fwered, that he was yet living, and on Horse-back: I Should then do him wrong (said the King) now to go, and deprive him of the Honour of winning this Battle which he has fo long difputed; what Hazard foever he runs, the Victory fhall be entirely his own: And accordingly would neither go nor fend, knowing that if he went, it would be faid all had been loft without his Succour, and that the Honour of the Victory would be attributed to his Majefty, Semper enim quod poftremum adjectum eft, id rem totam videtur traxiffe. i. e. For the laft Stroke to a Bufinefs feems always to draw along with it the Merit of the whole Action. Many at Rome thought, and would usually fay, that the nobleft of Scipio's Actions were, in Part, due to Lelius, whofe conftant Practice it was, nevertheless, to advance and fupport Scipio's Grandeur and Renown, without any Care of his own. And Theopompus, King of Sparta, when a Perfon told him the Republick food it out, because he knew fo well how to command. It is rather (anfwered he) because the People know fo well how to obey *. Conduct of a Bouvines. As Women fucceeding to Peerages, had, notwithstanding their Sex, the privilege to aflift and give in their Votes, in Caufes appertaining to the Jurifdiction of Peers: So the Ecclefiaftical Peers, notwithstanding their Profeffion, were obliged to affift our Kings in their Wars, not only with their Friends and Servants, but in their own Perfons; as the Bishop of Beauvais did, who being with Philip Auguftus, at the Battle of Bouvines †, had a notable Share in that Action; but he did not think it fit for him to participate in the Fruit and Glory of that violent and bloody Exercife. He, with his own Hand, reduced several of the Enemy that Day to his Mercy, whom he delivered to the firft Gentleman he met, either to kill, or receive them to Quarter, referring the whole Execution to his Hand. Thus alfo did William Earl of Salisbury, to M. Jean de Nefle. With a like fubtlety of Confcience to the other we named before, he would kill, but not wound him, Y 2 Plutarch, in the Article Theopompus. Book I. him, and for that Reason never fought but with a Club*. And a certain Perfon of my Time, being reproached by the King, that he had laid Hands on a Priett, ftiffly and pofitively denied it, for he had only cudgelled and kicked him. С Н А Р. *That is to fay, By a Salvo of Confcience, like to that other which I just now mentioned, this Bifhop chofe to knock on the Head, &c.' In Fact, this other Salvo, which Montaigne had just attributed to the Bifhop of Beauvais, was not more frivolous than this, by which this fame Bishop made no Scruple to knock thofe on the Head, whom he did not chufe to wound or kill with a Sword. For the Bishop of Beauvais is intended in the latter Cafe, as well as in the former: At the Battle of Bouvines, Mezeray exprefsly fays, Philip Bishop of Beauvais, Brother to that King, did not ftrike with a Sword, but with a Club; thinking that knocking a Man on the Head, was not fpilling his Blood.'-Mr. Cotton, the last Tranflator of these Effays into English, has confounded this Paffage entirely; for his not comprehending that this latter Salvo of Confcience had relation to the Bishop of Beauvais, in the fame Manner as the former, instead of delivering up William Earl of Salisbury to M. John de Nefle, he tells us, • That William Earl of Saifbury made use of a Salvo of Conscience, with regard to M. John de Nefle, like to the other whom we named above: He would (continues Mr. Cotton) kill, but not wound him; and for that Reason never fought with a Mace. By the Manner in which this Tranflator fpeaks here of the Earl of Salisbury, one would be apt to fay, that he only engaged in this Battle to kill John de Nefle. Thefe are Mr. Cotton's bwn Words. As alfo did William Earl of Salisbury to Meffire Jean de Nefle, with a like Subtilty of Confcience to the other we named before; he would kill but not wound him, and for that Reafon never fought with a Mace.'-The Confufion which I difcover this ingenious Tranflator to be in at this Paffage, makes me a little diffident of myself. But though in all the Editions of Montaigne, which I have seen, it is faid, With a Salvo of Confcience like to this other, I think I may venture to affirm, that Montaigne's Expreffion, of a Salvo of ConScience like to this other, means to this other Salvo of the Bishop of Beauvais; and that he would have us to understand here, that by a cunning Salvo, like to that which he had just mentioned, the fame Bishop of Beauvais was defirous to knock on the Head, but not to wound; having, for that very Reason, fought only with a Club.- As for William Earl of Salisbury, it does not appear that he had the fame Scruple at the Battle of Bouvines, as the Bishop of Beauvais. It is certain at least, that this Bishop took the Earl of Salisbury, and delivered him Prifoner to John de Nefle. This is what Montaigne fays very clearly, before he mentioned this other cunning Salvo of Confcience, which engaged the Bishop of Beauvais to fight only with a Club. And all that Montaigne has here advanced, is very pofitively afferted in Hiftory. William of Brittany, fays John de Tillet, in his Hiftory of King Philip Auguftus, makes mention of the Bishop of Beauvais, a Prince of the Blood, Brother to the Count 6 : de PLU CHA P. XLII. Of the Inequality amongst us. Extraordinary Difference betwixt Man and Man. And, in LUTARCH fays fomewhere *, that he does not find fo great a Difference betwixt Beaft and Beaft, as he does betwixt Man and Man. Which is faid in reference to the internal Qualities and Perfections of the Soul. Truth, I find (according to my poor Judgment) fo vaft a Distance betwixt Epaminondas, and fome that I know (who are yet Men of common Senfe), that I could willingly enhance upon Plutarch, and fay, that there is more Difference betwixt fuch and fuch a Man, than there is betwixt fuch a Man and fuch a Beaft: Hem vir viro quid præftat †! i. e. How much alas, One Man another doth furpass! And that there are as many and innumerable Degrees of Wits, as there are Cubits betwixt this and Heaven. But, as touching the Estimate of Men, it is ftrange that, ourfelves excepted, no other Creature is efteemed beyond its proper Qualities. We commend a Horfe for its Strength and furenefs of Foot, de Dreux, a Peer of France; who being at the Battle of Pont de Bouvines, with the faid Philip Auguftus, did, with one Stroke of a Club, ⚫ knock down Count William, firnamed Long Spear, the Bastard Brother of the King of England, and commanded M. John de Nefle, Kt. to make • him his Prifoner. The like did he with regard to many others, whom ⚫ he laid fprawling on the Ground: Forafmuch as he was an Ecclefiaftick, the Praife of his Feats of Arms is given as it were to others, ad he only chose to fight with a Club, that he might demolish without killing. Tillet's Memoirs, p. 220, printed at Troyes, 1578. *At the End of his Treatife of Brutes having the ufe of Reason. Ter. Eunuch. act. ii. fect. iii. ver I. Volucrem Sic laudamus equum, facili cui plurima palma So we commend the Horse for being fleet, A Man to be. valued for what he has in bim, and not what he has about him. and not for his rich Caparifons; a Greyhound for his Share of Heels, not for his fine Collar; a Hawk for her Wing, not for her Geffes and Bells. Why, in like Manner, do we not value a Man for what is properly his own? He has a great Train, a beautiful Palace, fo much Credit, fuch a Revenue; all thefe are about him, but not in him. You will not buy a Pig in a Poke: If you cheapen a Horfe, you have him ftripped of his Houfing-Cloaths, that he may appear naked and open to your Eye; or if he be cloathed †, as they anciently were wont to prefent to Princes to fell, it is only on the lefs important Parts, that you may not fo much confider the Beauty of his Colour, or the Breadth of his Crupper, as principally to examine his Legs, Eyes, and Feet, which are the Members of greatest Use: Regibus hic mos eft, ubi equos mercantur, opertos Molli fulta pede eft, emptorem inducat biantem, When fkilful Jockeys would a Courfer buy, Juvenal, fat. viii. ver. 57. Hor. lib. i. fect. 2. ver. 86, &c. Why, + Juvenal, fat. viii. ver. 57. * Why, in giving your Eftimate of a Man, do you prize him wrapped and muffled up in Cloaths? He then difcovers nothing to you, but fuch Parts as are not in the leaft his own; and conceals thofe, by which alone one may rightly judge of his Value. It is the Price of the Blade that you enquire into, and not of the Scabbard : You would not, peradventure, bid a Farthing for him, if you faw him ftripped. You are to judge of him by himfelf, and not by what he wears. And as one of the Ancients very pleasantly faid, Do you know why you repute him Tall? You reckon withal the Height of his Pattins, whereas the Pedestal is no Part of the Statue. Measure him without his Stilts, let him lay afide his Revenues, and his Titles, let him prefent himself in his Shirt, then examine if his Body be found and fpritely, active, and difpofed to perform its Function? What Mind has he? Is it beautiful, capable, and happily provided of all its Faculties? Is it rich in what is its own, or in what it has borrowed? Has Fortune no Hand in the Affair? Can it without winking, face the Lightning of Swords; is it indifferent, whether Life expire by the Mouth or the Throat? Is it fettled, Even, and Content ? That is what is to be examined, and by that you are to judge of the vaft Difference betwixt Man and Man. Is he -Sapiens, fibi qui imperiofus Quem neque pauperies, neque mors, neque vincula terrent, Fortis, & in feipfo totus teres atque rotundus, The Man is truly wife that can controul, Whom Poverty, nor Chains, nor Death affright, *Equum empturus folvi jubes firatum, &c. Hominem involutum aftimas? Seneca, epift. 80. † Quare magnus videtur? Cum bafi illum fua metiri. Seneca, ep. 76. |