LETTER CCCVI. THE LEARNED MR. SELDEN TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF ARMAGH. MY LORD, Ir is true, that Quema populus Cos. &c. ex marmore Romæ, is cited there by Lipsius, et nota 23. in the later editions. To the same purpose Casaubon in Moniment. Ancyran. "Caium XIV. natum annos creatum fuisse consulem ex historia Dionis et vetere lapide qui hoc diserte continet, notum est." But where that inscription is to be found described, non liquet, I have searched as diligently as I can, but in vain. Neither in Smetius, Lipsius his Auctarium, or Gruter, can I find it, no, nor in Boissardus, who puts together all at Rome by their places, not in method of their quality, as the rest do. Sigonius A. ab V. C. DCCLIII. hath Caius and Paulus for Coss. on his Fasti; and Onuphrius, lib. 2. Com. in Fast. the same DCCLIV. neither of them mention this stone. But Onuphrius cites indeed another, C. Cæsar Augusti F. Cos. via omnes Arimini Sterni- -as divers other stones remember him by that dignity. But for that mentioned by Lipsius and Casaubon, I see no sign of of it, after a careful search again through the places also which your lordship mentions, or the Auctarium of Gruter, of Magistrates. Your Lordship's most humble servant, Whitefriars, Aug. 13. 1653. J. SELDEN. a Vide partem post Annalium Usserianorum, op. tom. 10. pag. 489. LETTER CCCVII. DR. PRICE TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF ARMAGH. MOST REV. MY GOOD LORD, THE last week, and no sooner, six of your books were delivered to me; one of them I presented, in your name, to the prince elector; three others I am sending into France, two of them, in your name, to Bignonius and Sarravius; and a third, as from myself, to Monsieur Militerius; the fifth I will give, as from you, to the Fr. * * * * and the sixth I will keep by me, to be disposed of as shall be ordered. I lately received letters from Bignonius and Sarravius: in the former of which there is, my lord, this passage concerning you; "Particulierement je vous ay grande obligation de m' avoir concilie la bienuiellance d'un prelat tres eminent en doctrine, dont je conois des long temps le merites par la reputation public, qui le publie non seulement pour son rare scauoir mais aussy pour sa grande sagesse et singuliere moderation." In the other there is this passage, "Et particulierement je vous prie d'asseurer Monsieur l'archevesque d' Armach des mes tres humbles respects. Lors que ï' auray receu son liure que vous me promettez, je prendray la liberte de l'en remercier moy mesme par vostre entremise;" which I suppose I shall not need to English. I likewise received letters from Sir G. Radcliffe, which do thus conclude: "I long to hear what my lord primate does with his chronological observations. It were pity that a work about which he hath bestowed so much time, should perish, or prove imperfect, for want of his last hand." And so much for these matters. We are here still, as far as I see, in a doubtful and dangerous estate. In the houses there are great divisions, and since the return of those members which the general himself guarded and conducted, the presbyterians (a pretty ridiculous business) outvote the independents. The Scots likewise, by a constant report, are coming in again. In this condition we are, woev μáxai, kowlev póẞo, nothing can comfort us, but the coming again of our Titus. A few days, it is thought, will produce somewhat very extraordinary. (The rest of this letter is nothing else, but what is verbatim to be found in Pricæus' notes npon 1 Tim. chap. IV. ver. 12. 15, 16. As is also what is inserted in letter CCLXXXIII. upon 2 Tim. chap. II. ver. 9.) Your Grace's most humble and Faithful servant, JOHN PRICE. London, Aug. 19. The sixth copy, I have thought upon it, would not be unfitly sent to Monsieur Nudeus. There will want one likewise for the Puteani Fratres, whom, I presume, my lord, it is your mind should have one, I will therefore send them mine, but as from you, my lord. LETTER CCCVIII. THE LEARNED MR. JOHN SELDEN TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF ARMAGH. MY LORD, STEPHAN. Pighius in U. C. DCCLIII. hath no other inscription than that in Gruter, pag. 1075. 2. C. CÆSARE. AUG. FIL. & L. LARES. AUGUSTOS, &c. Nor any thing that further concerns the matter more than every body there have. Touching his mention of Junius Gallio, I neither find him, or that province, in the time of Nero, which he runs through. Whoa that Gallio in the Acts was, indeed appears not clearly, whether the adopting father, or adopted son. Gallio the father, you know, was banished by Tiberius. That M. Seneca had three sons, whereof L. was the second, appears in epist. 8. Sic mihi sic frater majorque minorque superstes. As likewise in the titles of the controversies and declamations. Novatus, Seneca, Mela, so reckoned; whence Novatus is taken for the eldest. That L. Seneca had a brother called Gallio, appears by himself in his inscription of his De vita beata; and also in that of Statius, in Genethliaco Lucani: a Vide annal. Usser. part. poster. Per. Jul. 4768. Op. tom. 11. pag. 63. 64. Hoc plus quam Senecam dedisse mundo, And in that of Tacitus", under Nero; "Junium Gallionem Senecæ fratris morte pavidum et pro incolumitate supplicem increpuit Salienus Clemens;" besides the mention of him by the name of "Junius Gallio frater Senecæ, in Eusebius, num. MMLXXX." where that ridiculous mistake is of "propria se manu interfecit, mortem ejus Nerone in suam præsentiam differente, in editione Scaligerana aliisque," for "Olymp. 211. non est acta, Nerone in suam præsentiam differente." And afterward MMLXXXIV. "L. Anneus Melas Senecæ frater et Gallionis bona Lucani poetæ filii sui a Nerone promeretur." And Tacitus also: "Mela quibus Gallio et Seneca parentibus natus," Which of these three were eldest, is not altogether clear. But it is a good argument taken from the enumeration by their father, that their births were agreeable to that order: and then Novatus or Gallio must be eldest. And Tacitus proves Gallio's priority in the place now cited. Hence Lipsius in De vita Senecæd, and divers times, on his works, makes Novatus the eldest. But in his Elect. 1. he makes him the second, and L. the first. So doth Pontacus on Eusebius. And Grotius: "Erats hic frater magni Senecæ dictus cum junior esset Novatus, sed adoptatus postea a Junio Gallione. But, I confess the father's enumeration sways most with me. Touching the adoption, I can find no unlikelihood that M. Seneca should give away any of his sons by adoption, which was usually made for advantage. And Junius Gallio the father might well deserve it. And that of Seneca ad Marcium rather confirms the unreasonableness of it, and the like use. Now for that Gallio in the Acts, (whom the Arab calls; as Dio, Galenus, the father Gallio) it sorts very well with all circumstances, that he should have been Seneca's brother, as Baronius, anno b Annal. 15. d Cap. 2. f Pag. 573. c Lib. 16. e Cap. 1. Ad Act. cap. 18. ver. 12. |