Cubito virorum, et capfulis, gratiffimos.

10

the fheets of Salmafius's new book, would be fit for nothing better than to wrap up fifh; that they should be configned to the ftalls and fhelves of fifhmongers. He applies the fame to his Confuter who defended epifcopacy, Apol. Smectymn. §. viii. "Whose best folios are predeftined to no better purpose, than to making winding fheets in Lent for pilchards." T. WARTON.

* Chriftina, queen of Sweden, among other learned men who fed her vanity, had invited Salmafius to her court, where he wrote his Defenfio. She had peftered him with Latin letters feven pages long, and told him she would fet 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 occafions, the queen would herfelf 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 fome hours. This behaviour gave rife to fcandalous stories, and our critick's wife grew jealous. It is feemingly a flander, what was first thrown out in the Mercurius Politicus, that Christina, when Salmafius had published his work, difmiffed him with contempt, as a parafite and an advocate of tyranny. See alfo Milton against More, Profe-works, ii. 317. 329. and Philips, ibid. p. 397. But the cafe was, to fay nothing that Christina loved both to be flattered and to tyrannife, Salmafius had now been long preparing to return to Holland, to fulfil his engagements with the university of Leyden: fhe offered him large rewards and appointments to remain in Sweden, and greatly regretted his departure. And on his death, very shortly afterwards, fhe wrote his widow a letter in French, full of concern for his lofs, and refpect for his memory. See his Vita and Epiftola, by Ant. Clementius, pp. 52, 71. Lugd. Bat. 1656. 4to. Such, however was Chriftina's levity, or hypocrify, or caprice, that it is poffible fhe might have acted inconfiftently in fome parts of this bufinefs. For what I have faid, I have quoted a good authority. It appears indeed from fome of Voffius's Epiftles, that at least she commended the wit and ftyle of Milton's performance: merely perhaps for the idle pleasure of piquing Salmafius. See Burman's Syllog. Epiftol. vol. iii. p. 196, 259, 270, 271, 313, 663, 665. Of her majesty's oftentatious or rather accidental attentions to

learning, fome traits appear in a letter from Cromwell's envoy at Upfall, 1653. Thurlow's State-Papers, vol. ii. 104. "While the was more bookishly given, the had it in her thoughts to institute an Order of Parnaffus; but fhee being of late more addicted to the court than fcholars, and having in a paftoral comedie herfelfe acted a fhepheardeffe part called Amaranta: thee in the creation invefts with a scarfe, &c." Her learned fchemes were fometimes interrupted by an amour with a prime minifter, or foreign ambaffadour unless perhaps any of her literary fycophants had the good fortune to poffefs fome other pleasing arts, and knew how to intrigue as well as to write. She fhowed neither tafte nor judgement in rewarding the degrees or kinds of the merit of the authors with which fhe was furrounded: and the fometimes careffed buffoons of ability, who entertained the court with a burlefque of her most favourite literary characters. It is perhaps hardly poffible to read any thing more ridiculous, more unworthy of a fcholar, or more difgraceful to learning itself, than Nicholas Heinfius's epiftles to Chriftina. In which, to fay nothing of the abject expreffions of adulation, he pays the most fervile compliments to her royal knowledge, in consulting her majesty on various matters of erudition, in telling her what libraries he had examined, what Greek manufcripts he had collated, what Roman infcriptions he had collected for her inspection, and what conjectural emendations he had made on difficult paffages of the clafficks. I do not mean to make a general comparifon : but Chriftina's pretenfions to learned criticifm, and to a decifion even in works of profound philofophical science, at least remind us of the affectations of a queen of England, who was deep in the moft abftrufe myfteries of theology, and who held folemn. conferences with Clarke, Waterland, and Hoadly, on the doctrine of the Trinity.

See Notes on the last Epigram, Ad Chriftinam, &c. Salmafius's Reply was pofthumous, and did not appear till after the Reftoration; and his Defenfio had no fecond edition. T. WARTON.

There are feveral editions of Salmafius's Defenfio, in folio, quarto, and smaller fizes. There is alfo 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 Defenfio Secunda, and his Refponfio to Morus's Supplement. This diftich was occafioned by a report, that Morus had debauched a favourite waiting maid of the wife of Salmafius, Milton's antagonist. See Burman's Syllog. Epift. 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 fort of newfpaper published at London once a week in two fheets in quarto, and commencing in June 1649, by Marchmont Needham, a virulent but verfatile party fcribbler, who fometimes libelled the republicans, and fometimes the royalists, with an equal degree of fcurrility; and who is called by Wood a great crony of Milton. Thefe papers, in or after the year 1654, perhaps at the inftigation of our author, contain many pafquinades on Morus. Bayle, in the article Morus, cites a Letter from Tanaquil Faber. Where Faber, fo late as 1658, under the words calumniola and rumufculi, alludes to fome of Morus's gallantries: perhaps to this epigram, which ferved to keep them alive, and was ftill very popular. Morus laid himself open to Milton's humour, in afferting that he mistook the true fpelling of the girl's name, "Bontiam, fateor, aliud apud me manufcriptum habet. Sed prima utrobique litera, quæ fola variat, ejufdem ferè apud vos poteftatis eft. Alterum ego nomen, ut notius et elegantius, falvo criticorum jure, præpofui." Autor. pro fe, &c. ut fupr. ii. 383. And he is called Bontia in a citation of this Epigram in a letter of N. Heinfius, dated 1653. Syllog. ut fupr. iii. 307. Where fays the critick, "Agnofcis in illo Ouweniani acuminis ineptias." He adds, that the Epigram was shown him by Ulac, from the London newspapers, Gazettis Londinenfibus, where it was preceded by this unlucky anecdote of our amorous ecclefiaftick. And in another, dated 1652, "Gazettæ certè Londinenfes fabel

lam narrant lepidiffimam, &c." Ibid. p. 305. Again, in a Letter from J. Voffius to H. Heinfius, dated 1652. "Mihi fanè Æthiops [Morus] multo rectiùs facturus fuiffe videtur, fi ex Ovidii tui præcepto à Domina incepiffet. Minor quidem voluptas illa fuiffet, fed longè majorem iniviffet gratiam. Divulgata eft paffim hæc fabella, etiam in gazettis publicis Londinenfibus. Addita etiam Epigrammata." Ib. p. 649. Again, from J. Ulitius at the Hague to N. Heinfius, dated 1652. "Prodiit liber cui tit. Clamor, &c. Angli Morum pro autore habentes, nupero Novorum [News] Schedio cum vehementer perftrinxere, inter alia facinora objicientes adulterium cum Salmafianâ pediffequâ, dame fuivante, quam hoc epigrammate notarunt, Galli a concubitu, &c." Ibid. p. 746. See also p. 665. M. Colomies fays, that Milton wrote, among other things against Morus, "un fanglant distique Latin dans la gazete de Londres, qui couroit alors toutes les femaines," Bibl. Chois. A La Rochelle, 1682. p. 19. 12mo.

In 1654, Milton published his Defenfio Secunda above-mentioned, against Morus, or Alexander More, a Scotchman, a proteftant clergyman in Languedoc, an excellent fcholar, and a man of intrigue, although an admired preacher. Morus was ftrongly fufpected to have written Regi Sanguinis Clamor ad Cælum, int 1652, an appendix to Salmafius againft the King's murther. But the book was really written by Peter du Moulin the younger, afterwards prebendary of Canterbury, who had tranfmitted the manuscript to Salmafius, Morus's friend. Morus was only the publisher, except that he wrote a Dedication to Charles the fecond. Afterwards Salmafius and Morus had an irreconcileable quarrel about the divifion of fixty copies, which the printer had agreed to give to the one or the other. Burman's Syllog, Epift. Regi Sanguinis Clamor,

iii. 648. Du Moulin actually owns the in his Reply to a Perfon of Honour, &c. Lond. 1675. 4to. p. 10. 45." I had fuch a jealoufie to fee that Traytor [Milton] praised for his language, that I writ againft him Clamor, &c." A curious Letter in Thurloe's State-Papers, relating to this bufinefs, 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 fo publick, that I perceived it was impoffible to fupprefs' it. This man [Milton] hath been told, that you were not the author of the book which he refuted; to which he anfwered, that he was at leaft affured, that you had.

caufed it to be imprinted: that you had writ the Preface, and, he believes, fome of the verses that are in it: and that, that is enough to justify him for fetting upon you. He doth alfo add, he is very angry that he did not know feveral things which he hath heard fince, being far worfe, as he fays, than any he put forth in his book; but he doth reserve them for another, if so be you aufwer this. I am very forry for this quarrel which will have a long fequence, as I perceive; for, after you have answered this, you may be fure he will reply with a more bloody one: for your adverfary hath met with fomebody here, who hath told him. strange stories of you." Vol. ii. p. 529. Morus replied in Fides publica, chiefly containing teftimonies of his morals and orthodoxy: and Milton answered in his Authoris pro fe Defenfio, publifhed 1655. Morus then published a Supplementum to his Fides. publica: and Milton, in a fhort Refponfio, foon closed the controverfy. See alfo 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 Profeffour Morus, who doth all he can to fupprefs the book. Madam de Saumaife [Salmafius's wife] hath a great many letters of Morus, which the hath ordered to be printed to render him fo much the more ridiculous. He faith now, that he is not the authour of the Preface [Dedication] to the Clumor: 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 fide of Salmafius and Morus.-Morus doth all he can to perfuade him from printing it." Salmafius's wife, faid 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 profecution, which I believe was carried into execution. See Syllog. ut fupr. iii. 324. Perhaps Morus was too inattentive to the miftrefs. Heinfius relates no very decent history of her whipping one of the young valets of the family, a boy about seventeen; a piece of difcipline with which he fays the was highly delighted, and which undoubtedly she thought more efficacious when inflicted by herself in perfon. It appears, that our waiting maid, whom Heinus calls Hebe Caledonia, fometimes affifted at thefe caftigations. Burman's Syllog. iii. p. 670. Voffius