On the point of the authorship of the Regii Sanguinis Clamor Morus is emphatic enough.  He declares over and over again that he was not the author, and he declares that Milton knew this perfectly well,—­might have known it for two years, but had beyond all doubt known it before he had published the Defensio Secunda.  We shall bring together the passages that refer to this subject:—­

I neither wrote it, nor ever pretended to have done so,—­this I here solemnly declare, and make God my witness,—­nor did I contribute anything to the writing of it....  The real author is alive and well, unknown to me by face, but very well known to several good men, on the strength of whose joint knowledge of the fact I challenge with righteous detestation the public lie which wriggles everywhere through your whole book....  Let the author answer for himself:  I neither take up his quarrel, nor thrust my sickle into his corn....  But I wish the anonymous author would come forth some time or other openly in his own name....  What then would Milton think?  He might have reason to fame and detest the light of life, being manifestly convicted of lying before the world.  He might say, indeed, “I had not thought of it:  I have been under a mistake” ...  But what if I prove by clear evidence that you knew well enough already that the author of this book was another person, not I? ... [Morus then goes on to say that Milton might have learnt the fact in various ways, even from a comparison of the style of the book with that of Morus’s acknowledged writings; but he lays stress chiefly on the information actually sent to Milton in 1652 by Ulac, and on the subsequent communications to him, through Durie and the Dutch Ambassador Nieuport, before the Defensio Secunda had left the press] ...  Will you hear a word of truth?  You had certainly learnt the fact, and cannot for two whole years have been ignorant of it.  But, as you perceived it would not suit your convenience to vent your spleen against an anonymous opponent, that is a nobody, and some definite person must be pitched upon as an adversary to bear your rage expressly, no one else seemed to you more opportune than I as an object of calumny, whether because you heard that I had many enemies, though (what proves their savageness) without any cause, who would hold up both thumbs in applause of your jocosities, or because you knew that, by the arts of a Juno, I was involved in a lawsuit, more troublesome in reality than dangerous, and you did not believe that I should be, as I have been, the winner before all the tribunals....  Your book once written, Morus must of necessity stand for your opponent, or Milton, the Defender of the People, would have done nothing in two years!  He would have lost all the laborious compilation of his days and nights, all his punnings upon my name,