neglecting to loke on that bil, not esteminge the persone that deliuered it, whiche perchance was but of a mean hauiour, continued his way to the Senate, where he incontinently was slaine by the said Brutus, and many mo of the Senate for that purpose appoynted.

Who beholdinge the cause of the dethe of this moste noble Cesar, unto whom in eloquence, doctrine, martiall prowesse, and gentilnesse, no prince may be comparid, and the acceleration or haste to his confusion, causid by his owne edict or decre, will nat commende affabilite and extolle libertie of speche? Wherby onely loue is in the hartis of people perfectly kendled, all feare excluded, and consequently realmes, dominions, and all other autorites consolidate and perpetuelly stablisshed. The sufferaunce of noble men to be spoken unto is not onely to them an incomparable suretie, but also a confounder of repentance, enemie to prudence, wherof is ingendred this worde, Had I wist, whiche hath ben euer of all wise men reproued.a

On a tyme king Philip, fader to the great Alexander, sittinge in iugement, and hauing before him a matter Jugement agayne one of his souldiours, being ouercommen with suspended watche fel on a slombre, and sodaynly being awaked, through immediatly wolde haue giuen a sentence agayne the speche. poure soldiour. But he, with a great voice and out- Plutarcrie, said, King Philip, I appele. To whom wylt

chus.

τὸ βιβλιὸν τοῦτο, τὸν δὲ ̓Αρτεμίδωρον οὐδὲ ὅλως προσελθεῖν, ἀλλ ̓ ἐκθλιβῆναι παρὰ rãσav Thy ódóv.—Cæsar, 65. It will be seen that neither Plutarch nor Suetonius give the slightest colour for attributing Cæsar's neglect to avail himself of the proffered warning to the cause alleged by Sir Thomas Elyot.

* Clement Edmonds, who lived in the latter part of the sixteenth century, has a very similar passage in his Observations upon Cæsar's Commentaries. 'This rule of making tryal of the worth of an enemy, hath always been observed by prudent and grave commanders, as the surest principle whereon the true judgment of the event may be grounded. For if the doctrine of the old Philosophers, which teacheth that the word non putabam, I wist it not, was never heard out of a wise man's mouth, hath any place in the course of humane actions, it ought especially to be regarded in managing these main points, whereon the state of kingdoms and empires dependeth.'-P. 30, ed. 1695.

thou appele? said the kynge. To the (said the souldiour) whan thou arte throughly awaked. With whiche answere the kynge suspended his sentence, and more diligently examinyng the mater, founde the souldiour had wronge; whiche beinge sufficiently discussed, he gaue iugement for him, whom before he wolde haue condemned."

Semblably hapned by a poure woman, agayne whom the same kynge had gyuen iugement; but she as desperate, with a loude voice, cried, I appele, I appele. To whom appelist thou? said the kyng. I appele, saide she, from the, nowe beinge dronke, to kynge Philip the sobre. At which words,

a

Μαχαίτᾳ δέ τινι κρίνων δίκην καὶ ὑπονυστάζων, οὐ πάνυ προσείχε τοῖς δικαίοις, ἀλλὰ κατέκρινε· ἐκείνου δὲ ἀναβοήσαντος ἐκκαλεῖσθαι τὴν κρίσιν, διοργισθεὶς, Ἐπὶ τινα; εἶπε· καὶ ὁ Μαχαίτας, Επί σε, βασιλεῦ, αὐτὸν, ἂν ἐγρηγόρως καὶ προσέχων ἀκούῃς. Τότε μὲν οὖν ἀνέστη· γενόμενος δὲ μᾶλλον ἐφ' ἑαυτῷ, καὶ γνοὺς ἀδικούμενον τὸν Μαχαίταν, τὴν μὲν κρίσιν οὐκ ἔλυσε, τὸ δὲ τίμημα τῆς δίκης αὐτὸς ἐξέτισεν. Plut. Reg. et Imperat. Apophth. xxiv. It will be observed that the author was apparently not aware that Machata was a proper name. It is curious that Doctor Leland, in his History of Philip (vol. ii. p. 200), has confused this anecdote with the following one taken from an entirely different source, as will be seen in the

next note.

This story affords a curious illustration of the way in which the monkish writers of the middle ages perverted their original authorities to suit the particular object they had in view. The anecdote, as related by Sir Thomas Elyot, has been so often repeated as to have passed into a proverb; and the reader will probably be surprised to learn that, as originally narrated, it imputed no want of sobriety to Philip. It is to be found in a fragment of Ælius Serenus, an Athenian grammarian, who wrotе 'Аñоμvημоνεúμara, from which Stobæus makes numerous extracts. and is as follows: Πρεσβύτις δικαζομένη ἐπὶ Φιλίππου, ὡς ἑώρα νυστάζοντα ἔπειτα μέλλοντα ἀποφαίνεσθαι, ἐδεῖτο συγχωρῆσαι αὐτῇ ἐφεῖναι. Ὁ δὲ, Ἐπὶ τίνα; εἶπεν. Ἐπὶ Φίλιππον, ἀπεκρίνατο, ἐγρηγορότα. Stobæus, Florilegium, vol. i. p. 325, ed. 1822. This was the story intact, in its original shape. After the lapse of many centuries it reappears in what may be called the modern form at the hands of Humbert, a writer of the 13th century, who was born at Romans in Dauphiné, four leagues from Valence sur l'Isère, about A.D. 1209. He was general of the Order of Saint Dominic, and his writings are voluminous. In a chapter in which he deduces the antiquity of 'appeals,' he has the following remarks: Notandum quòd appellatio est res tam universalis, quòd habet locum non solum inter fideles, sed etiam inter infideles. Item est tantæ antiquitatis, quòd non solum præcessit tempora Christianitatis, ut patet per factum prædictum, sed et longè ante præcessit. Unde legitur, quòd quædam vetula cum fuit condemnata à Philippo, patre Alexandri, post prandium,

though they were undiscrete and foolisshe, yet he, nat beinge moued to displesure, but gatherynge to hym his wittes, examyned the mater more seriously; wherby, he findynge the poure woman to sustaine wronges, he reuersed his iugement, and accordynge to truthe and iustice gaue to her that she demaunded. Wherin he is of noble autours commended, and put for an honorable example of affabilitie.

The noble emperour Antonine, called the philosopher, was of suche affabilitie, as Herodiane writeth, that Antonius to euery man that came to him he gentilly deli- Philoso phus. uered his hande; and wold nat permitte that his garde shuld prohibite any man to approche hym.a

Herodi

anus.

qui multo tempore fuit ante Cæsarem, appellavit: et cum quæreret Rex, ad quem? quia non erat major eo aliquis, respondit, A Philippo ebrio ad Philippum sobrium. Rex autem deferens appellationi, examinatâ causâ in mane sequenti diligentiùs, absolvit eam.'-La Bigne, Bibl. Patrum, tom. xxv. p. 520. Two centuries later we find Patrizi telling the same story, but with some slight alterations. Philippum oscitantem præ nimiâ quâdam vini cibique crapulâ, peregrina quædam mulier gravibus verbis momordit. Nam quum temerè indictâque causâ eam damnaret, exclamavit illa, et se provocare ait; tunc dicentibus quibusdam, Ad quem provocas? Ad Philippum quidem, inquit, sed quum fuerit sobrius. Tunc Rex ad seipsum rediens causam diligentius inspexit, et revocatâ sententià, illam absolvit, liberamque dimisit.'-De Regno et Reg. Instit. lib. vi. tit. 26, ed. 1582. As if these emendations were not sufficient, the author of Polychronicon, who is now discovered to be Higden, transfers the story bodily to Alexander, avowedly on the authority of Trogus, but the character of the Latin is sufficient evidence that this version is very much more recent, and probably was invented by some French writer. 'Alexander ebrietate laborabat, et tunc potissimè in domesticos sæviebat. Unde accidit ut aliquando in quendam majorem palatii capitalem ferret sententiam. Ille vero statim in appellationis vocem erupit. Verum quia à minori ad majorem solebat appellari in ampliorem tyrannus stimulante vino versus insaniam, ait, "Sed à quo et ad quem appellas?" Et ille, "Ab Alexandro ebrio ad Alexandrum sobrium." Quâ responsione mitigatus sententiam distulit, et tandem illum plene absolvit.' — Polychronicon, vol. iii. p. 442. (The Rolls ed.) The expression 'mayor of the palace' gives some clue to the origin of this version, and we shall probably not be wrong in assuming that it cannot lay claim to any greater antiquity than the ninth century of the Christian era.

· Παρεῖχε δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἀρχομένοις ἑαυτὸν ἐπιεικῆ καὶ μέτριον βασιλέα, τούς τε προσίοντας δεξιούμενος, κωλύων τε τοὺς περὶ αὐτὸν δορυφόρους ἀποσοβεῖν τοὺς ἐντυγXávovras.'--Herodian. lib. i. cap. 2, ed. 1826.

Augustus.

Suetonius.

The excellent emperour Augustus on a time, in the presence of many men, plaied on cymbales, or a nother like instrument. A poure man, standyng with other and beholdynge the emperour, saide with a loude voice to his felowe, Seest thou nat howe this voluptuouse lechour tempereth al the worlde with his finger? Whiche wordes the emperour so wisely noted, without wrathe or displeasure, that euer after, durynge his lyfe, he refrayned his handes from semblable lightnesse."

The good Antonine, emperour of Rome, commyng to Antoninus supper to a meane gentilman, behelde in the house

Pius. Capitolinus, b

certaine pillers of a delicate stone, called porpheri, asked of the good man, where he had bought those pillers. Who made to the emperour this answere, Sir, whan ye come in to any other mannes house than your owne, euer be you bothe dome and defe. Whiche liberall taunte that moste gentill emperour toke in so good parte that he often. tymes reherced that sentence to other for a wyse and discrete counsaile.

By these examples appereth nowe euidently what good comethe of affabilitie, or sufferaunce of speche, what mooste pernicious daunger alway ensueth to them, that either do refuse counsaile, or prohibite libertie of speche; sens that in libertie (as it hath bene proued) is moste perfecte suertie, ac

If the reader compares the author's version with the original given below, he will notice a considerable discrepancy, and that the author has not only pointed his moral, but adorned the tale. Sed et populus quondam universus ludorum die et accepit in contumeliam ejus, et assensu maximo comprobavit versum in scenâ pronuntiatam de Gallo matris Deum tympanizante, "Viden" ut cinædus orbem digito temperat?"-Sueton. Octavius, 68.

The side note in the original has the word 'Lampridius,' but as this is manifestly a mistake, it has been deemed expedient to substitute the name of the writer from whom the quotation is really taken.

• Inter alia etiam hoc civilitatis ejus præcipuum argumentum est, quòd quum domum Omuli visens, miransque columnas porphyreticas, requisisset unde eas haberet atque Omulus ei dixisset, Quum in domum alienam veneris, et mutus et surdus esto, patienter tulit. Cujus Omuli multa joca semper patienter accepit.'Hist. August. tom. i. p. 277, ed. 1671.

cording as it is remembred by Plutarche of Theopompus, kyng of Lacedemone, who beinge demaunded, howe a realme moughte be best and mooste surely kepte; If (saide he) the prince giue to his frendes libertie to speake to hym thinges that be iuste, and neglecteth nat the wronges that his subiecte sustaineth.a

CHAPTER VI.

Howe noble a vertue placabilitie is.

PLACABILITIE is no litle part of Benignitie, and it is proprely where a man is by any occasion meued to be angry, and, nat withstandynge, either by his owne reason ingenerate, or by counsaile persuaded, he omitteth to be reuenged, and often times receiueth the transgressour ones reconsiled in to more fauour; whiche undoubtedly is a vertue wonderfull excellent. For, as Tulli saithe, no thinge is more to be merCi. Off. i. uailed at, or that more becometh a man noble and honorable, than mercy and placabilitie. The value therof is beste knowen by the contrarye, whiche is ire, called Ire or vulgarely wrathe, a vice moste ugly and ferrest from wrathe. humanitie. For who, beholdynge a man in estimation of nobilitie and wisedome by furie chaunged in to an horrible figure, his face infarced with rancour, his mouthe foule and

a

Θεόπομπος πρὸς τὸν ἐρωτήσαντα, πῶς ἄν τις ἀσφαλῶς τηροίη τὴν βασιλείαν, Εἰ τοῖς μὲν φίλοις, ἔφη, μεταδιδοίη παῤῥησίας δικαίας, τοὺς δὲ ἀρχομένους κατὰ δύναμιν μὴ Teρioρýn àdiкovμévovs.'-Apophth. Lacon. 221, E.

'Nihil enim laudabilius, nihil magno et præclaro viro dignius, placabilitate atque clementiâ.'-De Off. lib. i. cap. 25.

• Patrizi devotes a chapter to the definition and description of anger, in which occurs the following passage: 'Imprimis ira, quæ quum ferociùs excanduit, hominem præcipitem rapit, adeo ut ab insano ac furioso paululum quippiam absit. Oculi, color, vultus, gestus, vox, clamor, verba prope furentis atque insanientis hominis esse videntur, qui nisi quamprimùm ad se redeat, ad agnatos omnino atque affines (vecordium furiosorumque more) rejiciendus erit.'—De Regno et Reg., lib. iv. tit. 10.