don of the Roundheads and the
Paris of the Precieuses. What likelihood was there of any popularity
being bestowed upon heroes who were nothing if not befeathered heroes,
heroes _a panaches_ at a time when Puritans reigned supreme, staunch
adversaries as we know of _panaches_, curls, vain talk, and every sort
of worldly vanity? Was it not the time when books were published on "The
unlovelinesse of Love-lockes," being "a summarie discourse prooving the
wearing and nourishing of a locke or love-locke to be altogether
unseemely, and unlawfull unto Christians. In which there are likewise
some passages collected out of Fathers, Councells and sundry authors and
historians against face-painting, the wearing of supposititious,
poudred, frizled or extraordinary long haire, the inordinate affectation
of corporall beautie, and womens mannish, unnaturall, impudent, and
unchristian cutting of their haire"?[326] So early in the century as
1628 it was thus discovered that women's short hair and men's long wigs
were equally unchristian. What was to be the fate of our well-curled
heroes? They were received with open arms. "Polexandre," for example,
was published in English in 1647; "Ibrahim ou l'illustre Bassa,"
"Cassandre," and "Cleopatre" in 1652; "Le Grand Cyrus" in 1653, the very
year in which Cromwell became Protector; the first part of "Clelie" in
1656; "Astree" in 1657; "Scipion" in 1660, &c.

The English prefaces to these French novels plainly showed that,
notwithstanding the puritanical taunts of the party in power, publishers
felt no doubt as to the success of their undertaking. These works were
not spread timidly among the public; they were announced noisily in the
most pompous terms:

"I shall waste no time to tell you how this book hath sold in France
where it was born: since nothing falls from Monsieur de Scudery's hand,
but is receiv'd there as an unquestionable piece, by all that have a
taste of wit or honour. The translator hath inserted no false stitches
of his own, having only turn'd the wrong side of the Arras towards us,
for all translations, you know, are no other."[327]

The translator of "Astree" was fain to inform his readers of a judgment
passed, as he pretends, on this work by "the late famous Cardinall of
Richelieu. That he was not to be admitted in the Academy of wit who had
not been before well read in Astrea." And he claims for his author a
highly beneficial purpose, that could be condemned by none except