to the river on a waggon of greafy clothes, to be washed by her and her maids. Poffibly it may be urged, that fuch circumftances, however low in our opinion, did not appear low in Greece, as they were introduced by their chief poet, and the greatest that ever exifted. I acknowledge the force of this argument: but what does it prove, more than that the Greeks were not fenfible of the lownefs of their manners? Is any nation fenfible of the lownefs of their own manners? The manners of the Greeks did not correfpond to the delicacy of their tafte in the fine arts: nor can it be expected, when they were ftrangers to that polite fociety with women, which refines behaviour, and elevates manners. The first kings in Greece, as Thucydides obferves, were elective, having no power but to command their armies in time of war; which refembles the government that obtains at prefent in the ifthmus of Darien. The Greeks had no written laws, being governed by cuftom merely. To live by plunder was held honourable; for it was their opinion, that the rules of juftice are not intended for restraining the powerful. All ftrangers were accounted

enemies,

enemies, as among the Romans; and inns were unknown, becaufe people lived at home, having very little intercourse even with thofe of their own nation. Inns were unknown in Germany, and to this day are unknown in the remote parts of the highlands of Scotland; but for an oppofite reason, that hofpitality prevailed greatly among the ancient Germans, and continues to prevail fo much among our highlanders, that a gentleman takes it for an affront if a ftranger pafs his door. At a congrefs between Francis I. of France and Henry VIII. of England, among other fpectacles for public entertainment, the two Kings had a wrestling-match. Had they forgot that they were fovereign princes?

One would imagine war to be a foil too rough for the growth of civilization ; and yet it is not always an unkindly foil. War between two small tribes is fierce and cruel but a large ftate mitigates refentment, by directing it not against individuals, but against the state. We know no enemies but those who are in arms: we have no refentment against others, but rather find a pleafure in treating VOL. I. 3 C

them

them with humanity*. Cruelty, having thus in war few individuals for its object, naturally fubfides; and magnanimity in its ftead transforms foldiers from brutes to heroes. Some time ago, it was ufual in France to demand battle; and it was held difhonourable to decline it, however unequal the match. Before the battle of Pavia, Francis I. wrote to the Marquis Pefcara, the Imperial General, "You "will find me before Pavia, and you ought to be here in fix days: I give you twenty. Let not the fuperiority of my "forces ferve for an excufe; I will fight

you with equal numbers." Here was heroism without prudence; but, in all reformations, it is natural to go from one extreme to the other. While the King of England held any poffeffions in France, war was perpetual between the two nations, which was commonly carried on

The constable du Guefclin, the greatest warrior of his time, being on deathbed, anno 1380, and bidding adieu to his veteran officers who had ferved under him forty years, entreated them not to forget what he had faid to them a thoufand times, "that "in whatever country they made war, churchmen, "women, infants, and the poor people, were not their "enemies."

!

with more magnanimity than is ufual between inveterate enemies. It became cuftomary to give prifoners their freedom, upon a fimple parole to return with their ranfom at a day named. The fame was the custom in the border-wars between the English and Scots, before their union under one monarch. But parties found their account equally in fuch honourable behaviour. Edward Prince of Wales, in a pitched battle against the French, took the illuftrious Bertrand du Guciclin prifoner. He long declined to accept a ranfom; but, finding it whispered that he was afraid of that hero, he inftantly fet him at liberty without a ranfom. This may be deemed impolitic or whimfical: but is love of glory lefs praife-worthy than love of conqueft? The Duke of Guife, victor in the battle of Dreux, refted all night in the field of battle; and gave the Prince of Condé, his prifoner, a fhare of his bed, where they lay like brothers. The Chevalier Bayard, commander of a French army anno 1524, being mortally wounded in retreating from the Imperialifts, placed himfelf under a tree, his face, however, to the enemy, The Marquis de Pefcara, ge

neral

neral of the Imperialifts, finding him dead in that posture, behaved with the generofity of a gallant adverfary: he directed his body to be embalmed, and to be fent to his relations in the moft honourable manner. Magnanimity and heroifm, in which benevolence is an effential ingredient, are inconfiftent with cruelty, perfidy, or any grovelling paffion. Never was gallantry in war carried to a greater height, than between the English and Scotch borderers. before the crowns were united. The night after the battle of Otterburn, the victors and vanquished lay promifcuously in the fame camp, without apprehending the leaft danger one from the other. manners of ancient warriors were very different. Homer's hero, though fuperior to all in bodily ftrength, takes every advantage of his enemy, and never feels either compaffion or remorfe. The policy of the Greeks and Romans in war, was to weaken a ftate by plundering its territory, and deftroying its people. Humanity with us prevails even in war.

The

Individuals not in

arms are fecure, which faves much innocent blood. Prifoners were fet at liberty upon paying a ranfom; and, by later im

provements