ipVoxos Otê, a living image of the Deity, if, as
Plny," qui vice Dei erga hominum genus fun-
geretur," and every king, whether elective or
fucceffive, rules by the fame authority, as it is
certain they do, because both have power, and
the people can give them none; then what is
inore certain, than that all kings, which way fo-
ever they are enthroned, before they have made
any grants to their people, are abfolute? And
that their pleasure is law, for otherwife there
could be none, that liberty and property depend
upon their will.

Nam propriæ telluris herum neq. me, neq. illum,
Nec quenquam ftatuit natura.-

Nor does nature provide more privileges for one
than another. And if the principles are true,
and the inference naturally follows, as it does, be-
cause the people, that cannot beltow the power,
have no right to make conditions for its exercife,
and fet limits how far it fhall extend, and make
fuch and fuch agreements for the admiflion of the
prince; what harm is there in this innocent
truth? For we difcourfe only of kings as they
first are, without any reference to fuch and fuch
particular communities, where they have been
pleafed to limit themselves; to grant privileges
to their fubjects, and fettle property, and con-
firmed all this with oaths, and engaged their roy.
al word, and promife before God and man for
their performance.

and make those the measures of his governmenti unleis fome extraordinary cafe intervenes, which requires an alteration of thofe laws, and then that method of abrogating old, and making new ones is to be followed, which conftant experience hath found rational. And fince a prince cannot be bound by any ties but thofe of conscience, this opinion leaves all the obligations possible upon him.

Ver. 1093. But it may reasonably be afked, how leagues could be made, and focieties eitablifhed among men who perhaps indeed could thoughts? To this Lucretius anfwers, that the think, but had not yet learnt to utter their

first men were confcious to themselves of their own powers and natural faculties; and that they uttered feveral founds, as each object that they faw, or as any thing that they felt, caufed in them either fear, joy, pain, grief, pleature, &c. For nature herleif compelled them to this; and therefore horses, dogs, birds, in fhort all animals that have breath, do the like: And thus man too at first flammered only imperfect and inarticulate founds. But no commerce was yet established, they had no mutual communication with one another: Nor indeed could any fuch thing be, till names were given to things: Every man therefore perceived, that it would be useful to himself and others, to agree upon a certain name for each thing. Thus ali, who were entered into one fociety, agreed among themselves upon the fame names of things: And thus the usefulness of things by names, gave occafion for the invention of words. But for any to pretend, that one man gave names to all things, is wretchedly abfurd and foolish. This difputation Lucretius has in fixty

three verses.

Scaliger, in the first book of his Poetic. chap. 1. obferves, That as all cur actions, fo fpeech too to be confidered under three different heads: As abfolutely neceffary: 11. As ufeful: II. A3 delightful. The first kind was that which ferved as a neceffary means of intercourfe between mat and man, barely to underftand one another's meaning: And fuch we may imagine to have been that manner of speech, which Lactantius de vero Cultu cap. 1o. mentions, and which men, according to the opinion of fome of the ancients, ufed in the beginning of the world, when, as fome believed, they only gefticulated their thoughts, and spoke their meaning by figns and nods. After which, as the fame author fays, and before him Diodorus Siculus, lib. 1. they made efiays of language, by impofing diftinct nominal notes, or names upon feveral things, and thus by degrees they made a kind of speech. Thus too

I fuppofe it is granted on all hands, that the king is fupreme, that upon any pretence whatfoever it is treason to refift; and fo there can be no fear of punishment, no tie upon the king but his his own confcience; "fufficit quod Deum expectet ultorem;" yet though the law cannot punish, it can direct though it is not a mafter, it is a guide, and fuch a one, as, because of his oath, he is bound to follow: For though the people cannot, he can limit himself; for being a rational creature, and intrufted with power, without any particular rules for the guidance of it; his reafon is to be his director, and, therefore, according to the tempers and particular humours of the people, he may make laws, fettle maxims of government, and oblige himself to make thofe his mealures, because his reafon affures him, that this is the best method for the prefervation of the fociety, the maintenance of peace, and obtaining those ends, for which he was intrusted with this power. And fince princes must die, and government be ing neceffary, fucceffion is equally fo; and therefore it may feem that every prince, owing his power only to the fame original from which the first derived it, is at liberty to confirm fuch and fuch privileges and immunities, which his prede-Horat. lib. 1. Serm. 3. ceffors have granted; yet upon a ferious view of the premifed reafon, no fuch confequence will follow; for fince the predeceffors have found thefe Jaws agreeable to the tempers of the people, and the only way to preferve the peace, it is evident that thofe are rational, and fince he is to ufe his The fecond fort of fpeech, fays Scaliger, was a power, according to right reafon, there is an an- litttle more refined and polifhed, by being adap tecedent obligation on him to affent to thofe laws;ted and made fit for ufe and convenience; and by

Quum prorepferunt primis animalia terris,
Mutum & turpe pecus,-

Donec verba, quibus voces fenfufque notarent,
Nominaque invenêre.-

applying, as it were, certain dimenfions, prefcriptions, and lineaments to the first rude sketch of language; whence proceeded a certain law and rule of fpeaking: The third fort was yet more polite, there having been added to the former the ornament of elegancy, as its dress and apparel. Thus Scaliger, of fpeech in general.

But of the original of human fpeech, fee Laërt. lib. x. Diodor. Sicul. lib. i. sub initium, & Plato in his Cratylus.

Ver. 1110. That is to fay, if any one man could impofe names on things, another might, at the fame time, do the fame thing.

Ver. 1111. In thefe ten verfes the poet afks; how that first nomenclator could compel the reft of men to learn from him what they were to say ; and to retain in their memory the words he had invented, and the names he had given to things? this argument is of little validity: for, besides, as we faid before, that the nature of man is prone to learn, and defirous of knowledge, we know that children easily accuftom themselves to pronounce and speak by degrees the words they hear spoken by their parents, nurses, and others that are about them. The child, who had been brought up by

Ver. 1106. Here Lucretius feems to fall foul upon the chronologer of the Holy Scripture, by denying that names were given to things by the first man: but those writings were perhaps unknown to our poet, and he chiefly disputes against the opinions of Pythagoras and Plato; man, says lamblicus de fect. Pythagor. was created the most wife and knowing of all animals, capable to confder things, and to acquire knowledge from them; becaufe God had imprinted and bestowed upon him the plenitude of all reason, in which are contained all the feveral fpecies of things, and the fig-goats, and never in his life heard a human voice, nifications of all their names, and of all words: Plato in Cratylus will not allow, that any one gave names to things, but that they received their ❘ names from the wifeft and moft learned of men, whom he calls opasãpyes, and ivoμals, the makers and imposers of names, in the giving of which, fays he, the highest wisdom manifeftly appears; and Cratylus adds, that no man could do t, but they, who reflecting on the nature of hings, were able to judge of them, and to accomnodate, and give to each thing a name, suitable to, nd expreffive of, its nature; Lucretius was aware of this, and therefore inquires in these four verses, How this great knowledge came to be in the firft omenclator, and denied to the rest of mankind: ow fhould one man, fays he, be able to give names o things, and not another? The answer is ready; hough it will appear of no weight to Lucretius, yho will not believe the creation of one man nly from whom all the rest have defcended; nor, hat when names were first given to things, there was yet but one man in the world: and why might not that first parent of mankind, whom God had infufed with knowledge, ("Creavit Deus fcientiam in animo, fenfu implevit eum, & mala & bono oftendit illi, addiditq. difciplinam." Ecclef. cap. 17.) Why might he not, I fay, being thus inftructed, impofe names on things? And that too then efpecially, when this new created monarch, on the feftival of his inauguration, called all his fubject animals by their names: pellavitque Adam nominibus fuis cucta animantia;" fays the facred chronologer, Genef. iii. Which text of holy writ, Eufebius, Preparat. Evangel. lib. xi. cap. 4. reciting, fays, that Mofes meant nothing else by it, than that a name was given to each thing, agreeable and fuitable to its nature. And fince the nature of man is prone to learn, and greedy of knowledge, why might not the rest of men, who came afterwards into the world, and converfed with that firft giver of names, willingly retain them in their memory, as they received them from him? from him, I fay, who, not like mute animals, could exprefs only his own affections, his own defires; but likewife knew and expreffed the nature and manners of others.

bleated like that animal, and spoke only the language of goats. Even parrots, pies, ftarlings, &c. when they are taught, learn to pronounce human words articulately, merely by their own industry; and we obferve them conning over by themselves, and softly muttering the lessons that have been taught them: Plutarch de Animal. Compar. makes mention of a magpie he had seen at a barber's shop at Rome, that fung no less than nine different tunes, obferving the due time and meafure in all of them. What wonder then, that, man, a creature endowed with reafon and understanding, should learn to imitate the words of his fellow-creature?

ap

Ver. 1121. Here the poet in ver. 35. fays, that it is not furprising, that any man, to whom nature had given a tongue and a voice, could, as he thought fit, and according to the various knowledge he had conceived of the great variety of things, diftinguish and mark each of them by a proper name ; epecially since even mute animals can, and do exprefs the different paffions and affections, by dif ferent voices and founds: for they declare and fignify their pain and pleasure, and the other af fections, that are fubject to thofe two, by inarticulate indeed, but unlike and various founds. Why then may not any man mark and denote different things by different names? but this is not what was done by the first imposer of names? for he not only expreffed his own affections; but the proper nature, and genuine manners of others, by virtue of the divine gift, the knowledge which the Almighty had infused into him.

Ver. 1123. For, as Faber on this paffage obferves, if the names themselves gave any knowledge, Tav purtav, of the natures and qualities of the things that are called by them; and if upon the bare pronunciation of three or four fyllables, any particular notes were obtained, that indeed would defervedly claim our admiration; but fince it depends only upon ufe, and that use upon chance, convenience, and fometimes on the temerity and ignorance of the meaner and illiterate part of mankind, Lucretius is in the right to lay that there is no wonder in it.

Ver. 1125. Sextus Empiricus, lib. xi. Pyrhon.

Aurea funt verè nunc fæcula; plurimus auro
Venit honos.

And the author of Hudibras in two words,
For money is the only pow'r,

That all mankind falls down before.

in which Ulyffes is reprefented in an arched walk, called by his name. The Greeks, says he, call i ridge, and fome, galeras: after which he add that this pileolum was tied on to the back part of the head with a ribband, in such a manner, that it could not easily flip off: " ita in occipitio vina Ver. 1187. Who, that reads these lines, can conftructa eft, ut non facilè labatur ex capite." believe that Epicurus was an epicure: he be- Yet indeed the facia or witta itself feems rather lieved that a wife man cannot be poor: because than the bonnet to have been the diadem: fr he lives content with what he has and thinks it Marcellinus, lib. xv. acquaints us, that Pompey enough, even though it be but little: he placed was fufpected of treason, for wearing the facil indeed the chief happiness of life in pleasure; and cading about his leg, to hide, as he pretended, a what he meant by pleasure, let Cicero teach us: fore: but, fays he, the fofciola candida being ge "Negat Epicurus jucundè poffe vivi, nifi cum vir-nerally interpreted a diadem, it created & fapi. tute vivatur: negat ullam in fapientem vim effe cion, that he was aiming at the empire: the n fortunæ tenuem victum antefert copiofo, &c."|ther, because it was not material on what part of Tufcul. Quæft. lib. 3. And Laërtius tells us, that Epicurus was often inculcating into his hearers, parfimony, continency, fparingness of food, and equanimity, or eafinefs and content of mind in all ftates and conditions: whence he had often in his mouth this faying, ήδιςα πολυτελές ἀπολαύεσιν οι εκάνοι ταύτης δεόμενοι.

:

the body it was worn. See likewife Alexander ab Alex. Gen. dier. lib. i. cap. 28. And Brite nicus fays pofitively, it was not carena, but ję cia: which agrees likewife with the etymolog of the word diadem, which we gave before. Ver. 12c8. Here the poet tells us, that the narchy being abolished, violence, oppreffion, and

Thus too Dryden in the Wife of Bath's tale tumults began to rage anew, and the life of m after Chaucer;

Content is wealth, the riches of the mind,
And happy he, who can the treasure find:
But the bafe miser starves amidst his store,
Broods on his gold, and griping ftill at more,
Sits fadly pining and believes he's poor.

Ver. 1190. "Ventre nihil novi frugalius," fays Juvenal, Sat. v. ver. 6. And it was the conftant obfervation of the foberer heathens, that nature is content with very little: Diogenes in the life of Socrates, relates of that philofopher, that he was wont to fay, That most men feemed to live only to eat; but that for his part he eat only to live. And Plato obferves, that of all creatures, man is longeft in digefting his food: and that nature has ordered it thus to intimate to us, that the would not have thofe nobler occupations, of which The has rendered us capable, and for which we were chiefly created, to be interrupted by too frequent eating. And as this is a good moral reafon, fo neither is the phyfical reafon, which anatomifts give us, to be contemned: for they obferve, that the ileon, one of the guts, through which the meat muft pafs, and fo called from aí, I involve, is fix times longer than our whole body, and twifted and folded in fuch a manner, and withal fo fmall, that what we eat cannot pafs through it cafily, and in a fhort time.

Ver. 1203. Diadems were used by the ancient kings as crowns are now, for the mark of royalty: they are by fome faid to be only white ribbonds, adorned with precious ftones, and which they bound about their heads. The word comes from dada, to bind about. But Pancirollus, from an epistle to St. Jerome to Fabiola, describes a diadem to be a little cap, like a half football, bound about with a white fafcia or wreath. This paffage of St. Jerome is in Epift. 128, de veftitu Sacerdotum, where that father calls it rotundum Pilcolum, a round cap; fuch a one as that

returned to its primitive savageness: howe they at length thought fit to create magifie among themselves, and to make laws, in ordre punish the oppreffors: and this was an infrar their prudence; for the dread of punishm keeps men in awe, and retains them within t bounds of their duty. And let none imagine the can violate the laws with impunity, even dag they offend in private; for confcience herida a babbler; and many, when raving under the lence of difeafe or even in their dreams, have ber their own accufers, and betrayed their fecret

Here we may obferve, that, Lucretius én ver. 1170. to ver. 1233. has folved the g political problems.

I. Why man, who was born free, fubje&d felf from the very beginning, to the obedietit kings? For no man, as Plutarch elegantly a is by nature born a flave.

Either for the refpect and reverence they br to fome men, on account of their beauty and to jeftic looks or by reafon of the fuperior ftreng of fome, by which they compelled the weaker unwilling obedience and fervitude: or for th excellence of their wit, which easily and jufly a quired them the command over others.

11. Why did they confer the government a one man? Were there not feveral endowed s equal qualifications? befides, every man seema his own eyes to be beautiful and witty enough.

Because they deemed a monarchy to be prefe able to a government of many, and believed to should live more free under the dominion of st than of many rulers.

III. Why did the beautiful, the ftrong, and wity, ceafe at length to reign?

The invention of gold dethroned them, when men grew rich, the fovereign authority volved on the moft wealthy.

IV. Why did the kings fall at firft to buik, of towers and citadels ?"