‘Lawless Riot and Intestine Division’:

Judges 19-21 and Civil War in England and North America, 1628-1786.


David M. Gunn

Texas Christian University


‘They had no King: as well the fools as wise

Did all what did seem right in their own Eyes’

– Robert Gomersall, ‘The Levite’s Revenge’


Writing for the benefit of youth in Great Britain, in the mid-1780s, Mrs Trimmer (1741-1810; née Sarah Kirby) drew from the stories in Judges 17-21 of Micah and the Levite’s ‘wife’ (traditionally ‘concubine’) a lesson about the benefits of sound and stable government. ‘From these two events’, she advised, ‘we may discover, that there was at that time great confusion in the land of Israel; and that the excellent form of government which had been ordained by Moses, at the command of God, was corrupted and disregarded’. The stories showed ‘what a variety of ill effects were produced in Israel for want of a regular settled government; as it is repeatedly said, that they happened when there was no king in Israel, and every man did that which was right in his own eyes’. She recounted how the Israelites had broken their covenant with God and how God in turn had left them to fend for themselves without any governor at all, so as ‘to feel the sad effects of their presumption and self-dependance’. A clear lesson was to be drawn:

How thankful should those be who live in a kingdom blessed with laws calculated to defend the weak, protect the innocent, and punish injustice and violence; who have a good king, and magistrates of various ranks to put them in execution! Never should people in so happy a case indulge a wish to be at liberty to do everything that may appear right in their own eyes; lest, enticed by faction, impelled by mistaken zeal, or hurried on by tumultuous passions, they should be led to break the command of God, subvert His holy religion, and infringe the peace of that society, of which they are members, for they may assure themselves that they will by such wickedness bring down God's judgments upon themselves.– War with a foreign enemy is a great evil, but lawless riot and intestine division are productive of the greatest misfortunes that can happen to any country, of which may we never be even spectators! (Sacred History, Adapted to the Comprehension of Young Persons, 1786, Vol. II, Section XLVIII)


A century and a half earlier, around 1628, the young English cleric Robert Gomersall (1602-c.1646) had shared this aversion to the prospect of civil war in his ‘poetical meditations’ upon Judges 19 and 20 (‘The Levite’s Revenge: Containing Poetical Meditations upon the 19. and 20. Chapters of Judges’, Poems, 1633).

They had no King: as well the fools as wise

Did all what did seem right in their own Eyes.

And Sodom’s crime seemed right to some: to see

When every man will his own monarch be,

When all subjection is ta’en quite away,

And the same man does govern and obey . . . .

The account of the aftermath of the rape of the concubine (or wife of secondary rank) is edged with irony. Conjuring up the appropriately voiced eloquence which the messenger sent to Judah delivers his missive, Gomersall narrates:

But he that unto princely Judah went,

Carrying the head of the dismembered corse,

With such a voice which sorrow had mad hoarse,

(Lest he should rave too highly) thus begins!

‘Is there an heaven? and can there be such sins?

Stands the earth still? methinks I hardly stand,

Feeling the sea’s inconstancy on land.

After this act, why flows the water more? . . . .’

Whereupon, after many further passionate words, the people of Judah themselves fall into a passion:

He tells them all, what I before have wept;

Now Judah storms, and as a River kept

From its own course by wears and mills, if once

It force a passage, hurries o’er the stones,

Sweeps all along with it, and so alone

Without storms makes an inundation:

Such was the people’s fury. They’re so hot

That they will punish what we credit not,

And be as speedy as severe: . . . .

There follows, however, a counterpoint to the strains of war. There are some elders, it would appear, who urge caution against a rush to judgment:

. . . but some

Who loathed the bloody accents of the drum –

Who thought no mischiefs of that foulness are,

But that they gain excuse, compared with war,

And war with brethren – these, I say, of age

The chief amongst them, do oppose their rage,

Exhort them to a temper. ‘Stay’, says one,

‘And be advised before you be undone.

Whence is this fury? why d’ye make such haste

To do that act which you’ll repent as fast?’

The speaker continues by posing the crucial issue of proportionate response by conjuring up the realities of war – rape, destruction, neglect, insecurity, and death:

Are any glad to fight? or can ought be

Mother of war beside necessity?

Be not mistaken! Brethren, take good heed,

It is not physic frequently to bleed.

He that for petty griefs incision makes

Cannot be cured so often as he aches.

Are then your sisters, daughters, wives too chaste?

Or are you sorry that as yet no waste

Deforms your richer grounds? or does it stir

An anger in you, that the soldier

Mows not your fields? Poor men, do you lament

That still you are as safe as innocent?

We yet have cities proudly situate,

We yet have people: be it not in Fate

That your esteem of both should be so cheap

To wish those carcasses and these on heap.

The voice of restraint continues by confronting – and countering – its critics:

Do I excuse them then to please the time,

And only make an ‘error’ of a crime?

Am I sin’s advocate? Far be ’t from me

To think so ill of war as sodomy!

For ‘sodomy’ I term it: Justice calls

That ‘fact’ which never into action falls

If it hath passed the license of the will:

And their intent reached to that height of ill –

But whose intent? O pardon me, there be

Benjamites spotless of that Infamy.

Shall these be joined in punishment? a sin

You’d war against? O do not then begin

To act a greater, as if you would see

Whether injustice equaled luxury!

The poem ends with a recognition of its whimsy, that words rather than swords might stop the cycle of revenge. With civil war in England but a few short years away, these lines have, in hindsight, a kind of sad prescience:

But are not we true Benjamites in this,

And aggravate what e’er we do amiss

By a new act, as if the second deed

Excused the former, if it did exceed?

Did we not thus, an end were come to war;

Did we not thus, no more should private jar

Molest our peace. Kings might put up their swords,

And every quarrel might conclude in words:

One conference would root out all debate

And they might then most love, who now most hate,

The most sworn foes: for show me, where is he

Would seek revenge without an injury?

A decade or so later and Robert Gomersall’s vision of restraining voices among the Israelites is a vain echo from the past. England has enjoyed its civil war as the Israelites had enjoyed theirs in Judges.

In the aftermath of the war, John Milton (1608-1674), appeals to Judges 19-21 as Gomersall had done prior to it, but in very different vein. In January, 1649, hard on the execution of Charles I, a book appeared purporting to be the king’s personal memoir (arguably ‘ghosted’ by his chaplain, John Gouden) during his last days: Eikon basilike, the pourtraicture of His Sacred Maiestie in his solitudes and sufferings. The immense success of this book in portraying Charles as a royal martyr prompted Parliament both to ban the book and to commission a rebuttal by Milton, justifying the beheading. His painstaking response, Eikonoklastes, appeared within months, though it was never able to match the popularity of its rival. Ten years later, on the eve of the restoration of Charles II, Milton’s own book was burned by the public hangman; Milton was imprisoned and narrowly escaped execution.

Charles charges that Parliament’s undue severity exacerbated the rebellion in Ireland and for that reason deserved a curse such as Jacob called down upon his sons Simeon and Levi (Genesis 49:7) for their slaughter of the men of Shechem in retaliation for the rape of their sister Dinah (Genesis 34). Milton responds that the king seems little concerned for those who had lost fathers, brothers, wives and children through the cruelty of the rebels and that retaliation is not, as the king supposes, ‘unevangelical’. He observes first that the king’s defence of his own prerogatives (‘the Toys and Gewgaws of his Crown, for Copes and Surplices, the Trinkets of his Priests’) has caused the deaths of thousands in England. He then challenges the king’s use of the Shechem story. Parliament’s action does not compare to Simeon and Levi’s destruction of a whole city for the sake of one sister, whose ravishing was ‘not don out of Villany, and recompence offer’d by Marriage’. Nor, for that matter, is it comparable to the heavenly fire upon Sodom summoned by the angels (‘Disciples’) who were denied lodging there. At issue is whether it is right ‘for a Nation by just Warr and execution to slay whole Families of them who so barbarously had slaine whole Families before’.

Milton’s trump card is Judges 19-21:

Did not all Israel doe as much against the Benjamits for one Rape committed by a few, and defended by the whole Tribe? and did they not the same to Jabesh Gilead for not assisting them in that revenge?

To which he adds the caveat that he argues thus, not

that such measure should be meted rigorously to all the Irish, or as remembering that the Parlament ever so Decreed, but to shew that this his Homily hath more of craft and affectation in it, then of sound Doctrin (Eikonoklastes, in Answer To a Book Intitl’d Eikon Basilike, the Portrature of his Sacred Majesty in his Solitudes and Sufferings, 1649, Chapter XII - Upon the Rebellion in Ireland).

Milton is here drawing on established lines of argument by Puritan writers regarding just war and holy war, going back at least to Henry [Johann Heinrich] Bullinger’s influential sermon ‘Of War’. Bullinger (1504-75), whose sermons were required reading for Elizabethan clergy, extends standard Augustinian just war theory to include the duty of the magistrate ‘to make war upon men which are incurable, whom the very judgment of the Lord condemneth and biddeth to kill without pity or mercy’. Bullinger cites the wars of Moses against the Midianites and Joshua against the Amalekites:

Of that sort are the wars . . . with those also which, rejecting all justice and equity, do stubbornly go to persist in their naughtiness. Such were the Benjaminites . . . . Such are at this day those arrogant and seditious rebels which trouble commonweals and kingdoms . . . .’ (Fiftie godlie and learned sermons, diuided into five decades conteyning the chiefe and principall pointes of Christian Religion, 1577).

Within two years of Eikonoklastes, and again writing in response to a defence of Charles I and an attack on Parliament – Salmasius’s Defensio Regia pro Carolo I [A Defence of the Reign of Charles I], funded by Charles II and published anonymously in November, 1649 – Milton returns to this theme and this text. Assailing Charles as wholly accountable for the bloodshed and destruction of families during the civil war he defends both the restraint of the ‘magistrates and people’ against the king’s provocations and their eventual prosecution of the war, civil though it be.

What teachings of law or religion ever instructed men to consider their own ease and the saving of money or blood or life more important than meeting the enemy? Does it matter whether the enemy be foreign or domestic? Either one threatens the state with the same bitter and ruinous destruction. All Israel saw that without much shedding of blood she could not avenge the outrage and murder of the Levite’s wife; did they think that for this reason they must hold their peace, avoid civil war however fierce, or allow the death of a single poor woman to go unpunished? (Pro Populo Anglicano Defensio [A Defence of the People of England], 1651, Chapter V)

That the death of ‘a single poor woman’ should not go unpunished is hard to gainsay. Gomersall turned the crime of Gibeah broadly to ‘sodomy’; Milton focuses sharply on the murder of a wife. Yet place Milton’s argument in Gomersall’s poem, against the voices of those ‘Who loathed the bloody accents of the drum’, and it sounds less compelling. At issue, of course, in the argument, is proportion. At issue in the reading of the biblical text is tone. We might conjecture that Gomersall is reading a text that satirizes prejudice and excess, Milton a text that maps civil behavior. Mrs Trimmer, it would appear, reads like Milton in this respect, but with Mr Gomersall’s unease on the question of disproportion. That disquiet leads her distinctly away from the sharp lines drawn by the Puritan to a very Anglican ‘middle way’:

In the war between the Benjamites and the other tribes, great losses were sustained on both sides; neither party had any reason to hope for the protection and assistance of God, and they were made instruments of punishment to each other.


The war against Benjamin found itself much in vogue again during another civil war that became the American War of Independence (1775-1883). As with Milton, the text’s users, for the most part, read it ‘straight’, at face value, without allowing that its tone might be sardonic. The only question, then, is the that of identity: ‘Who (today) are the Israelites and who the Benjamites?’

In July, 1775, on the fast-day appointed by the Continental Congress, a day set aside for prayers for forgiveness and blessing (and ‘His smiles on American Councils and arms’, as John Adams put it), at the Great Valley Baptist Church in Pennsylvania, the minister, David Jones (1736-1820), preached a sermon urging that war was a legitimate Christian course of action in defense of freedom against tyranny:

We have no choice left to us, but to submit to absolute slavery and despotism, or as free-men to stand in our own defence, and endeavor a noble resistance. Matters are at last brought to this deplorable extremity; – every reasonable method of reconciliation has been tried in vain; – our addresses to our king have been treated with neglect or contempt.

All will not be easy.

To the Most High we can appeal, and submit the event to his pleasure. It is more than probable that we may meet some defeats, and have much blood shed; but even if this should be the case; let us not be discouraged; for so it was with Israel in their first battles with Benjamin,but in the third battle the whole tribe of Benjamin is cut off, save six hundred men. (Defensive War in a just Cause Sinless: A Sermon Preached On the Day of the Continental Fast, Philadelphia, 1775).

Three years later in April, 1778, marking the third anniversary of the start of the war, Jacob Cushing (c.1729-1809), minister of the church at Waltham, Massachusetts, delivered an impassioned sermon at the site of the opening skirmish, near Lexington, Massachusetts. Again the theme is the just war and again the war against the Benjaminites is appealed to as Scriptural warrant. He reflects on the concept of responsibility of the governed to resist tyranny.

If this war be just and necessary on our part, as past all doubt it is, then we are engaged in the work of the Lord, which obliges us (under God mighty in battle) to use our swords as instruments of righteousness, and calls us to the shocking, but necessary, important duty of shedding human blood; not only in defense of our property, life and religion, but in obedience to him who hath said, ‘Cursed be he that keepth back his sword from blood’. (Jeremiah 48:10) (Divine Judgments Upon Tyrants: And Compassion To The Oppressed: A Sermon Preached at Lexington, April 20th, 1778. In commemoration of the Murderous War and Rapine, inhumanely perpetrated, by two brigades of British troops, in that town and neighbourhood, on the Nineteenth of April, 1775, 1778).

A few years later, ‘a Moderate Whig’ – possibly Captain Stephen Case (1746-1794) of the Ulster County (New York) militia – dedicated a treatise to General Washington in which he appealed to the Bible among other authorities to show ‘the approven duty of defensive arms against oppressing rulers’. Not only did the children of Israel under Gideon rightfully avenge themselves against the cruelty of the Midianites, but they were morally justified in waging war against the Benjaminites, since ‘there is a command [Deut 13:12, 15] to punish every city of party, making apostacy unto idolatry’; and

if people are to bring to condign punishment idolatrous apostates, much more ought they to resist all tyrants, seeking to destroy all religion and liberty, for they are twins. Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. As I said before, destroy the one and the other cannot live (Defensive Arms Vindicated and the Lawfulness of the American War Made Manifest, 1783; dated June 17, 1782, but written, according to the text, in 1779).

But the Bible being the Bible, there is, of course, another side to the story. From the other side of the conflict and the Atlantic ocean we hear, in a remarkable tour de force on the biblical passage, from John Fletcher (1729-1785; born Jean Guillaume de la Fléchère in Switzerland to a military family), Vicar of Madeley in Shropshire, England, and a friend of John Wesley who gave him great praise. For Fletcher the issue is clear: the colonists are in the wrong and God is not on their side (The Bible and the Sword: or, The Appointment of the General Fast vindicated: In an Address to the Common People concerning the propriety of repressing obstinate licentiousness with the sword, and of fasting when the sword is drawn for that purpose. London, 1776; dated.Dec. 6).

In his 1776 address, ‘The Bible and the Sword’, Fletcher begins by affirming the value of the royal proclamation that ‘a public fast and humiliation be observed throughout England, upon Friday, December 13, in order to obtain pardon of our sins; and may in the most devout and solemn manner send up our prayers and supplications to the Divine majesty, for averting those heavy judgments, which our manifold sins and provocations have justly deserved; and for imploring his intervention and blessing speedily to deliver our loyal subjects’. The fasts in the colonies had become the subject of much mud-slinging. As the Reverend Samuel Langdon (1723-1797), who later became President of Harvard, put it in a sermon preached to the Massachusetts Bay Colony Congress on May 31, 1775:

If God be for us who can be against us? The enemy has reproached us for calling on his name, and professing our trust in him. They have made a mock of our solemn fasts, and every appearance of serious Christianity in the land. On this account, by way of contempt, they call us saints; and that they themselves may keep at the greatest distance from this character, their mouths are full of horrid blasphemies, cursing, and bitterness, and vent all the rage of malice and barbarity.

(A Government Corrupted by Vice, and Recovered by Righteousness, 1775)


In this context of bitter accusations, Fletcher affirms, against the cynics, that ‘The sovereign acts herein the part of a Christian prince, and of a wise politician’ and urges his audience not to ‘leave the field of national prayer to our revolted colonies’. He offers in support ‘a similar case, in which God testified his approbation of a fast connected with a fight; yea, with a bloody civil war’. He is appealing, of course, to the account of the Israelite’s initial defeat by Benjamin in Judges 20, and to their fasting and offering of sacrifices prior to inquiring of God for the third time, after which they were successful.

He recounts briefly the story of the rape and death of the woman, the summoning of Israel against Gibeah, and Benjamin’s denial of their ‘just request’ to deliver up those responsible. He then draws his analogy.

Certain sons of Belial, belonging to the city of Boston, beset a ship in the night, overpowered the crew, and feloniously destroyed her rich cargo. The government was informed, that this felonious deed had been concerted by some of the principal inhabitants of Boston, and executed by their emissaries; and being justly incensed against the numerous rioters, it requested the unjust city to make up the loss sustained by the owners of the plundered ship, or to deliver up the sons of Belial who had so audaciously broken the laws of the land; and a military force was sent to block up the port of Boston, till the sovereign's just request should be granted. The other colonists, instead of using their interest with the obstinate inhabitants of Boston to make them do this act of loyalty and justice, gathered themselves together unto Boston to go out to battle against the sons of Great-Britain, and by taking up arms against the king to protect felons, made themselves guilty both of felony and high treason.

Returning now to the biblical account he observes that God did not forbid them ‘to bring their obstinate brethren to reason by the force of arms’, but instead, when they went up to the house of God and asked counsel, God replied with directions for the battle. To be sure there were grievous losses at first, ‘But alas! the righteousness of a cause, and the divine approbation, do not always ensure success to those who fight in the cause of virtue’. Then came the weeping and fasting before the Lord and thereupon the Benjaminites were delivered into their hand.

And the few Benjamites that escaped the edge of the vindictive sword, lamented the obstinacy, with which their infatuated tribe had taken up arms for the sons of Belial, who had beset the house, in the inhospitable city of Gibeah. And so will the revolted colonies one day bemoan the perverseness, with which their infatuated leaders have made them fight for the sons of Belial, who beset the ship in the inhospitable harbour of Boston.

He proceeds to sum up the argument drawn from scripture:

To return; From the preceding scriptural account, it evidently appears: (1) That God allows, yea commands the sword to be drawn for the punishment of daring felons, and of the infatuated people who bear arms in their defence . . . . (2) That, in this case, a sister-tribe may conscientiously draw the sword against an obstinate sister-tribe; much more a parent-state against an obstinate colony, and a king against rebellious subjects: (3) That Providence, to try the patience of those who are in the right, may permit that they should suffer great losses: (4) That whilst the maintainers of order and justice draw the sword to check daring licentiousness, it is their duty to go up unto the house of God, and to weep and fast before the Lord: (5) That God makes a difference between the enthusiastical abettors of felonious practices, who fast to smite their brethren and rulers with the fist of wickedness; and the steady governors, who, together with their people, fast to smite the wicked with the sceptre of righteousness . . . . And lastly, that although no war is so dreadful as a civil war, yet when God is consulted three times following, all his answers shew, that the most bloody civil war is preferable to the horrible consequences of daring anarchy; and that it is better to maintain order and execute justice with the loss of thousands of soldiers, than to let the mobbing sons of Belial break into ships or houses, to commit with impunity all the crimes which their lust, rapaciousness, and ferocity prompt them to.

Lust, rapaciousness, and ferocity forge exactly the link Fletcher wants between the outrage at Gibeah and the outrage in the North American colonies. And as usual in the genre, the political sermon, the outrage is what the other side commits.

Mr Fletcher, however, does not leave it at this. Remarkably, having laid the blame for instestine division upon the colonists, he retreats from the sharp dichotomies of good and evil and the claim to God’s side. The sermon turns by degrees to an ostensibly more conciliatory tone, with an appeal to fast not only for ‘ourselves, and those who fight our battles’, but also out of regard ‘to our American brethren’, remembering the injunction of the Lord to ‘love your enemies, and pray for them that despitefully use you’, and bearing in mind also that many of them ‘have been deceived by the plausible and lying speeches of some of their leaders’ or, seized by ‘the epidemical fever of wild patriotism’, are unaware of its dreadful consequences, and ‘already repent of their rashness, earnestly wishing for an opportunity of returning with safety to their former allegiance’. It is as though the naysayer of the Reverend Robert Gomersall’s poem has managed to whisper again, ‘But whose intent? O pardon me, there be / Benjamites spotless of that Infamy. / Shall these be joined in punishment?’

So from approbation of the near extermination of the Benjaminites we are led to intercession, with ‘hearts full of forgiving love, and Christian sympathy’, for their American counterparts. A tour de force indeed!

John Fletcher’s address of 1776 was fashioned in the thick of conflict. The war and the loss of the colonies to Britain (the peace treaty was signed in 1783) took place in the years just prior to Sarah Trimmer’s publication of her Sacred History. She makes no allusion to the struggle and the acrimonious rhetoric it generated (and by which it was generated!). That may not be wondered at, given that subsequent editions of her work carried a dedication, dated Jan. 1, 1788, to the Queen (Charlotte), including the wish: ‘May Your Majesty long continue to bless this land, and soften the cares of Royalty to the best of Sovereigns!’). The sovereign was, of course, George III. Yet it is hard not to read Trimmer’s account of the war against Benjamin without those recent events in mind. She exhorts her readers to be thankful, ‘who live in a kingdom blessed with laws calculated to defend the weak, protect the innocent, and punish injustice and violence; who have a good king, and magistrates of various ranks to put them in execution!’ How curious that she should exclaim, ‘may we never be even spectators!’ of so destructive a misfortune as ‘intestine division’. For she had been just such a spectator. It is as though the war that had begun as ‘intestine’ had in its loss turned into a war against a ‘foreign enemy’. It is as though the American colonies, as Benjamin, had been wholly excised from the British body politic. No survivors.

No need of wives, either. Sarah Trimmer was not interested in facilitating contemporary reflection, for the comprehension of youth, on the stories of the women of Jabesh Gilead and the daughters of Shiloh. They are passed over in decent silence. As she says in her Preface, ‘Great care is required in selecting for [young persons] such parts of the Sacred Writings as are suited to the progressive improvement of youth; and it was my experience of the inconveniences attending an indiscriminate use of the Scriptures, when educating my own children, that first suggested to me the design of [the Sacred History]’. The Bible does have its limits. And so did Mrs Trimmer.



Acknowledgments

This paper is much indebted to Edward McMahon for seeking out many of the sources and to Diane Klein for making them accessible in a database on the reception history of the Book of Judges for a volume being prepared for the Blackwell Bible Commentary series.

Some of the works cited may be found most easily in Ellis Sandoz’s collection of political sermons of the American founding era (Sandoz 1991).

– David Gunn, July 4th, 2002.


Works Cited

Bullinger, Heinrich

1577 Fiftie godlie and learned sermons, diuided into five decades conteyning the chiefe and principall pointes of Christian Religion (London).

Case, Stephen [‘A Moderate Whig’][?]

1783 Defensive Arms Vindicated and the Lawfulness of the American War Made Manifest. (Attribution uncertain; dated June 17, 1782 at New-Marlborough; written, according to the text, in 1779.)

Cushing, Jacob

1778 Divine Judgments Upon Tyrants: And Compassion To The Oppressed: A Sermon Preached at Lexington, April 20th, 1778. In commemoration of the Murderous War and Rapine, inhumanely perpetrated, by two brigades of British troops, in that town and neighbourhood, on the Nineteenth of April, 1775 (Boston),

Fletcher, John

1776 The Bible and the Sword: or, The Appointment of the General Fast vindicated: In an Address to the Common People concerning the propriety of repressing obstinate licentiousness with the sword, and of fasting when the sword is drawn for that purpose (London).

Gomersall, Robert

1633 ‘The Levite’s Revenge: Containing Poetical Meditations upon the 19. and 20. Chapters of Judges’, Poems. (This poem written c.1628.)

Jones, David

1775 Defensive War in a just Cause Sinless: A Sermon Preached On the Day of the Continental Fast (Philadelphia).

Langdon, Samuel

1775 A Government Corrupted by Vice, and Recovered by Righteousness. (May be found in John W. Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution [Boston, 1860]: 233-258.)

Milton, John

1649 Eikonoklastes, in Answer To a Book Intitl’d Eikon Basilike, the Portrature of his Sacred Majesty in his Solitudes and Sufferings (London). (May be found in Don M. Wolfe [gen. ed.], The Complete Prose Works of John Milton, vol. III [Yale University Press: New Haven, 1962].)

1651 Pro Populo Anglicano Defensio, Contra Claudii Anonymi, alias Salmasii Defensionem Regiam (London). (Transl. as A Defence of the people of England, by John Milton: in Answer to Salmasius’s Defence of the King [Amsterdam?, 1692]. May be found in Wolfe [see above], Complete Prose Works of John Milton, vol. IV [1966].)

Salmasius [Claude de Saumaise]

1649 Defensio Regia pro Carolo I ad Serenissimum Magna Britannia Regem Carolum II. Filium natu majorem, Heredum & Successorum legitimum [A Defence of the Reign of Charles I] (Leiden).


Trimmer, Mrs. [Sarah]

1786 Sacred History, Adapted to the Comprehension of Young Persons (6 vols.; London). (Several further editions, including the 6th, in 1810, under the revised title: Sacred History, selected from the Scriptures; with Annotations and Reflections, particularly calculated to facilitate the study of the Holy Scriptures in Schools and Families [London]).


Copyright 2002 © David M. Gunn


Top of PageBack to List of Papers

8/30/2002