Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

Cubito virorum, et capsulis, gratissimos *.

10

better than to wrap up fish; that they should be consigned to the stalls and shelves of fishmongers. He applies the same to his Confuter who defended episcopacy, Apol. Smectymn. §. viii. "Whose best folios are predestined to no better purpose, than to making winding sheets in Lent for pilchards.” T. WARTON. * Christina, queen of Sweden, among other learned men who fed her vanity, had invited Salmasius to her court, where he wrote his Defensio. She had pestered him with Latin letters seven pages long, and told him she would set out for Holland to fetch him, if he did not come. When he arrived, he was often indisposed on account of the coldness of the climate and on these occasions, the queen would herself call on him in a morning; and, locking the door of his apartment, used to light his fire, give him breakfast, and stay with him some hours. This behaviour gave rise to scandalous stories, and our critick's wife grew jealous. It is seemingly a slander, what was first thrown out in the Mercurius Politicus, that Christina, when Salmasius had published his work, dismissed him with contempt, as a parasite and an advocate of tyranny. See also Milton against More, Prose- Works, ii. 317. 329. and Philips, ibid. p. 397. But the case was, to say nothing that Christina loved both to be flattered and to tyrannise, Salmasius had now been long preparing to return to Holland, to fulfil his engagements with the university of Leyden she offered him large rewards and appointments to remain in Sweden, and greatly regretted his departure. And on his death, very shortly afterwards, she wrote his widow a letter in French, full of concern for his loss, and respect for his memory. See his Vita and Epistolæ, by Ant. Clementius, pp. 52, 71. Lugd. Bat. 1656. 4to. Such, however, was Christina's levity, or hypocrisy, or caprice, that it is possible she might have acted inconsistently in some parts of this business. For what I have said, I have quoted a good authority. It appears indeed from some of Vossius's Epistles, that at least she commended the wit and style of Milton's performance: merely perhaps for the idle pleasure of piquing Salmasius. See Burman's Syllog. Epistol. vol. iii. p. 196, 259, 270, 271, 313, 663, 665. Of her majesty's ostentatious or rather accidental attentions to learning, some traits appear in a letter from Cromwell's envoy

[blocks in formation]

"While

at Upsall, 1653. Thurlow's State-Papers, vol. ii. 104. she was more bookishly given, she had it in her thoughts to institute an Order of Parnassus; but shee being of late more addicted to the court than scholars, and having in a pastoral comedie herselfe acted a shepheardesse part called Amaranta: shee in the creation invests with a scarfe," &c. Her learned schemes were sometimes interrupted by an amour with a prime minister, or foreign ambassadour: unless perhaps any of her literary sycophants had the good fortune to possess some other pleasing arts, and knew how to intrigue as well as to write. She showed neither taste nor judgement in rewarding the degrees or kinds of the merit of the authors with which she was surrounded: and she sometimes caressed buffoons of ability, who entertained the court with a burlesque of her most favourite literary characters. It is perhaps hardly possible to read any thing more ridiculous, more unworthy of a scholar, or more disgraceful to learning itself, than Nicholas Heinsius's epistles to Christina. In which, to say nothing of the abject expressions of adulation, he pays the most servile compliments to her royal knowledge, in consulting her majesty on various matters of erudition, in telling her what libraries he had examined, what Greek manuscripts he had collated, what Roman inscriptions he had collected for her inspection, and what conjectural emendations he had made on difficult passages of the classicks. I do not mean to make a general comparison: but Christina's pretensions to learned criticism, and to a decision even in works of profound philosophical science, at least remind us of the affectations of a queen of England, who was deep in the most abstruse mysteries of theology, and who held solemn conferences with Clarke, Waterland, and Hoadly, on the doctrine of the Trinity.

See Notes on the last Epigram, Ad Christinam, &c. Salmasius's Reply was posthumous, and did not appear till after the Restoration; and his Defensio had no second edition. T. WARTON.

There are several editions of Salmasius's Defensio, in folio, quarto, and smaller sizes. There is also an edition of the work in French. TODD.

XI. In MORUM *.

GALLI ex concubitu gravidam te, Pontia, Mori,
Quis benè moratam, morigerámque, neget?

* From Milton's Defensio Secunda, and his Responsio to Morus's Supplement. This distich was occasioned by a report, that Morus had debauched a favourite waiting maid of the wife of Salmasius, Milton's antagonist. See Burman's Syllog. Epist. iii. 307. Milton pretends that he picked it up by accident, and that it was written at Leyden. It appeared first, as I think, in the Mercurius Politicus, a sort of newspaper published at London once a week in two sheets in quarto, and commencing in June 1649, by Marchmont Needham, a virulent but versatile party scribbler, who sometimes libelled the republicans, and sometimes the royalists, with an equal degree of scurrility; and who is called by Wood a great crony of Milton. These papers, in or after the year 1654, perhaps at the instigation of our author, contain many pasquinades on Morus. Bayle, in the article Morus cites a Letter from Tanaquil Faber. Where Faber, so late as 1658, under the words calumniola.and rumusculi, alludes to some of Morus's gallantries: perhaps to this epigram, which served to keep them alive, and was still very popular. Morus laid himself open to Milton's humour, in asserting that he mistook the true spelling of the girl's name, "Bontiam, fateor, aliud apud me manuscriptum habet. Sed prima utrobique litera, quæ sola variat, ejusdem ferè apud vos potestatis est. Alterum ego nomen, ut notius et elegantius, salvo criticorum jure, præposui." Autor. pro se, &c. ut supr. ii. 383. And she is called Bontia in a citation of this Epigram in a letter of Heinsius, dated 1653. Syllog. ut supr. iii. 307. Where says the critick, " Agnoscis in illo Ouweniani acuminis ineptias." He adds, that the Epigram was shown him by Ulac, from the London newspapers, Gazettis Londinensibus, where it was preceded by this unlucky anecdote of our amorous ecclesiastick. And in another, dated 1652, " Gazettæ certè Londinenses fabellam narrant lepidissimam," &c. Ibid. p. 305. Again, in a Letter

from J. Vossius to H. Heinsius, dated 1652. "Mihi sanè Æthiops [Morus] multo rectiùs facturus fuisse videtur, si ex Ovidii tui præcepto à Domina incepisset. Minor quidem voluptas illa fuisset, sed longè majorem inivisset gratiam. Divulgata est passim hæc fabella, etiam in gazettis publicis Londinensibus. Addita etiam Epigrammata." Ib. p. 649. Again, from J. Ulitius at the Hague to N. Heinsius, dated 1652. "Prodiit liber cui tit. Clamor, &c. Angli Morum pro autore habentes, nupero Novorum [News] Schedio cum vehementer perstrinxere, inter alia facinora objicientes adulterium cum Salmasianâ pedissequâ, dame suivante, quam hoc epigrammate notarunt, Galli a concubitu," &c. Ibid. p. 746. See also p. 665. M. Colomies says, that Milton wrote, among other things against Morus, "un sanglant distique Latin dans la gazete de Londres, qui couroit alors toutes les semaines," Bibl. Chois. A La Rochelle, 1682. p. 19. 12mo.

In 1654, Milton published his Defensio Secunda above-mentioned, against Morus, or Alexander More, a Scotchman, a protestant clergyman in Languedoc, an excellent scholar, and a man of intrigue, although an admired preacher. Morus was strongly suspected to have written Regii Sanguinis Clamor ad Cœlum, in 1652, an appendix to Salmasius against the King's murther. But the book was really written by Peter du Moulin the younger, afterwards prebendary of Canterbury, who had transmitted the manuscript to Salmasius, Morus's friend. Morus was only the publisher, except that he wrote a Dedication to Charles the second. Afterwards Salmasius and Morus had an irreconcilable quarrel about the division of sixty copies, which the printer had agreed to give to the one or the other. Burman's Syllog. Epist. iii. 648. Du Moulin actually owns the Regii Sanguinis Clamor, in his Reply to a Person of Honour, &c. Lond. 1675. 4to. p. 10. 45. "I had such a jealousie to see that Traytor [Milton] praised for his language, that I writ against him Clamor," &c. A curious Letter in Thurloe's State-Papers, relating to this business, has been overlooked, from Bourdeaux, the French ambassadour in England, to Morus, dated Aug. 7, 1654. "Sir, at my arrival here, I found Milton's book so publick, that I perceived it was impossible to suppress it. This man [Milton] hath been told, that you were not the author of the book which he refuted; to which he answered, that he was at least assured, that you had

any

caused it to be imprinted: that you had writ the Preface, and, he believes, some of the verses that are in it: and that, that is enough to justify him for setting upon you. He doth also add, he is very angry that he did not know several things which he hath heard since, being far worse, as he than says, he put forth in his book; but he doth reserve them for another, if so be you answer this. I am very sorry for this quarrel which will have a long sequence, as I perceive; for, after you have answered this, you may be sure he will reply with a more bloody one: for your adversary hath met with somebody here, who hath told him strange stories of you." Vol. ii. p. 529. Morus replied in Fides publica, chiefly containing testimonies of his morals and orthodoxy and Milton answered in his Authoris pro se Defensio, published 1655. Morus then published a Supplementum to his Fides publica: and Milton, in a short Responsio, soon closed the controversy. See also a Letter of intelligence from the Hague to Thurloe, dated Jul. 3, 1654. Ibid. p. 394. "They have here two or three copies of Milton against the famous Professour Morus, who doth all he can to suppress the book. Madam de Saumaise [Salmasius's wife] hath a great many letters of Morus, which she hath ordered to be printed to render him so much the more ridiculous. He saith now, that he is not the authour of the Preface [Dedication] to the Clamor: but we know very well to the contrary. One Ulack [the printer of the Clamor] a printer, is reprinting Milton's book, with an apology for himself: but Ulack holds it for an honour to be reckoned on that side of Salmasius and Morus.-Morus doth all he can to persuade him from printing it." Salmasius's wife, said to have been a scold, and called Juno by his brother-criticks, was highly indignant at Morus's familiarity with her femme de chambre, and threatened him with a prosecution, which I believe was carried into execution. See Syllog. ut supr. iii. 324. Perhaps Morus was too inattentive to the mistress. Heinsius relates no very decent history of her whipping one of the young valets of the family, a boy about seventeen; a piece of discipline with which he says she was highly delighted, and which undoubtedly she thought more efficacious when inflicted by herself in person. It appears, that our waiting-maid, whom Heinsius calls Hebe Caledonia, sometimes assisted at these castigations. Burman's Syllog. iii. p. 670. Vossius

« ПредишнаНапред »