And had not Johnson an equal right to avow his sentiments? Do his
enemies claim a privilege to abuse whatever is valuable to Englishmen,
either in church or state? and must the liberty of unlicensed printing
be denied to the friends of the British constitution?
It is unnecessary to pursue the argument through all its artifices,
since, dismantled of ornament and seducing language, the plain truth may
be stated in a narrow compass. Johnson knew that Milton was a
republican: he says, "an acrimonious and surly republican, for which it
is not known that he gave any better reason than, that a popular
government was the most frugal; for the trappings of a monarchy would
set up an ordinary commonwealth." Johnson knew that Milton talked aloud
"of the danger of readmitting kingship in this nation;" and when Milton
adds, "that a commonwealth was commended, or rather enjoined, by our
Saviour himself, to all christians, not without a remarkable
disallowance, and the brand of gentilism upon kingship," Johnson thought
him no better than a wild enthusiast. He knew, as well as Milton, "that
the happiness of a nation must needs be firmest and certainest in a full
and free council of their own electing, where no single person, but
reason only, sways;" but the example of all the republicks, recorded in
the annals of mankind, gave him no room to hope, that reason only would
be heard. He knew, that the republican form of government, having little
or no complication, and no consonance of parts, by a nice mechanism
forming a regular whole, was too simple to be beautiful, even in theory.
In practice it, perhaps, never existed. In its most flourishing state,
at Athens, Rome, and Carthage, it was a constant scene of tumult and
commotion. From the mischiefs of a wild democracy, the progress has ever
been to the dominion of an aristocracy; and the word aristocracy,
fatally includes the boldest and most turbulent citizens, who rise by
their crimes, and call themselves the best men in the state. By
intrigue, by cabal, and faction, a pernicious oligarchy is sure to
succeed, and end, at last, in the tyranny of a single ruler. Tacitus,
the great master of political wisdom, saw, under the mixed authority of
king, nobles, and people, a better form of government than Milton's
boasted republick; and what Tacitus admired in theory, but despaired of
enjoying, Johnson saw established in this country. He knew that it had
been overturned by the rage of frantic men; but he knew that, after the
iron rod of Cromwell's usurpation, the constitution was once more
restored to its first principles. Monarchy was established, and this
country was regenerated. It was regenerated a second time, at the
revolution: the rights of men were then defined, and the blessings of
good order, and civil liberty, have been ever since diffused through the
whole community.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account