the proceedings of the Baptist and Jesus, convokes a council, at which it is decided to go to Palestine. Apoltion stirs up the jealousy and fear of Caiaphas and the priests, whose hostility makes Jesus leave Judaea and go to Galilee. To Herod is revealed how dangerous to him John is, the advocate of the man who as a child had escaped his father's murderous designs in the slaughter of the innocents. With his wife Herodias, the Prince goes out to meet the great preacher under show of friendship, but John sees through his hypocnsy and rebukes him to his face for incest with his brother's wUe. John is



invited to become Herod's court-chaplain and on his refusal, is taken to the palace by main force, which would have occasioned an insurrection but for John's pacifying words. When the latter remains obdurate, he is cast into prison. The fifth book relates how Herodias tries in vain to persuade her husband to put John to death. The wretched prisoner sends out his pupils to ask Jesus personally whether he is the Messiah or not. Jesus bids them teil John the wonders they see and then goes on to ënlarge on the greatness of John the Baptist. This praise stirs up the rage of the priests and they delegate Malchus to incite Herodias further. She at last gets ah opportunity of carrying out her design at the famous feast by means of her daughter Salome. John's disciples bury their master and inform Jesus. In the last book Jesus comforts them, and the poem concludes with a graphic description of John's descent to the underworld as the harbinger of Christ. He meets all the faithful that have died in hope, among them his parents, and the father of Jesus.
It is of no importance to us here whether the resemblance between Milton's and Vondel's works is due to direct influence or to common influence by Tasso;1 it is clear even from this summary that Joannes de Boetgezant was an effective preparation for the reception of Milton's epics.
Vondel's epic was a great success and had much influence. This achievement was the stimulant referred to above that set a great many authors writing on biblical subjects and that suggested the quasi-epic form. Some twenty appeared in the 18th century, no fewer than ten of which before 1730. As we shall see, however, they specially admired two features in the Joannes that were remote from Milton's epic. In the first place they appreciated Vondel's strict adherence to the biblical story. This tendency grew. We perceive a growing objection to even the slightest deviation from the Bible. This attitude is no doubt connected with the increasing formalism of Dutch Protestantism which we have mentioned above. In the second place, people admired in Vondel's epic the absence of all classieal mythology. We have already seent hat this was an old problem. Some people objected altogether to the use of the "heathen idols", as they called them. Others, we might almost say everybody, objected to the use
1 J. te Winkel, op. cit. III, p. 500. Cf. George Edmundson, op. cit.



of them in religious poetry. At the same time classieal myhology was considered an indispensable ingrediënt of an epic, which at this time was looked upon in a mechanical way as a standardized thing. If we add to this the craze for rhyme prevalent in the 18th century and the belief that the writing of poetry was something to be learned and a very useful thing too, we have the explanation of that long row of versifications of biblical stories and Bible books that we shall have to mention presently. What could be a more usual pastime than rhyming part of Holy Scripture, and^hat could be more edifying than reading these renderings, which joined the divine ornament of rhyme to the loftiest subject conceivable?
The first to plan an imitation of Vondel's Joannes would, however, not have used this method. Antonides van der Goes (1647— 1684), the accredited successor of Vondel as chief poet, cherished the plan of writing an epic on St Paul, but nothing came of it. He seems to have been opposed to the general trend along which Dutch literature was then developing. He resisted the dominating power of a new critical school of pedantic cavillers, 'Nil Volentibus Arduum', and the wave of slavish adoration of France and everything that was French. But he could not overcome it, or perhaps was prevented from doing so by his early death. His great achievement is the long descriptive poem Ystroom (the River Y), which was the precursor of a great many similar works, and which, as it was even preferred to Milton's Paradise Lost, must be looked at more closely.
The Ystroom is a long poem in four books, m praise of Amsterdam and its trade. The flowery language of the heavy alexandrines verges on the bombastic and is full of mythological ornaments. In the first book we are led along the quays of the world's great storehouse, the chief houses and spots being poetieally described and commented upon. The second and third books are a dream of the author while sailing on board a yacht on the Y. In the second we accompany the Dutch seamen on their voyages all over the world, to the East Indies, China, America, the Levant, Norway, Russia, France, Spain, Portugal etc. England is also mentioned, but only in a disparaging way: it is a country of robbers and pirates. The third book contains a mythological allegory. The golden wedding-feast of Peleus and Thetys is celebrated. The God of the River Y is given the place of honour, which arouses the jealousy of the Seine and is the cause of a violent quarrel. The Iber takes the part of the Y, but this costs



him the tail of his coat. Neptune, however, setües the dispute by ^ZgnLl^Z Ts right to the place. In the fburth book tiie author awakes and we then visit the other towns that he on the Y and wSi all contribute to the glory of Amsterdam: the Saarlem, Muiden. The poem concludes with an enumeration of the various good qualities of the Y ïtself.
What did Antonides' contemporaries find to admire in the Ystwm? it remhided them in the first place of the mighty voice of VondTl^theTeat master. Then the subject must have been pleasing to them Trade was the pride of the whole nation and here a graphic pictorT of tixis matter-or-fact subject was offered them; irja„tng Moetic form. Besides, what a wealth of
1 details of the character and origin of the various
I* „rjpactedt L warehouses of A-J-d-vane* of adventures all the different voyages provided. The whole worm hides in These leaves," as one of the panegyrists said. Some, it is teue Zected to the excessive use of mythology, but then others SÜg"2U that fanciful excursion among relished the allegory, especially since it was <*irecte« a» Sms XIV. Antonioes himself thought it necessary to def^end the^use d Zthology iu such a wordly poem, though admitting that it would be out of Xce in a sacred poem. Nor was the didactic note wanting L uie Xm ttne ropemaker, who feigns to tread backwards and Ltalltrofü, is compared to a hypocrite, which gives occasion for a ^ dig'ssion on the concealed thirst for gold so common on
Antonides van der Goes may be considered as the last of *e great



self-satisfied. Instead of a healthy striving after original achievement and fresh expansion, we see everywhere a deadening desire to preserve what was attained. A selfish oligarchy, into which the aristocratie government had degenerated, was bent only upon maintaining its power; the guiding principle of foreign policy was the preservation of trade; in religion we see a soulless conforming to empty dogma; in literature, by the side of and sometimes together with a slavish adoration of the French, a conviction prevailed that Vondel, Antonides, or Hooft, had reached the summit of perfection in art, so that the best thing that could be done was to imitate them and strive to equal them. Self-complacency and lack of originality may be called the chief f aults of this generation. So great an authority as Pels proclaimed that it was better to imitate others than to be original.
To us here it is of importance to notice in this period an increased interest in epic poetry, which was to last throughout the 18th century. Of the many attempts to write an original epic, two compositions may be called more or less successful, one a wordly, the other a biblical epic poem: Rotgans' Willem III and Hoogvliet's Abraham de Aertsvader. Both poems were hailed with enthusiasm and had much influence upon the development of Dutch literature. Connected with the interest in this department of poetry is the favourable reception and elaborate versification of Fénelon's Télémaque and Voltaire's Henriade. And when we further note that in the many biblical epics there is no tracé öf any influence of Paradise Lost, whereas the influence of the Henriade appears to have been great,1 we wonder what the reason was. We must investigate both the character of the native schools of epic poetry and that of those foreign examples, in order to find an explanation and realize the atmosphere of literary Holland at the time when Milton's Paradise Lost became known.
Rotgans was not the first to try his hand at writing an epic poem on the great deeds of William III during the life of the hero. P. Rabus, whom we have met as the editor of the Boekzaal, composed poems that were epic in character on the great events that occurred in Holland and England: Verlost Britanje door de komst van de althans regerende maiesteiten Koning Wilhem en Koningin Maria (Britain delivered by the arrival of their now ruling majesties King William
1 H. J. Minderhoud. La Henriade dans la Littérature Hollandoise, Paris, 1927.



and Queen Mary), Op den togt naar Ierland van zijnejnaiest^tWilhem (On the expedition to Ireland by His Majesty King Wilham ,
Vrede en Vreugdezang 1697 (Song in honour of Peace and Joy).
In the last poem Rabus himself admits that, though he had sung niecemeal of the glorieus deeds of King William in heroie verse SeTmposition o/an epie would be too heavy a task for hun and might prove too heavy even for another Virgil or Homer. Yet, even TL p'oems eannot in any way be called a suceess, i is really epic-like and shows a bolder imigmation than Rotgans
^ Verlost Britanje we descend, after some introductory verses describing the recurrent onslaughts of England on Holland s h erties, j üT Heï and witness the eoneoetion of a devilish plan to prevent &e dreaded SUceession of William of Orange and his£*e Mary to me throne of England. A grisly monster "Stokebrand" (firebrand nüsehSmaker) is dispatched to Father Peter, James's confessor,to Zgest me plan of a pretended ehild to him. The fraud and the Slüd-bed are circumstantially told and we have then the narration of fee preparations in Holland for William's adventurous voyage ^ England, his trimphant mareh to London, James's fhght, and the
coronation of William and Mary. wniw. cam-
The second poem gives an elaborate account f Wilham s_ cam naians in Ireland. At the end Neptune asks the nver-nymph The Thames me meaning of all the bustle, and in answer the nymph of the Meuse sings the praise and glory of Wilham 111.
In Z third poem the heroie deeds of William are summed up once more to show their aptness for epic treatment. Fame and Peace are nersonified and Grey Meuse concludes the poem.
SoonT fean Rabus expected, a Dutchman undertook the drfficult work of writing an epic on William III, though he was neither a Homer nor a Virgil. Yet Rotgans' Willem 111 ™ «T^* suTess ny many of his contemporaries. He had faithfully applied 2ï ruls teid down by Boileau for this kind of literature and had introduced into it the whole conventional apparatus.
The first book opens with an address to Mars and tiie gods of war and proceeds with the praise of William III's illus rations^and7ather. William's love is to be the main theme of the poem, the i Cf. the scornful discussion of them by bitsen Geysbeek in his Biographtscn etc. Woordenboek der Nederdnitsche Dichters, Amsterdam, 1824.



author at once plunges into the middle of the story and narrates how William sets out for England to court the EngUsh princess. The seagoddesses accompany him and goddess Thames comes to meet him but finds him sleeping, and is thus afforded an opportunity of apprising her retinue of nymphs of the many terrible naval batües that had been fought between the Dutch and the English. Even Neptune himsetf had been frightened at the sanguinary encounters and had urged the brothers and neighbours to stop their unnatural quarrels. He had foretold that peace was at hand and when the goddess of the Thames has shown how this prophecy came true, the Prince awakes and is addressed by her. The prince arrivés at in London and is received in great state. A row of royal portraits in one of the palaces gives an opportunity of discussing the English sovereigns. The fate of Charles I is deeply lamented and we hear both Charles II's account of it and WilUam's assertion that his mother had adjured him to revenge her father's wrongs. After the conventional description of the love for one another of William and Mary, we find an attempt to allegorize the inner meaning of the marriage:
Hier spreit de Godsdienst, maar geen Venus, 't ledekant; Dat na een lange reeks van twisten en krakkeelen, De vrede en dierbre rust voor Jezus Kerk zal teelen.
<Here Religion, not Venus, spreads the bed, which will bring forth, after a long series of quarrels and strifes, peace and dear quietude for Jesus' Church).
When bride and bridegroom have withdrawn, Rentinck, William's intimate friend, is requested by the remaining guests to narrate WilUam's feats of arms against France, the story of which füls the second book. In the third book the newly wedded pair cross to Holland; the war against France is continued, but at last Peace is successful, in spite of the instigations of Mars and Bellona, who however predict new wars. The nymph of the Vecht concludes the book with a hymn in honour of peace.
In the fourth book the goddess of Strife appears again to undo the peace and for that purpose she calls up the furies. We hear of the persecutions of the Protestants in France, and ReUgion, alarmed about the state of affairs in England, goes to Holland for help. She is received by the Maid of Holland and haunts Prince WUUam in



his sleep, informing him of the omineus events in France and England Then we hear of the preparations for the expediüon, ol the expedition itself, of James' flight and the arrival of Mary, attended bv Thetis and her nymphs. After the coronation Religion addresses the king and Piety, Justice, Friendship, Generosity, and other allegorical persons descend from Heaven to form a royal train.
James's flight to Louis XIV gives the poet an excuse to open the fifth book with a description of the beauty and splendour of Paris and the French Court. Further the book contains a much praised rendering of the battle of the Boyne. The 'merveilleux' is introduced at the end by the apparition and the speech of the nymph of that river The rest of the conquest of Ireland we learn in the seventh and eighth books and in the last book we get more military achievements, Mary's death, an unsuccessful attempt on William's hfe, and the peace of Rijswijk.
Rotgans' epic is a remarkable piece of work, and was greatly admired by most of the author's contemporaries, however incongruous it may seem to us. The undertaking was bold. Everyone knows how difficult it is to judge a contemporary correctly and it is to the author's credit that in the midst of the great amount of petty criticism that was abroad about William III's doings, he saw the heroie line of the prince's life. The main theme of the poem, William III, the champion of religion and liberty, appealed to his contemporaries and pleased their Protestant as well as their nabonal feelings The smooth, flowing alexandrines, which, according to his biosrapher Halma, the author himself could recite so resoundingly, reminded people of Vondel's poetry. Also the many descripuons of battles on land and sea must have appealed to the reahstic Dutchman. This is no doubt a very important point. When we look for imagination in the poem, we notice that what is to be found of it, is not part and parcel of the whole. It has been pasted on to the poem, which as a rule does not rise above the level of sober reahty. Yet being an epic, it could not do without the conventional apparatus of the 'merveilleux'. For this purpose heathen mythology was introduced and thus William III, the champion of Protestantism, is attended and addressed by Neptune and various river and sea nymphs, and Charles II praises "the gods" ('t Godendom), when gratefully recalling the cessation of his youthful calamities. To rescue m some way the Christian character of the poem, but in reahty making it



worse, he introduced Christian allegorical persons. Many considered that the author would have been wise to have restricted himself to this means of introducing the 'merveilleux'. i
It is Rabus again whom we have to mention first in connection with the biblical epics. He attempted to fulfil what Antonides had failed to carry out. In 1681 he published De Kruis-held, Ofte het Leven van den Apostel Paulus, which, as he said in a preface, he had composed before his eighteenth year as "an exercise in poetry and as an agreeable recreation." Though he published this juvenile work unaltered, being pressed for time, he could get dedicatory poems for it from men like Oudaen and F. de Haas, the latter declaring that he heard Vondel's divine voice in this imitation of the Boetgezant. It does not resemble Vondel's work in the least, being a chronological sketch of St Paul's life, interspersed with meditative comment. The form is unusual for this kind of poetry, for we do not find alexandrines but pentameters rhyming abba.
Rabus' work does not seem to have attracted much attention, if we are to judge from a remark in the preface to J. van Hoogstraten's De Kruisheld, of the Leven van den Grooten Apostel Paulus, Leeraar der Heidenen (1712). A. Houbraken, who provided the illustrations, says in it that as far as he knew, no one else had undertaken the subject abandoned by Antonides. He was obviously ignorant of Rabus' poem. He had first tried a hand at it himself, but had then applied to Jacob Zeeuws and had finally prevailed upon J. van Hoogstraten to work out his sketch. Both Houbraken and Hoogstraten insist on the recreative element in writing poetry and the latter cites Erasmus, Morus, Cats, Huygens and Westerbaan in support of his opinion. Both agree also on the inadmissibility of heathen fables and original invention is sacred poetry. The work was merely meant as "an edifying elaboration of the brevity of the Evangelical historians, who were followed as closely as was possible." In the laudatory poems Antonides is mentioned again and again. The epic itself opens with an explanatory exposition of what the poem intended to be and the way in which it originated. The gospel was to be the basis of the poem. Antonides' early death is lamented and then after invoking God's aid, the author begins his subject. The story is narrated on the lines of the Bible, but the epic atmosphere is continually
1 J. te Winkel, op. cit., V, p. 15.



disturbed by the author obtrudiug himself iu some speculation, or some address to the reader. Iu oue place we eveu get a description of orTof Houbrakeu's engravings, after St Paul had been asked permission to stop the uarration for a momeut. The only thing Üiat rTmlnds one of an epic is the occurrence of many Homeric similes^ To^ards the end of the work, when the Bible eould no longer be a gume, the author feit himself more free. When St Paul sees Neroi5 reign of terror in Rome, the Cardinal Virtues come and console him And it is the Ghost of Simon the Sorcerer that incites Nero to kill
^ThTnext work we have to discuss is in a way a relapse.. J. J. Mauricius' De Kruishistorie van den hadenden Heiland (1714) is ctearly buüt on the plan of Bevius' Overijsselsche Sangen or de Deeker's Goede Vrgdagh. It is a string of poems, in vanous forrns each dealing with an episode of Jesus' passion. One of them is a u-atlaüon of a chorus from Grotius' Christus Patiens and the conSng poem is an adaptation of one of Prudentms' hymns The epic quality is slight, nor can we call these poems lyrical in spite of tL many exclamations. The author's verbosity is appallmg Even in i824 WiLn Geysbeek drew attention to the sixteen 'watery Unes on the futile attempts of Pilate to wash his hands, i A still more strikTn^ example Mauricius himself gives in the pref ace. We learn there that the following lines of the 22nd poem:
O braave roover, die, bekeerd na zo veel' zonden, Een deftig burger wordt van 's Heilands heerschappy! Gy maakt uw kruis een' stoel om Jezus te verkonden, En rooft den Hemel met eene edler' dievery. Dus klimt gy langs die paal, als langs een' boog van wolken, In 't hof der Engelen, O heerlyk gunstbewys I Dus strekt u 't moordhout, zo vervloekt by alle volken, Een Jakobsladder naar Gods eeuwig Paradus. are an elaboration of a Donne-like couplet:
Een dief beklimt Gods eeuwig huis. Langs welk een' ladder? langs een kruis. The pref ace contains other remarkable statements ^acteristi^ the spirit of these writings. In the first place we again have the idea
i J. te Winkel, op. cit, V, p. 15.



that the nobüity of the subject warrants the usefulness of the attempt. "The precious subject is too lofty and holy for me to need excuse my choice or fear the time spent on it wasted," the author says. We once more read that the undertaking has been pleasing and profitable to the poet. We find an explicit statement that both original invention and heathenish mythology are forbidden in his kind of poetry. The passage is too interesting not to quote it. We read: "And though the simple Gospel, which knows no other Parnassus but the mountain of the cross, does not allow fables or other customary adornments of poetry, the glorious title of Crucified Jesus, without whom God's enlightened apostle would know nothing, and for whose sake he thought little of Gamaliel's learning and all the vain glory of wisdom and wealth, will doubly make up for the lack of grandiloquence and heathen ornament." Finally, though he admits that it is from the French that the Dutch have learned their polished verse, he thinks that the Dutch need not pay too much attention to them and had better reverently follow their own great national poets than conceitedly try to improve upon them.
Mauricius' work was reviewed in the Boekzaal on the appearance of a second edition in 1722. We read that "this excellent and edifying piece of work" was received with so much eagerness ("met zo veel graegheit") that it had been out of print for some years. The reviewer thinks it quite unnecessary to plead the youth of the poet — he was only 21 when he wrote it — in poems so fine and rich in sense, which he proceeds to prove by quotations.
In the same year as De Kruishistorie a work appeared that was an advance from an epic point of view. It is Judas de Verrader, pubUshed in 1714 by Joan de Haes, who has additional interest for us on account of his translation of Sidney's Defence of Poetry, published together with his complete works in 1724 and edited by the poet Poot. Poot thought so highly of De Haes, who was versed in five languages, that he called him immortal. Judas de Verrader has undoubtedly many good points and compares favourably with similar writings. The pref ace is specially important to us, as it contains an elaborate exposition of the precepts that were considered binding for religious poetry. In the first place he defends his reasons for thinking it worth while to treat in a poetical way what has already been told in the Bible. There is a great dUference between
13



«h, hiztorlcal and the poetical manner of telling a .tory. ^
field of ^vity ot ap elaborate certain passages from
hP BMe ££ad LS^^Sy avoided mixing up heathen f able with me hotChriim Religion. He mentions Sannazaro, V^da aud Arios"oamong those who have sinned in this respect, and Vida, and Ariosio am g Scalieer and mentions Vossius'
t0 support ^f^.^een^odts boek zeit, nootzakelijk;
S •« geen bier tegens
te zeggen» (Say all God'a Book says, be apanng m what it does
■«= SfÜÏ ~pe. vernosenTss The antics of Satan on finding Judas asleep are reminis-
bosom' . nf the Sanhedrin. Caiaphas delivers



on Judas and a wordy enumeration of similar characters in presentday life.
The second book describes the Lord's supper and Jesus departure to Gethsemane. Then the scène shifts to Heaven. God the Father is described with words borrowed from Revelations. God addresses the Heavenly Council and despatches Gabriel to console Jesus and offer him the chalice of the passion. Gabriel flies to earth to fulfil his message.
The third book opens with an elaborate description of the chalice. lt is a clumsy device to portray the development of Christ's church on earth. On the chalice we find representations of the increasing number of martyrs for Christ's sake, beginning with St Stephen and the AposÜes. After this digression the arrival of Judas and his band is described. Here we find a striking example of the incredible prolixity of the author. The pregnant majesty of the words 'I am he', which made the multitude fall backwards upon the ground, are expanded to a lengthy speech and thus rendered powerless. After a narration in due order of Jesus' trial before Pilate and Herod, and his final condemnation by Pilate, we return to Judas again, who applies to the Hebrew Council in despair, is scornfully dismissed, and eventually, when the author has exhausted his means of describing his anguish and despair, commits suicide.
In spite of the appalling long-windedness of the author, the poem shows more imagination than we are accustomed to find in similar works.
The next poem we have to discuss is perhaps the worst example of excessive deference to the biblical story. Koenraet Drost tells us in the pref ace of his Het Leven van de Koning en Propheet David (1716), that in his opinion the character and life of David made him extremely fit for the hero of an epic. Yet he could not execute such a plan, since the awe he feit for the Bible prevented him from introducing "fables, adornments, and inventions which are the soul of an epic." Hence he had carefully stuck to the text of Holy Writ, even sacrificing the rules of prosody to the words and expressions of the Dutch Version, the authority of which, according to him, was indisputable. On this ground he finds fault with Lessarges, who has written a French epic on the same subject, but has omitted "many details and even names of persons and places, which have come down to us through Holy Writ." He has not perpetrated such enor-



t i„ „rrW to orove that he knew the mies for the regular with a translatiou of what Boileau says
°\t"deSon to the Couutess Auue of Nassau is uot less chara^^ÏÏocm is meant as a reereation for her ou rainy days or when she is tired of her work, such as receiving reut from her Jagers The author seems eoufideut that she will appreeiate the adXoual eLrm the story reeeives from his rhyme, considering mat apart from his useful expatiatious aud explanations, poetry m iteins abie to euliveu the senses and render the useful agreeable
Of the poem itself little need be said. In monotonous unadorned alexaudXme story is versified as found in the of Saul at Endor gives the author an opportunity to enumerate tne hoSle artieles ufed by the soreeress.The eharaeter of the antl^s IZ^nl will be cleaï from the amazingly indelieate way in which he explains why Uriah refused to sleep at home when ealled to
Jerusalem from the ^ detail Dirk Smout's Jezus
It is unnecessary for us to aiscuss in ueiaii tfiinkChristus (1721), J. de Haes' Jonas de Boetgezant (1723 and G. Klmkb^amer's De Kruisgezant of het Leeven van den Apostel Petrus (1725 ThTseeond poem'is a typical instance of those ^ of Bible books that appear to have been so popular at the üme. lo leave no doubt about the author's intentions, the poem is printed sirby side with the biblieal text and followed by some thirty pages of notL Reading the pref ace to Klinkhamer's Apostel Petrus, one migït^ feink oneiad come to the end of üie hst biblical poem^He complains that it is hardly possible to find a new subject for such a
^1727 however a work appeared which far outshone the rest and Wnich was at once hailed as a masterpiece and thus gave^ second impulse to the concoction of this kind of narraüve poem It is A. Hoog?W Abraham de Aertsvader, a tenth edition of which appeared in 1780, one of the many proofs of its immense PoP»larr^
In Hoogvliet is .strikingly seen the struggle to break the ties of f ormatism^tiiat hampered all Bible poets. He was bound no to omit any detail of Abraham's history as it was given in the Bible. Yet he "ntures to introducé original inventions and the events, however slightly. The poem opens with Abraham s stay in Egypt and the abduction of Sarah, the previous history of Abra-



ham being told in the third book by the patriarch himself Henceforward, however, the strict order of events, as it » found in the Bible, is retained and not a single detail is omitted The 'mventions are the description of a rehgious feast in honour of the goddess ïsis the introduction of God's Council in Heaven and of numerous
31 HoSet thinks it necessary in the preface to defend the liberties he takes. Those iniüated in the art of poetry, we read there, will agree 'that a poet is free like a painter to adorn his picture with ornamental additions, but as the author foresees that the mere tiüe will allure many pious but unlettered people to read the poem, he will go deeper into the subject. Many theologians have attempted to explain the delay of the marriage between Pharaoh and Sarah, and their guesses have as much or as little authority as his explanation that it was due to Isis' feast. As to the Council in Heaven a certain clergyman had expressed his fear that people would feel shocked to see the poet represent God as consisüng of various mialities. But then, the Bible itsèlf attributes to God all kinds of human characteristics and Vollenhove had done a similar thing. After having discussed these two important questions, the author thinks it unnecessary to mention slighter innovations. In the pulpits, too, the clergy are not afraid of original speculations in order to make things easier for their weaker brethren.
The following summary will iUustrate how Hoogvliet distnbuted bis inventions. The first book introducés us to Abraham m Egypt. Sarah is abducted by Pharaoh and the preparations for the feast of Isis and the coming marriage between Pharaoh and Sarah are described. The second book tells how the Council in Heaven forms the plan to prevent this marriage. The festivities in honour of Isis are described. Pharaoh falls ill and the reason of God's displeasure is reaveled to him. In the third book Abraham is summoned to the court, where he tells the story of his life. In the fourth book Abraham returns to Canaan. The quarrel between Abraham and Lot is represented by means of allegories. The fifth book tells us how Lot is taken prisoner by native princes and delivered bij Abraham. Again allegories are introduced and we also get a glimpse of Heaven. In the sixth book Abraham takes Hagar as a wife. In Heaven, Ishmael and Isaac are explained as being symbols of the Old and New Covenant. The poet represents the reconciliation of Hagar and Sarah



in the form of allegories. Several minor events are enumerated in the seventh book. In Heaven, the consultation about the birth of Isaac is disturbed by the announcement of the atrocities in Sodom Jehovah and two angels visit Abraham. Sodom is destioyed The eighth book narrates Sarah's second abduction, the birth of Isaac^ and Hagar's dismissal. By way of instruction, Abraham in the mnth book relates to Isaac the history of mankind from the creation to his own birth. The Council in Heaven resolves to image forth God s great sacrifice in Christ by making Abraham sacrifice his son. The tenth book describes Abraham's great temptation. Afterwards he is granted a vision of the later history of the chosen people up till the Ascension of Christ. In the last two books we are informed of Sarah s death, Abraham's second marriage, Isaac's marriage, the birth ot Esau and Jacob, the death of Abraham and his reception in Heaven.
As will be seen, Hoogvliet has managed, apart from the last two books, to prevent his poem from becoming a chronicle. Yet^we see that in spite of the great improvements, the work has been built on the same principles as the previous Dutch biblical poems. Even the 'inventions' are typically Dutch and quite un-Mtitomc. There is the Council in Heaven. The most elaborate description of it we find in the second book. God's Council consists of the Suprème Being and His Attributes. They are enumerated and then we hear feeir deliberations. The Suprème Being addresses His inseparable AUributes summing up how man feil and degenerated so as to make the Flood necessary, how among Noah's of f spring only the Semites had preserved their knowledge of the One God. One man among these Semites was specially beloved and in him centred the fulfilment of God s Zrnïe to redeem mankind: Abraham, God's friend. But then God s plans seem to come to naught: Sarah, Abraham's wife, who was to become the mother of the great Saviour, is in danger of being desecrated by the Egyptian Pharaoh, a member of the^accursed^race of Cham, Now the problem submitted to the Council is how to prevent this disastrous development of affairs. Justice is the first to answer. He is for wholesale destruction of Cham's accursed descendants. Omnipotence protests that on these lines the whole race of Man shouhï be destroyed. Long-suffering reminds them of tiieir fermer deeision to suffer Heathendom until the final day of doom and advises the abasement of Pharaoh in order to make him release Sarah. Mercy seconds this proposal and Omniscience completes the



plaru Pharaoh is to be plagued in his body nntil he yields up Sarah to Abraham again. The Suprème Being approves of it and heavenly 10 au«ui«u ö PXoC11te God's will at the same tune
messengers are sent off to execute uoas wm, strengthening Abraham by divine gifts and comfort. Then the Heavenly Council dissolves into God's inconceivable Unity.
If MUton is said to have made God talk Uke .t school-mvme, what must be said of HoogvUet? Yet there is a great <Wference. The chief aim of art, to give form to abstract ideas, is ne8lec^.hefr^gM vUet seems afraid to visuaUze the scène in Heaven This Councdi is deliberately meant to be nothing but an intellectual thing. The opening of his description of the Council in Heaven is significant in this respect.
Is 't waar? en vUegt myn geest thans, zonder toom of teugels,
Den aardbol uit het oog; de zon en maan voorby,
Tot in 't geheimvertrek der Opperheerschappy ?
ö Neen: 'k bedrieg me: 'k ben aan het lichaam slaafsch verbonden:
't Gaat echter wel; een geest van boven afgezonden,
Een vlugge Bode van het hemelsch Hofgezin,
Bestiert myn veêr, en blaast myn geest geheimen in. (Is it true? does my spirit now unbridled away from the earth; past sun and moon, up into the secret chamber of toe Suprème Maiesty? O no; I am mistaken; I am bound slavishly to the body. Yet I am getting on better; a spirit from above, a swift messenger from Heaven's Court, directs my pen and inspires my mind with secrets).
This desire to be abstract is also manifest in Hoogvliet's besetting tendency (a tendency which was common among theologians of the time) to make the historical events symbols of Gods plan of redemntion. Ishmael and Isaac represent the Old and New covenant; Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac is a symbol of God the Father sacnficing His Only Son, etc.
The allegories also remain abstract ideas. The pagan army, for instance, which takes Lot prisoner, is invaded by Drunkenness and her boon companion Carelessness. Drunkenness is described as follows:
Een heillooze ondeugt, die, te boos en ongebonden, In schijn van vrolykheit des menschen geest bekruipt, En met den wyn in zyn wellustige aders sluipt,



Het levensvuur verdooft, verzwakt de zenuwkrachten, Verbystert en bedwelmt de zinnen en gedachten; Een schrikdier, dat de hoop vernielt, de deugt Vermoort, En d'eêlste gaven in den schoot der wellust smoort; Gods ordre breekt, natuur verkracht, en d'eedle reden Verdonkert in een' damp van schande en gruwelykheden; Een twistharpy, die 't stil gemoet ontsteekt in toorn, De matigheit haa^ toorn, den overvloet zyn hoorn Ontneemt, de zedigheit en kuischeit vaak verdrukte, En alle banden van de liefde aan flarden rukte; etc. (An impious vice, which, too wicked and dissolute, steals on man's mind under the guise of mirth, and slinks into his wanton veins along with the wine, quenches his vitality, weakens his nerves, bewilders and numbs his senses and thoughts; a monster, which destroys hope murders virtue, and smothers the noblest gifts in the lap of wantonness; breaks God's order, violates nature, and darkens noble reason in a vapour of infamy and atrocities; a mischief-maker, who inflames the meek mind, robs soberness of its stronghold, plenty of its hora, often oppressed modesty and chastity, and tore to pieces aU ties of love, etc.).
Abraham, the hero, has failed to become lifelike. This may be attributed to what might be called the orthodox fallacy. All the deeds of the Bible Saints are noble, unless the contrary is expressly stated. Thus Abraham becomes an unbearable prig, and the ethics propounded are very often rather questionable. This is especially clear in Abraham's attitude to the two abductions of Sarah. The fear of death and the stratagem used to escape it, when Pharaoh or the king of Gerar desired Sarah as their wife, are quite natural, but Abraham's conduct is by no means noble. Yet Hoogvliet does not seem to be aware of the poor morality of his great patriarch, since he makes Abraham complacently defend himself in the following way:
Wy herders zyn zoo woest niet opgevoedt tot liegen, Of zonder Godsdienst; neen. myn Godt, die eeuwigh leeft, En al de waerelt, door zyn maght, geschapen heeft, Is zelf de Waarheit, en zal myn getuigen wezen. Myn Huisvrou Sara was myn Zuster lang voor dezen. Myn Zuster Sara is geworden tot myn Vrou:



Zy is, 6 Vorst, geteelt in 's Vaders tweede trou:
'k Heb niet gelogen: maar der waarheit iets verzwegen,
Uit vrees voor lyfsgevaar: dit sprak geen wet ooit tegen.
(We shepherds have not been brought up to lying or without religion. No. My God, who is eternal, and has created the whole world by his power, is Himself the truth and He shall be my witness. My wife Sarah was long ago my sister. My sister Sarah has become my wife. She was, O Prince, born in my father's second marriage. I have not lied, but only withheld part of the truth for fear of death: no law ever f orbade this).
We notice, a similar thing, when Sarah persuades her husband — not always in a delicate way — to take Hagar as his wife. Abraham points out to her that God instituted monogamy' in Paradise, and that the deviation of the age from this law was contrary to God's intentions. Yet, though Sarah manages to overcome his scruples,care is taken that no human weakness should be attributed to Abraham. Now, either the assumption that Abraham was so much a child of his age that this problem simply did not exist for him, or the admission of a flaw in his conduct or at any rate in his faith, would have made the character lifelike, but such characterisation would not have been accepted by the orthodox readers of his time. This is of importance when we compare this manner with the psychological characterisation of all Milton's dramatis personae.
Hoogvliet does not always seem to be aware that there is only one step from the sublime to the ridiculous. In the eleventh book the author makes Abraham woo a young wife, a detail which he had better have omitted but Which the prevalent formalism compelled him to include. From the very emphasis laid on the old man's sedate love-making, the pasage becomes ridiculous.
i Finally must be mentioned the author's complacent self-esteem. This is clear from an expression which can also be found in many other similar works in some form or other. After the invocation to God in the beginning of the first book the poet thinks it necessary to state that he feels the result:
't Gaat wel, ik voel myn' geest door altaarkolen gloeien. (I am getting on well, I feel my spirit set a-glowing by altar-coals). And this expression occurs again and again in the course of the



work At the end of the poem his complacency comes out most Zmgly The poet reviews the work he has accomphshed, eompar fng üs Lty subject to what Homer, Virgil, and Ovid sang about,
and foreseeing fame in centuries to come.
Sueh was fee work of Hoogvliet, whieh, as we have seen,^ was
preferred by some to Parafdise Lost.
From the foregoing survey of Dutch biblical epics, not excluding J Zt of them, the fundamental difference between feis genre arfd Soïs Paradise Lost is manifest. Milton had written bis great wk from within. What the Bible told him about his subject and hTsgreatstore of knowledge had been digested. so thoroughly that Z outcome was, as a whole and in every detail,sta£iped^rfh ta nersonality. That nothing similar is to be seen m fee Dutch epic wrto was not in fee first place lack of genius. They were, and C f eit feey were, hampered by fee sacredness of their matter. The Uiey leituiey w , *• allowed to decorate
Bible had become an idol to mem, uiey wc , f
it wife ornaments, but were forbidden by its very holmess from makti ü feSr own personal property. The poetic form feey gave Z 2 BiS^stories was deliberately only an outward feing. Any
other V^^^^^^M ti^Lst ^ïS^a^fi^ of classieal mythology
TnS"e popularity of Fenelon'e^U^a^^^ Henriade provides yet £^£^^t**
Mi
'TdSTjTÏÏ • sïch a*appucaüon of myU.ology was higM, ap-
i See p. 161.



j'ai décrit des guerres réelles, et non des batailles chimériques; que je n'ai employé aucune fiction qui ne soit une image sensible de la vérité."1 In the Dutch translations the anti-Protestant parts were toned down and the Dutch people feit attracted to the matter-offact contents. They quite agreed that the 'merveilleux' was the least interesting part of an epic poem. 2 Judged by his Standard the greater and most remarkable part of Paradise Lost was condemned. The Dutch were too level-headed and too realistic to have much feeling for the soaring spirit of Milton. The very qualities we most admire in him, his daring imagination, the personal stamp and original treatment, were so many drawbacks to the appreciation of his work in Holland.
1 Voltaire. Essai sur la poésie épique, conclusion — 3 See the letter from Antonio Cocchi to Rinuccini, prefixed to Feitema's translat ion of the Henriade (p. XV).



CONCLUSION
Milton far from being weleomed in Holland with entesiasm, as mïïZve beTn espected from an apparent sympathy m rebgion ™fpoS, was apprecmted even less ^ The Defensio had a eertain snceess - more than any(other ot MU Ws works; bnt it was a purel, sensaUonal snceess, that .s, it was Séflv due to the commoUon the King's execution made and the te " personaliüea against Salmasius contained in the pamphlet
SST^^ZZLtT^^y some ter c^ua. expected to introducé Milton to the Dutch public, - Nicholas



Heinsius, Franciscus Junius, Vossius, Vondel, Huygens, Bayle, Clericus, Justus van Effen, — various reasons prevented each from doing so. To Nicholas Heinsius he was merely thé annihilator of an uncongenial pedant — in so far Milton was congenial and interesting to him, but no more. Franciscus Junius, though personally acquainted with Milton, was too much absorbed in linguistic studies to interest himself in his poetry. To Vossius, irreligious as he was, the subject of Paradise Lost could hardly be congenial. To Huygens he did not exist; he who had read all other English writers ignored Milton, apparently only because Huygens was a thorough royalist. To Vondel, if he had ever heard of him, Milton was both a regicide and heretic — chiefly a regicide. Bayle did not know English and was not.interested in poetry. Clericus admired Paradise Lost, but he too was little interested in poetry, and besides may have been afraid of Milton as a heretic. At any rate he did nothing to introducé him to Dutch readers. Justus van Effen did justice to Milton; he appreciated him to the full in the surveyof the English literature he gave in the Journal Literaire of 1717, and expressed his appreciation, but he ultimately turned his attention to other kinds of literature. He concentrated his attention upon prose literature and Milton was no doubt the loser. Nor is there any influence perceptible upon the biblical epic poetry which was in vogue in the 18th century, these poems being of purely native origin and developing along lines different from Paradise Lost. Thus in spite of the many opportunities the Dutch had of becoming acquainted with Milton's work, they were late in discovering hun, and even when Paradise Lost was given to them in their own language, its reception was cold. This was at least partly due to the inadequacy of the translations.
In the light of what has been made clear in the foregoing chapters, certain definite causes, political, religious, literary, and linguistic, may be adduced as the reasons why Milton was received with such scant interest in Holland. In the first place the knowledge of English was too rare, especially among the learned classes, for his work to be widely read in the original. Also a certain depreciation of England then prevalent in Holland was prejudicial to Milton. The Dutch were inclined to ask: "Can any good thing come out of Narareth?" Milton's notoriety, again, as the defendér of the English Commonwealth was rather an impediment than a help to his fame as a poet, for no Dutch political party existed that could wholly sympathize with his



political opinions. To the royalists he was a regicide; to those who, wXut being- royalistic were oligarchie, he was a dangerous d^mocÏat N"f conïd his reügions ideas find f avourwith^the Dutch: ÜiTorfeodox section of the Dutch people, which had become formahstic could not feel interest in an indivuaUstic heretic such as mton Even to the unorthodox he was
and Arianism - he had all the heresies. Further ^tch ^tnre was such that Milton in a sense was superfluous ^ Vondel toe Sutch peoSe possessed a poet who was not inferior to MUton in ooeutJSus and who resemblèd him much in the nature of bis suWects Mdes, the orthodox part of the nation was already surH 2d withtiblical epics, and Milton's Paradise Lost sumed against the niks that had been established for this kind of poetry. Lastly, toe bold imaginativeness of Paradise Lost was not in harmony with r the matter-of-fact mind of the people. i .-„«,♦ Qn fpii
In short the seed, so f ar as it can be said to have fallen at all, feil on barrX soü 4; proper sphere did not exist in Holland for the pSoof Milton. ft was either actively £ passively indifferent - and in this case, very evidently, they that were not with him, were against him.
7 The attitude of the Dutch towards, MUton. J^^^lStontt^ as 1812 Willem * ™
Lost. ^^;t(ÏÏÏÏMn* Schepping (1866), which
~ï -oyed«—'populanty
to HoUand than MUton's Paradise Lost ever did.



APPENDIX
In order to give an idea of the extent and character of the Dutch translations of English theological works, a survey — which does not pretend, however, to be complete — is here given of those published in the 17th century. A grouping according to the districts where the books were published, seems convenient, except in the case of Koelman, whose translations will be grouped together.
In the first place three little works must be mentioned, translated by W. Teellinck:1
1 - Gheestelijcke Oeffening, vertaelt uyt 't Engelsch van W. Wathely.
2 - Houwelijckspredicatie uit 't Engelsch van W. Wathely, met een gulden eleynool van twaalf Christelijke plichten.
I have not been able to find anything about this W. Wathely.
3 - Eene dialogue oft t' Samensprekinghe van de staet van een Christen' mensche, vergadert door M. Perkins, uit de geschriften van M. Tindal ende Bradfort, overgheset door W. Teellinck.
(A dialogue about the state of a Christian, collected by M. Perkins, from the writings of M. Tindal and Bradfort, translated by W. Teellinck). The preface to this work dates from 1607.
William Perkins (1558—1602), the famous professor at Cambridge, was a great authority among Puritans. His works continued to be studied throughout the 17th century, when his authority was but little inferior to that of Hooker and Calvin. He was well-known in Holland, too, since Amesius was his pupil and John Robinson, the founder of Congregationalism at Leyden, who republished Perkin's catechism in that city, propagated his works. A Dutch translation of his works was published at Amsterdam in 3 vols. fol. in 1659.a
At Dordrecht was published:
Moses ont-dekt door W. Guild. Eerst door hem in de Engelsche tale beschreven I ende nu in de Nederlandtsche tale overgeset door J. Sand. Tot Dordrecht 1652.
William Guild was a Scottish divine, and Moses Unvailed (1620), his best-
1 W. J. M. Engelberts, op. cit., p. 91. See further p. 76 — 8 Dict. Nat. Biogr., s. v. Perkins (William).



Sresef door J. &. (Uytrecm, 100*. rendered into Dutch several
Ct aUfpX bTÏ ™Ïl,«o«, which taplh» «h». .he, were cc. supposed to be able to read the original.
H. V. S. Tot t/irecW 1654. Certefne comfortable
Daniël »»^^3S2E%5^ M. coUeCd werk.
sermons upon the 124 rsaune^was , . 1635 These were trans-
Were ^^X^t^T^^ S ArJ2d Lieberanus.* I have lnted into Dutch in lo7U Dy a cieigjiuau
SU- able to ascertain^«^^ ^^J£i fi--
oii^rssf^^^^* d°or j- H-(ofman)
^«JZU at Dordr-h,Jj JJ^^J^ age, where ^ listened to many «^jf*,0^ some poetry too. he translated several English rellS101? The seventeenth was
According to himself he PubUshed a^ book weryjea gays that
that mentioned above." In lhe ^^^J^sZ^s had already been 30 years before a tran^0Vl^ presbyterian published at Utrecht. John Owen (1«1^bM» ' "V inent ^ in the English Ld later on independent divine, who played « P"™£ ?n HoUand. He got Commonwealth, seemed to have ^^«^SJTteT^-*-^ and his
rinirvTL^an^lp^^
J Sand occurs among the clergymen of the classis u ^ Sand
ü\e translator was a ig«^,^SE£altan^» Snhpvep, however, came m 1?41 from neerjdiisu». Biographisch Woorden
iranslated more books from the EngUsh tv., okbreViation of J. Sanderusboek). I conclude from this that J. i-ana is a _ s v. d. Aa, op. cit.
ÏDfcftonoiv of National Biography 'j.?. Thomas y ^ Hofman did
— * H. Heppe, op. cit., p. 31 note v_ sermons. To the first bundie good work in publishing several o^^^«oat, J. Owen, T. Cace and



Amsterdam, Leyden and Leeuwarden in the years 1728, 1746, 1749, 1756, 1769, 1872 (reprint of ed. 1779), 1893 (reprint of ed. 1746).
3 - William Cave, Apostolische oudheden, of het leven, de daden, en martelaryen der heylige apostelen, euangelisten en oude vaderen, tot het eynde van de 4e eeuw. Uit het Engelsch vertaald door S. Bor Utrecht, 1698.
4 - id. Kerkelyke Oudheden, of beschrijving van het leven, bedrijf, dood en schriften der voornoemde vaderen, die gebloeyd hebben in de vierde eeuw. Uit het Engelsch door S. Bor Utrecht, 1698.
William Cave (1637—1713), who was chaplain to Charles II. and later on canon of Windsor, wrote many books on the early history of the Church. I have not been able to tracé S. Bor.
At Amsterdam were published:
1 - Een volcomen ontdeckinge van de Roomsche Leere I in saecken van
Conspiratie ende Rebellye I opghesocht uyt bondighe aenmerkinghe: Ghe-
trouwelijck overgheset uyt het Enghelsche Exemplair I ghedruckt tot Londen
by Felix Kyngston int jaer 1605 Alles door F. V.B 1606 Amstel-
redam.
2 - Een verhandeling van de Sonde tegen den H. Geest. In 't Engels beschreven door den Hooghgeleerden William Gouge: Vertaelt door Joannes Lampe, Bedienaer des Woords Gods tot Obdam Amsterdam 1659.
William Gouge was a puritan divine, who even gained the name of 'archpuritan', but in common with most presbyterians he was monarchical in principle and signed Burges' Vindication in protest against the king's trial. In an appendix to the book another puritan divine is quoted, viz. John Downame or Downham (d. 1652). All that I have been able to find out about J. Lampe is that he was minister at Obdam from 1652 to 1664, that he came from Princenhage and went to Embden.1
3 - De Arme Twijfelende Christen, genadert tot Christum In 't Engelsch
beschreven door Thomas Hooker, Dienaar des Woorts, in Chetmsford, in Essex. Ende nu vertaalt door H(endrik) H(tddingh) Amsterdam 1660.
Thomas Hooker (1586—1647), a puritan, fled in 1630 to Holland, was for some time at Amsterdam, preached for two years at Delft and afterwards assisted William Ames at Rotterdam. In 1633 he sailed for New-England and was finally minister at Hartford, Connecticut.s Hendrik Hiddigh seems to have lived at Enkhuizen, but calls himself a native of Hasselt.
4 - De Triumpheerende Vorstinne der Hooft-Deugden op Aerden 
Door Mr Matthias Laurence, Prediker fof lpswig. En uyt de Engelsche
Tale in 't Nederduyts vertoont, door Vincentius van Deurn, Bedienaar des\ Goddelijcken Woorts fof Amersfoort t'Amselredam -1664.
I have not been able to find any information about Matthias Laurence, and of the translator I only know that he came in 1660 from Leur to Amersfoort, where he died in 1673. The preface of the book is of some importance, as in it the English theological writers are praised, in connection with which Hoornbeeck's Theologia practica is referred to.
1 M. W. L. van Alphen. Nieuw Kerkelijk Handboek, 1908, p. 134 — 8 The Dicl. Nat. Biogr. mentions an edition of 1684 of The poor doubting Christian drawn to Christ; from the Dutch translation it appears that there must haye been an earlier edition.
14*



5 - several tracts about the Quakers: bttweesen ende geeygent door
7aLJ*~. ***** '°r™ h~™ fz"6^.^, l: £„" tt££ï?r^-£Z£'~-> o— 
J. Penningten. r p
„ - i.wende tof '» "«» J^^^.taL. WW». '»
jir/^rr-j™^ ssTi »»~ —» -
sjüï.sï'ïï " -Ss-*- -™-had
Ï^Vr^no^f- =? - --ne ï. ,0 so. As as 1632 we find: ew/c beschreven door leremijas Dyke 
den. Leeuwarden by Dirck Alberts....- 1«* q{ the above
Jer. Dyke (d 1620) ^^^2^5-* . good deal of attention mentioned Daniël Dyke. He seems to °a . of one of his works (cf.
in Holland, for I have seen some thr"a great admirer of English Omius and Arnoldus below . Tobias Tegnenu^was g preferring his
religious writings and praised the Englisht Bime ^ He tells us how he Dutch translation of the Englishi*™^1*^ de Mareez Daniels, a got to know the Enghsh l^age. A certam^Jo ^ ^ ^ E
distinguishedmerchantui' A™sterdam M ^ deceaseQ brother s
sermons and had allowed him to makea ree theological works. This
library, which ^^.^^Z-Zl waf a member of the distinguished Johannes de Mareez Dame Is («««-"V»fl^_iG22) had studied theology at de Marez family. His brother ^ (1599 ^ ^ Amfcorum is the result. Leyden and had travelled all over Europe An£ o Geneva> ^ protestant "He visited Heidelberg, Strassburg, Basel Z« In ^ these places
part of France, England (London Oxford'^c^^born ^ee^rAen he met the most famous theologians^Tobias Tegn Q at Warns and
studied at Franeker Universüy and^\^°^BremenS He beCame minister Schart in 1617, having been be ore Jme » SUccessively He
af Sneek (1618), I*-7S^1^m,5.tE0wledge of English to good acdied in 1668. He seems to have turneu
count, for in 1634 he punnsucu.
~ "* 71. i 1R98. t,. 77) we find Jan, a son o= -
1^%^»^^ S^eXnXby T^eius.



Oor-Kussen Der Wereldsche Menschen; Ende Rust-Peuluwe Der Kinderen Godes: Dat is; een Tractaat Vande Vleeschelijcke ende Geestelijcke Sorgeloosheyd. In 't Engelsch beschreven door Jan Downaam....... Vertaelt door Tobias
Tegnejus Leeuwarden I By Claude Fonteyne 1634.
In the preface the translator promises the publication of another sermon of the same author, whose name we have met before.
The next book was published by van Haringhouck:
Christi Strijdt ende Overwinning Thomas Thaylor Prediker des
Godilycken Woordts tot Reeding en namaels tot London Ende nu
Overgeset in de Nederlantsche Spraecke, Door Petrus Theodori Predikant op 't Nieu-Landt. Tot Bolswart. Voor Samuel van Haringhouck, 1650.
Samuel van Haringhouck (d. soon after 1671) 1 was an energetic publisher. He must have settled at Bolsward about 1639. According to tradition he was an Englishman by birth, but in one of his books he calls Holland his "faitherland", and at any rate, he learned to write perfect Dutch and even wrote poetry in that language. As we shall see, he published a great many English sermons, part of which he translated himself, others being translated by neighbouring clergymen. In view of the rapid succession of new publications, these sermons seems to have been in considerable demand with Dutch readers.
Thomas Taylor has already been mentioned above: J. Sanderus translated one of his books. He too, was a puritan divine (1576—1633); his admirers said he stood "as a brazen wall against popery." He was a copious writer, who seemed to have enjoyed a good deal of popularity. Among the many works mentioned under his name in the Dict. Nat. Biogr., the English original of the above mentioned book does not occur. Petrus Theodori came as a 'candidate' (i.e. B. D.) to the village of Nieuwland and remained there till his death in 1650.9
The next publication by Haringbrouck was:
Christi Overwinninge over de Draeck Zijnde het laetste werck in
't Engelsch beschreven van den hoogverlichten Thomas Thaylor Predikant
tot Londen. Vertaelt en gedruckt tot Bolswart, by Samuel van Haringhouck 
1656.
This was the first book translated by Van Haringhouck himself. The original had appeared in London in 1633 under the title: Christ's Victorie over the Dragon, or Satan's Downfall.
In 1659 there appeared from Van Haringhouck's press:
Konst van Goddelike Vernoeginge, in 't Engelsch beschreven door Thomas Watson, M.A. Lid van Emanuels Genootschap te Kambridg en Predikant van Stephens Walbroak te Londen: vertaalt door Theodorus Paludanus, Dienaar des Woords tot Pingjum en Surig 1659.
Thomas Watson (d. 1686), a presbyterian divine, strongly objected to Charles I.'s trial and execution and was imprisoned for some months for his share in Love's plot to recall Charles II. He enjoyed great fame and
1 M. E. van der Meulen. Samuel Haringhouk, een man van beteekenis in Bolsward in de 17e eeuw, De Vrije Fries, XIX, 1900 — a M. W. L." van Alphen, op. cit. 1911.
14



„„til the Restoration, when he was ejected for non-
and seems to have been rafter JJ^^ ^«cT in England, translation was ^ pubhshed six y™*J^ in England.
points to an intimate Knowieugc u r afterwards he was
Theodorus Paludanus' first benefice was Gaas ^^ifmiX) ^ died minister at Pingjum (1658), Harlingen (1668), Leeuwarden tio/o;.
^udanus contributed again to the following publication at Van Haring-
PUblish these sermons «t the ne8mn»,go I the DoMh 8 varl0„s
SLZJZZ ^Lr^r-^ennn. CorneUn, Bnr8;s
* The full list is:
ï. Corn. Burges, Predikant tot Londen
I' r^r,« H«rle. Dienaer Christi te Winwik i? Lankashire.
4 Edmund Stavnton, Bedienaer des vooras xe ^- Dedham in Esscx.
5 Math. Newcomen, Bedienear des H; by Londen.
6 Thomas Hodges, Rector der Kerketot JenMnpon, ny
i ^^^•'^^^^'^in Hertfordshire-
9. William GreenhU. Dienaer des Woords tot Hanwel Oxon.
Ü: «SS SSS ft-J è°« KS'van Leenarts Fos-
12. Jacob Nalton, Bedienaar des üvangenums terlane, Londen. Vof. U:
1. Edmund Calamy.
2. ib.
3. Jerem. Whittaker.
tl Thomas Tempte, D D. en DienaerjJSS HoS^ ?! ÜSSS wÏÏsoï» « Londen'
t Sg^Swftfe der Godgeleerden.
8; gSf c^er^ tot Groot BiUing in Northam"
tonshire. 12. Edw. Reynolds.
r'cS^d^^t^HSórn Farrant in Southamton.



(1589?—1665), one of 'the ministers that were ejected at the Restoration, but who, in the conflict with Charles I., had headed the fifty-six ministers who strongly protested against the proceedings against the king and drew up the Vindication of the Ministers of the Gospel in and about London (1649), which these fifty-six clergymen signed. Then there are Edmund Calamy (1600—1666) and Matthew Newcomen (1610?—1669), two of the authors of the wellknown pamphlet against Episcopacy entitled Smectymnuus. Calamy was assiduous later on in promoting the King's return and at the restoration he became one of Charles II.'s chaplains, but in 1662 was ejected for nonconformity. Matthew Newcomen refused the office of chaplain to Charles II. and was pastor of the English church at Leyden from 1662 to his death. Prof. Hoornbeeck and many others of the University appreciated his abilities. Further we have James Nalton (1600—1662), "the weeping prophet", who, on getting involved in Love's plot in 1651, was for a short time one of the ministers of the English church at Rotterdam. There is a serraon by Samuel Rutherfurd, the Scottish divine whom we have mentioned before. In 1648 and 1651 he declined successive invitations to theological chairs at Harderwijk and Utrecht. Then we find the name of that "staunch puritan and parliamentarian" Robert Harris (1581—1658) and of an independent divine William Strong (d. 1654) and of Joseph Caryl (1602—1673), a learned Nonconformist clergyman, who attended Charles I. in Holmby House and whose sermon hl honour of the reduction of Chester is given.
Besides Paludanus and Haringhouck himself, two other clergymen helped in translating these sermons: Nollius Hajonides and Regnerus Reen. Hajonides (1634—1671) studied at the Franeker University and was for some time headmaster of the Latin school at Bolsward, from which time his connection with Haringhouck may date. In 1658 he became minister at Berlikum and in
3. Edmund Calamy.
4. Obadiah Sedgwicke Goggeshal, Essex.
5. Daniël Evance Clement Danes te Londen.
6. Robert Wilde Northampton.
7. Thomas Manton Stoke-Newington.
8. William Jenkyn.
9. Joseph Caryl, Dienear des Woords te Magnus bi Londens Brugge.
10. Johan White Dorchester.
11. Anth. Burges Sutton-Cofield in Warwikshire.
12. John Whincop Clothal Hartford.
Vol. IV:
1. Thomas Carter Dynton in Buckingamshire.
2. Samuel Gibson Burleig in Rutland.
3. Peter Smith Barkway.
4. Samuel Rutherfurd St Andrews.
5. Cornelius Burges. 0. Richard Heyricke.
7. William Carter.
8. T.A.
9. Nicolas Proffet Edminton.
10. Mattheus Newcomen Dedham, Essex.
11. William Sedgwicke Farnham, Essex.
12. Edmund Calamy. p



,664 h. w«»t to Embde», where he "W^,»? 'È^'rt UeS Vïï-l o,tr.l"™~ ,o.u»e, Hertel ttZSXSSXiZ _ then did „o, „at, the „edot=.
ing . Odrd volume together w«h . repndt.»I■ ' ,„ an—he —
csrr sj-i-^ r'tsï£irits s~
— • ^-r^^rS.^ bTST-S preachms, he in this respect. How eirecuve mu how ^
exclaims. But they have preached toto! ears. »\ ^ Qf mi Government had these «"^J^'S. printed sermons were still ordered them to be V^TbaM^ J>e in that language (English).» found in the possession of some Mh°*™ s*u&em and had asked Hajonides Haringhouck had already ^^J^Zib ofhtr work himsel!.
to translate twelve ^JJ^^^^^,^ (1661) the use Of Paludanus discusses in the Prelace OI fl=_ own COUntry. He admits publishing sermons that were ^^^f^^u to do with the con{fae reasonableness of remarks hke:What have >. * ^ ^
temptible ruins of that d^** J^6' nd government were discussed to iustify his proceedings, if ***** *f™ ^ God, these sermons were 5 rngBrr i^1^^^ — 2 need - Patent*
"Sghouck —^h^
of penitential sermons, which appeared m lbb« ^.^ apparently
he announced in^the, preface * J^**^^»»», the greater part
x^^^^t^ *• Dutch ciergyman-
x In the Nieuw Biographisch W^ftnVSi^
stated that Reen "wrote De K^9^^ ^ons were published under Communion-sermons from the English. inese the title of De Koning aan zijn tafel.



Hofprediker van Karei de Twede, Koning van groot Brittangjen & c. Vertaeld en Gedruckt Tot Bolswardt. By Samuel van Haringhouck 1660.
It is dedicated to Horatius Knijf, burgomaster of Bolswart, who is praised for his knowledge of foreign languages, especially English. Haringhouck relates how Eduard Reynolds, having preached these cermons partly before the House of Commons, partly before his own congregation, was prevented from preaching by ill-health and then printed them. Up till now "very few Dutchmen" could profit by this treasure trove, hence this translation, whereas "the industrious pastor Regnerus Reen" has supplied a register and survey of the contents. He further promises the publication of three other tracts of the same author. When the civil war broke out in England, Reynolds came into prominence as a moderate Anglican, who was ready to accept an accomodation. He was slow in taking the covenant and conformed at the Restoration, later on becoming bishop of Norwich. As to Horatius Knüf I have not been able to find any more information about him.
In 1662 there appeared, undoubtedly by the hand of Haringhouck, though not at his printing-office a translation of a sermon by Johan Freeman:
Predikatie sonder text, gepredikt in d"lnner Tempel binnen Londen, deur Johan Freeman, Bedienaer des Godelijken Woords. Vertaeld door S.H. Tot Sneek 1662.
In the same year Haringhouck himself printed the series of funeral sermons he had promised to publish:
Ruyter op het Fael Paerd. ofte doen en bedrijf van den koning der verT schrickingen. In dertig uytgeleesene Lijckpredikatien over wei-gepaste texten, deur verscheydene vermaerde Godgeleerden op sonderlinge lyden en plaetsen
in de Engelse tael voorgesteld Vertaeld tot Bolsward by Samuel van
Haringhouck 1662.
Thirty sermons are given.1 How well up Haringhouck was in this kind of
4 the full list is: „ _ _ T „ . „
L Lijkpredicatie over het afsterven van den Eerwaerden Leeraar 1. carter 
deur Joan Coüings.
2 over den dood van Mr Joan Frost. Deur £.. C.
3 William Fenner. ' , ...
4 over den dood van Robert Bolton deur Nicolaus Estwicfc.
5| , by begravenis Heer Ant. Cope deur Mr Robert Harris.
6 Robbert Harris. I „ „. ,
7 begravenis ......Ridder William Strode deur Gasper Hickes.
8! ""..begraevenis van Mevrouw Strode deur John Barlouw.
9 John Barlow.
11 1 begraevenis Heer Thomas Krew, Ridder; Deur Rich. Sibs.
12! ...... begraevenis van Doet. HUI, deur Anthoni Tuckney.
13 door ib.
14 William ConviU.
16*. Legraevenis Mary, Huyvrouw van Joseph Jackson deur Francis
Roberts.
17. Uyt het Engelsch Klaeghuys.
18. door N. N. „ _
19 begraevenis van M. Johan Moulson deur 5>. 1.



literature is shown by the very tirst, which was delivered by John Coüings on the 14th of December 1655 in memory of John Carter. John Carter, an ardent presbyterian, is specially mentioned in the D. N. B. for his "fanatical denunciation of monarchy". Then we find Zachafy Crofton's Funeral Sermon in memory of John Pym, the great English politican who prepared the way for the Commonwealth.
In 1671 Haringhouck fulfilled his promise to publish a series of Communion sermons, for the greater part translated by Regnerus Reen, the rest by Haringhouck himself:
Koning aen syn Taefel, ofte XXXIII Avondmaels Predicatien: deur verscheydene Godgeleerde in de Engelse Taele beschreven; en meerendeel vertaeld deur Regnerus Reen, Bedienaer des Godlijken Woords tot Franeker. Tot Bolsward, by Samuel Haringhouck 1671.
The sermons are by John Denison (d. 1629), John Randall (d. 1622) and John Preston (d. 1628), they are therefore rather old. In the preface the printer announces a translation of Simon Omius' Theologia Practica, the first volume was to appear within a few weeks, whereas the rest lay ready to be printed. I have not been able to tracé this work. Did death prevent him from fulfilling his plan?1 .„L_ , „
The popularity of English sermons is also shown by pubhcations at other orinting offices. In 1657 a sermon by R. Maden was published at Franeker:
De Liefde Jesu Christi Tegens Hierusalem, Gebleeken uyt syn Bittere traenen ende beweeghlijcke woorden. Getrokken uyt een Engelsch tractaat van R. Maden, en in 't Latijn gestelt door J. N. ende nu in onse Nederlandsche taele uyt-. ghegeeven. Door Andream Elderkampium, Predicker des Godluekea Woordt in de Gemeynte J. Christi op Lutkein in de Ommelanden Tot Franeker 1657
We see that it had first been translated into Latin by J.N., evidently for the learned classes, who were, therefore, not supposed to be able to read the original. The second translator, Andreas Elderkamp, minister at Lutkegast, afterwards went to the Dutch East Indies. Richard Maden was pastor ot *he English Church in Amsterdam, who in 1666 got into trouble with the local government for having publicly prayed for the re.tor.tion o London after the great 'fire, for which offence he was suspended from his office and he would
20 begraevenis Thomas Bewley (Rewley?), deur Samuel Clarke.
222: ^ ÏZÏÏ^tÏÏÏÏSZ** deur Thomas Watson.
23begraevenis Mr William Spustouw ... Simeon Ashe. 24begraevenis Mr Rich. Vines deur Thomas Jacombe.
25. Uyt het Engelsch Klaeghuys.
26. begraevenis T. Gotakar...... deur Simeon Ashe
& SaSs gobt^^
mmmwMÊm
door S. O., Amst. 1660.



perhaps have fared worse, if "it had not appeared, that he was accustomed also to call in the blessing of Heaven for the navy and the weapons of the State." 1
Further we find in 1655 another book by Jeremias Dyke translated into Dutch:
Een waerdigh Communicant, zynde Een uytnemend tractaat van 't waerdigh ontfangen des heyligen Avondtmaels. In 't Engels beschreven door Jeremias Dyke Ende vertaelt door Nicolaus Arnoldus, Ss. Th, D. ende Prof. inde Illustre School tot Franeker Tol Franeker 1655.
The original work was published under the title of The worthy Communicant, or a Treatise showing the due order of Receiving the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper in 1642. Nicolaus Arnoldus, after extoüing the excellence of the English author, tells us that he translated the book in the beginning of his pastorate at Beetgum. Arnoldus stayed at Beetgum from 1646 to 1651, so here again we have a proof how intimate the connection was between the two countries in religious matters. N. Arnoldus, bom in Poland (1618), was undoubtedly drawn to Franeker (1641) by the fame of his countryman Maccovius, professor in the University there. He also visited the universities of Groningen, Leyden and Utrecht. W. B. S. Boelens states that, though it was possible to learn French at Franeker itself, he crossed the Channel to master the English language (1644) and for that purpose stayed for seven months in London.a An excursion on foot to Cambridge was futile, as the colleges were closed on account of the civil broils. After having been minister at Beetgum he became a professor at Franeker. During thirty years he worked there, having great influence on the many Frisians, Dutchmen, Germans, Polanders and Hungarians who were formed in Arnoldus' school. Of his numerous works we need only mention a refutation of J. Bidellus, anglus, and a discussion of Quakerism, as showing his interest in English religious life.
A translation of a purely scientific religious work was published in 1690 at Leeuwarden:
Aanteekeningen over de vijf Boeken Mosis, Psalmen en Hoogelied door
Henricus Ainsworth, Ende nu uit 't Engelsch vertaalt door Sibrandus Vomelius, Dienaar Jesu Christi tot Bolsward Leeuwarden 1690.
Sibrandus Vomelius was pastor at Buitenpost, Wirdum (1668), Hindelopen (1674) and Bolsward (1681) and died in 1694. In the preface of the above mentioned book he praises the excellence of the English theologians and wonders how it is possible that Ainsworth's learned commentary should not have been translated into Dutch before. Henry Ainsworth (1560—1623) is an interesting figure in the history of the Brownists. He was driven from his native country by the state proscription of the sectaries before the year 1593 and lived for some time in straitened circumstances in Amsterdam. When the Brownists erected a church in that place, Francis Johnson was chosen
1 J Wagenaar. Amsterdam in zijne opkomst, aanwas, geschiedenis etc, Amsterdam, 1760, I, p. 609. wj t~> o n i p ,
cf. Dict. Nat. Biogr., s. v. Matthew Newcomen — a W. B. S. Boelens. Frtesland's Hoogeschool en het Rijks Athenaum te Franeker, 3 vols., Leeuwarden, 1878—89, II, 1, p. 203.



for their pastor, and Henry Ainsworth for their doctor or teacher. Ainsworth, too, got involved in the strife attending the ensuing separations and controversies at Amsterdam and Leyden. But at the same tune he steadfastly pursued his rabbinical studies. Hence it was thought that there were two Henry Ainsworths - one Dr Henry Ainsworth, a learned bmhcal commentator fhe oTher H. Ainsworth, an arch-heretic and "the ringleader of the SeparatasU at Amsterdam". Hoornbeeck made kindred mistakes in his Summa Controfers"S. The result of his rabbinical studies he pubUshed in his Notes on Geneïïs Ü616); Exodus (1617); Leviticus (1618); Numbers (16 9); DeuterononaV 16 9); Psalms (1612, 2nd edition 1617); Song of Solomon (1623). These we coUected in folio in 1627 and again in 1639, and later m various forms. ^ÏTertl-l the Annotations have taken a commanding place, especiaUy among Continental scholars.1
Lastly we must mention the translation by Koelman.»
1 <J#ri/d tusschen Vleesch en Geest van Mr Love.
Tai! ZTZt^ translated, when stUl a student at Utrecht about the vear 1656 Mr Love is no doubt the zealous Presbyterian who was executed ?Ïö51 on account of the so-caUed Love's plot against the Commonwealth in iïïflf^lSS» Charles. He was the author of sermons and some pieces op practical divinity, which gained him a considerable reputation. » V Des Christens Groot Interest, ofte Het Zalige Deel aan Christus, Getoetst enaangewesen wie het heeft, en hoe het te verkrijgen Be^Zt Z 't Enaelsch Door Willem Guthy, Dienaar des Evangehums weleer, in Schot-
ÏVd HUr %n hij gevoegt drg Aanhangsels AUes vertaalt, en samen-
afbracht. Door Jacobus Koelman: „n»s„„ „f
" Koelman translated this work in 1668 and there "^^g^ the vear 1745. The various appendices are very mteresting. In the first place t, Lt XXXII 'examples' of conversions, narrated by the persons themselves,
for his The Ln"s"^.}1". 17im 4 m a second address to the reader of T'SlBrieeep van «r Samuel BM.rfert, I, toe, Profmor «. r«<»*°«' p!C58Ïff. — 4 H- Heppe, op. cit., p. 38.



aan de Academie en Kerk van St Andrews in Scotland. In het Nederlandsch
vertaald door Jacobus Koelman 
These are the famous Letters of Rutherford, who wrote these letters chiefly when in prison in Aberdeen from 1636 to 1638. The first part of the book was translated by Koelman in 1673, the second in 1679 and the third in 1687.
4 - De wekker der Leeraren in tijden van "Verval Voorgesteld in een
brief, eerst in 't Engelsch beschreven, door een ijveraar Gods, en vertaald door Jacobus Koelman 
This book was translated in 1674. Koelman says in the preface that he got a copy of the book from a pious lady in Utrecht, but that he could not discover of the author in spite of many inquiries. The preface of the third edition (1733) states that it is by "Mr Robert Macwair, formerly preacher at Glasgow", but this can hardly be true, as in that case Macward's intimate friend Koelman would have known it.
5 - Christus de Weg; de Waarheid, en het Leven In het Engelsch beschreven door Mr Johannes Brown En vertaald door Jacobus Koelman.
Koelman translated this book in 1676, and, as has already been stated, before it was published in English. The 7th edition appeared in the year 1741, when it was published together with several sermons by Brown, also translated by Koelman.
6 - Ettelijke gronden van de Christelijke Religie door Mr Hugo Binning,
in zijn leven dienaar des Evangelies te Goven in Schotland. Vertaald door
Jacobus Koelman.
Koelman translated this book in 1678 and added a long-winded life of the Scottish clergyman. He tells how he had got this information through the intermediary of a Scottish friend from Macward, who just then was in hiding, being banished from the Netherlands.
7 - De Waare Ziels-Vernedering, en Heilzame Wanhoop. In 't Engelsch beschreven door Mr Thomas Hooker, en in 't Nederduits vertaalt door Jacobus Koelman 
Koelman translated this work of the famous New England Puritan in 1678.
8 - Het binnenste van Gods Koninkrijk vertoont in twee tractaten In
't Engelsch beschreven door Franciscus Rous. Vertaald door Jacobus Koelman. Amsterdam. 1678.
Franciscus Rouse was for a time one of CromweU's councillors, and also made a name as a translator of the Psalms.
9 - De Sleutel of Verklaring van 't Hooglied Salomons. Beschreven door Mr Jac Durham Vertaalt door Jacobus Koelman 
Koelman praised Durham in his Life and Death of Mr Hugo Binning (see 6) for the way in which he wrote about The Revelation and The Song of Solomon.
10 - Het Euangelium van Matheus, kortelijk verklaart, door David Dikson,
Professor en Predikant weleer in Schotlandt. Vertaalt door Jac. Koelman 
Utrecht 1686. tt '
11 - De ware gemeenschap met God en de geloovigen. Mr H. Binning, lb8».
12 - Artnofaffen over 't N. Testament Beschreven in 't Engelsch door
Samuel Clark. S.F. En in 't Neerlantsch vertaalt door Jac. Koelman 
Amsterdam 1692.



Samuel Clark was one of the ejucted ministers, weU-known as a preacher
aniV tfZn^!fegligdom veertig predikatiën over Hom. V7//:^
door Mr uZomnning; En uit het Engelsch in >t Nederlands vertaalt, door
Jacobus Koelman 
IT iTsuTenTne'lZ^een Verlaten Ziel. In 't Engelsch beschreven doorZepTl\m^l Predikant weleer tot London, en vertaalt door Jacobus
KThTïoök'is undated, and it is not known when Koelman
15 - De arme twijfelende Christen, genadert tot Christus.. In t Engelsch beschreven door Mr Th. Hooker, vertaald door Jacobus Koelman.
This book, too, is undated.
16 - Enkele tractaten van Nic. Bifield, pred. Isleworth f
van de mmelsche
Heerlijkheid door Richard Baxter Utrecht . *™ Raxt^
19 - Een gemeenzame oadmm^d^^^..^^ Koelman's Dr A. F. Krul says that he ^^^J^^^^ undoubtedly Het Verbond der Genaden ^^^^^.J^^uld seem, howtranslated by Koelman, though Its not ^cia£* ^ as Koeiman actually ever, rather improbable tha Koelman » «"^^^ a postscript to the
warned his readers againsi uw . Waarheid en het Leven he
second edition of Brown's CJW.Hu de Weg, de Waarh^ ^ ünsuspiciously
must renaer you " Enslish into Dutch;
books that are nowadays translated from ^Enghsh _ ^
"this
read all the books that are ?°waaa£ place those of Mr Baxter, who,
among which I want to menüonm «^£££%£d« his various errors,
as^n Example and not as the Great Sancüfier.
. ■ „ ,_ T T^T s ib I 618 — 4 Schatkamer
i Neal, op. cit., III, p. 235 - \^}lr^efc\^vers,/Twééde Jaargang, Deel II, ff/fe-SE ffwWSS^Kl *** Leiden, 1882, p. 346.



STELLINGEN
I
Het is onwaarschijnlijk dat Nicholas Grimald de verzorger is geweest van de 2e druk van Tottel's Miscellany, zooals E. Arber beweert. (English Reprints, Tottel's Miscellany, Birmingham, 1870, Introduction, XV; cf. H. J. Byrom, The case for Nicholas Grimald as Editor of 'Tottel's Miscellany', The Modern Language Review XXvTI 2 (April, 1932)).
I2J< ii
Het dateeren van Shakespeare's tooneelstukken door middel van 'internal evidence' heeft zeer weinig praktische waarde.
III
Shakespeare's Othello, 1.3 : 302-306 is blank verse.
Rod. lago. g^o lago. What failt thon Noble heart? Rod. What will I do, think'ft thou? lago. Why go to bed and fleepe.
Rod. I will incontinently drowne my felfe. 306 IV
Shakespeare's Othello, I, 3:36 is een interpolatie. Me/fen. The Ottamttes, Reueren'd, and Gracious, Steering with due courfe toward the He of Rhodes, Haue there inioynted them with an after Fleete, 1. Sen. I, fo I thought: how many, as you gueffe? 36 Mèff. Of thirtie Saile: and now they do re-Item Their backward courfe.
H. SCHERPBIER



V
In Shakespeare's Othello, I. 3:250 is de lezing "Icorne of Fortunes" in Qto. 1. de juiste.
Quarto 1: .... Def. That I did loue the Moore, to liue with tam, My downe right violence, and Icorne of Fortunes, 250 May trumpet to the world:
Folio 1:
Def. That I loue the Moore, to liue with tam,
My downe-right violence, and Itorme of Fortunes, 250
May trumpet to the world.
VI
De teekemug van Jobu Donne en zijn poërie, zooals die gegeven is door Th. Jorissen in zijn Constantijn Huygens Studiën (Arnhem, 1871, I, p. 122 ff.) is eenzijdig en daarom onjuist.
VII
De vereenzelviging van het begrip "maatschappelijk verdrag bij Milton en Knox, Hugo de Groot, Rousseau en Kant door Dr M. Visser (Milton's Proza Werken, Rotterdam, 1911) is onjuist.
VIII
In zijn Milton et le matérialisme chrétien en Angleterre, (Paris, 1928), p. 83, vergeet Prof. Saurat de Bijbel als mogelijke bron.
IX
De methode van redeneeren, die MUton gebruikt bij rijn theorieën over "Falsehood" (De Doctrine Christiana, ^S Pr^eWork^, Bohn's ed., V, p. H5ff.), is in wezen dezelfde als die van Ds K. Fern hout in zijn verdediging van de Krijgslist in De Reformatie. 13 & 20 Maart, 1931.



X
Het is onjuist de nadruk te leggen op Coleridge's huisehjke moeilijkheden by het verklaren van de sombere gedachten in zijn Dejection; an Ode (James Dyke Campbell. The Poetical Works of S. T. Coleridge, London, 1914, Introduction, LXff.). Behalve aan zn'n verslaafdheid aan opium moeten we vooral denken aan zijn philosóphische studiën, die hem, tegelijk met zijn ouder worden, de naïef kinderlijke houding tegenover de natuur deden verliezen.
XI
Het opkomen van "the horned Moon above the eastern bar" in Coleridge's The Rime of the Ancient Mariner (Works, Macmillan, p. 100, r. 209-10) is onmogelijk gezien r. 171-4.
The western wave was all a-flame 171
The day was well nigh done!
Almost upon the westera wave
Rested the broad bright Sun; 174
TUI clomb above the eastern bar 209 The horned Moon, ,
XII
Er is geen wezenlijk verschil tusschen geschiedbeschrijving en historisch drama (roman); beide zijn gebaseerd op feitenkennis èn verbeelding: het verschil is een verschil van accent.
XIII
Van degenen die gepoogd hebben dichterbjke gestalte te geven aan Jeanne d'Arc, is Bernard Shaw het best geslaagd.
XIV
Het is niet raadzaam om met Dr Kruisinga (A Handbook of Present-day English*, II, § 209) te zeggen dat "verbs that express f eelings and physical or mental perceptions" zelden in de "progressive form" worden gebruikt, omdat ze "momentaneous" zijn. Deutschbein's verklaring is beter (Sgstem der neuenglischen Syntax, Cöthen, 1917, p. 84), als hij zegt dat "Verba, die rein perfektiv oder rein imperfektiv sind, in der Regel nicht in der periphrastischen Form erscheinen."



XV
Voor het Hollandsche taalgevoel zijn de woorden 'nauwelijks' en 'zelden' niet negatief, zooals de Engelsche equivalenten 'scarcely', 'hardly', 'barely', en 'seldom'.
XVI
De etymologie van het Engelsche 'veneer' uit G. 'furnier' etc, zooals die gegeven wordt in de N. O. D., is onwaarschijnhjk. 'Veneer' is verwant aan Ned. 'fineer' = 'opgelegd hout' en 'fineeren' = 'fijnmaken', afleiding van 'fijn', onder invloed van 'fineeren' van verouderd Fr. finer, mlat. 'finare' (G. N. W., sub 'fineeren').
XVII
Betrouwbaarder dan rijm en spelling, bewijst het verdringen van M.E. pïpen, pypen door pëpen omstreeks 1400, dat de diphthongeering van de ï en de verhooging van de ê tot I dan hun beslag hebben genomen, terwijl tevens bbjkt dat de diphthongeenng aan de verhooging voorafging. (Vgl. Luick, Untersuchungen zurenghscher Lautgeschichte, Strassburg, 1896, § 181; W. Dibehus, Angha, XXIII, p. 348ff.).
XVIII
Het is zeer gewenscht dat voor het eindexamen Gymnasium een regeling van het schriftelijk en mondeling gedeelte wordt getroffen als geldt voor de Hoogere Burgerscholen, zoodat dus, voor zoover het de moderne talen aangaat, het examen wordt uitgebreid met een mondeling gedeelte en alle Gymnasia dezelfde eindexamen-vertaling krijgen.