{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_61783/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_61783","id":"gutenberg_61783","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/61783","summary":null,"tags":["Category: British Literature","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","English wit and humor -- Early works to 1800","Questions and answers -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"Transcriber\u2019s Note\n\n\nThis document uses the \u201clong s\u201d character \u017f extensively, albeit at times\ninconsistently, so is best viewed with a font containing that symbol.\n\n\n\n\n                           PARADOXES\n                             _and_\n                           PROBLEMES\n\n                        _by_ Iohn Donne\n\n                      _with two Characters\n                        and an Essay of_\n                             VALOUR\n\n                          [Decoration]\n\n      _Now for the first time reprinted from the editions\n        of 1633 and 1652 with one additional =Probleme=_\n\n                              SOHO\n                      _THE NONESUCH PRESS\n                       30\u00a0Gerrard Street_\n                              1923\n\n\n\n\n  _This edition is limited to 645 copies, printed and made in\n  England for the Nonesuch Press in the 17th century Fell types by\n  Frederick Hall, printer to the University of Oxford. The type has\n  been distributed. This is number\u00a09_\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n    The\n  CONTENTS\n\n\n\u2767 PARADOXES\n\n   1. _A Defence of Womens Incon\u017ftancy:_  P. 1.\n   2. _That Women ought to paint:_  P. 6.\n   3. _That by Di\u017fcord things increase:_  P. 9.\n   4. _That good is more common then evill:_  P. 12.\n   5. _That all things kill them\u017felves:_  P. 15.\n   6. _That it is po\u017f\u017fible to find \u017fome vertue in Some Women:_  P. 17.\n   7. _That Old men are more fanta\u017ftike then Young:_  P. 19.\n   8. _That Nature is our wor\u017ft Guide:_  P. 21.\n   9. _That only Cowards dare dye:_  P. 24.\n  10. _That a Wi\u017fe Man is knowne by much laughing:_  P. 26.\n  11. _That the gifts of the Body are better then tho\u017fe\n         of the Minde:_  P. 30.\n  12. _That Virginity is a Vertue:_  P. 34.\n\n\n\u2767 PROBLEMES\n\n   1. _Why have Bastards be\u017ft Fortune?_  P. 40.\n   2. _Why Puritanes make long Sermons?_  P. 42.\n   3. _Why did the Divel re\u017ferve Je\u017fuites till the\u017fe latter\n         dayes:_  P. 43.\n   4. _Why is there more variety of Green then of other\n         Colours?_  P. 44.\n   5. _Why doe young Lay-men \u017fo much \u017ftudy Divinity:_  P. 45.\n   6. _Why hath the common Opinion afforded Women Soules?_  P. 47.\n   7. _Why are the Faire\u017ft, Fal\u017fe\u017ft?_  P. 49.\n   8. _Why Venus-\u017ftar only doth ca\u017ft a \u017fhadow?_  P. 51.\n   9. _Why is Venus-\u017ftar multinominous, called both =He\u017fperus=\n         and =Ve\u017fper=:_  P. 54.\n  10. _Why are New Officers lea\u017ft oppre\u017f\u017fing?_  P. 56.\n  11. _Why does the Poxe \u017fo much affect to undermine the No\u017fe?_  P. 58.\n  12. _Why die none for Love now?_  P. 60.\n  13. _Why do Women delight much in Feathers?_  P. 61.\n  14. _Why doth not Gold \u017foyl the fingers?_  P. 62.\n  15. _Why do great men of all dependents, chu\u017fe to pre\u017ferve\n         their little Pimps?_  P. 63.\n  16. _Why are Courtiers \u017fooner Athei\u017fts then men of other\n         conditions?_  P. 64.\n  17. _Why are \u017ftate\u017fmen mo\u017ft incredulous?_  P. 66.\n  18. _Why was Sir Walter Raleigh thought the fitte\u017ft Man, to write\n         the Hi\u017ftorie of the\u017fe Times?_  P. 68.\n\n\n\u2767 CHARACTERS\n\n   1. _The Character of a =Scot= at the first \u017fight:_  P. 69.\n   2. _The true Character of a =Dunce=:_  P. 71.\n\n\n\u2767 AN ESSAY OF VALOUR:  P. 75.\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n\n\n\n_BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE_\n\n\nDonne\u2019s Paradoxes and Problemes are clever and entertaining trifles,\nwhich were probably written before 1600, during the more wanton period\nof their author\u2019s life. Owing to their scurrilous nature they could\nnot be published during his lifetime, but shortly after his death the\ngreater part of them were licensed to be printed, the _Imprimatur_\nprinted at the end both of the eleven Paradoxes and of the ten\nProblemes being signed by Sir Henry Herbert and dated October\u00a025,\n1632. The volume was published under the title of _Juvenilia_ in 1633,\nbut already on November\u00a014, 1632, an order of inquiry had been\ndelivered at the King\u2019s command by the Bishop of London, calling upon\nSir Henry Herbert to explain before the Board of the Star Chamber his\nreasons \u2018why hee warrented the booke of D.\u00a0Duns paradoxes to be\nprinted\u2019. Perhaps Herbert\u2019s explanations were regarded as\nsatisfactory, but, however this may have been, the King was not\nsuccessful in suppressing the book. The volume is a thin quarto\ncontaining only thirty-two leaves, and was printed by Elizabeth\nPurslowe for Henry Seyle, to be sold at the sign of the Tyger\u2019s Head\nin St.\u00a0Paul\u2019s Church-yard. The printer seems to have been somewhat\ncareless in imposing the licences, for, although most copies contain\nthe two, copies occur from which one or both have been omitted. It is\nnot known through what channels the publisher obtained possession of\nthe text, but it is probable that the publication was quite\nunauthorized, and took place even without the knowledge of the younger\nDonne, who, when he reprinted the _Juvenilia_ in 1652, made no\nreference to any previous issue.\n\nThe _Juvenilia_ were at once in considerable demand, and seem to have\nbeen bought by many of the purchasers of the _Poems_, which were also\nfirst published in quarto in 1633. This is evident from the fact that\nthe two books are so often found together in contemporary bindings,\nthe lesser volume usually being relegated to the end. The first\nedition of the _Juvenilia_ was thus soon exhausted and a second\nedition was published in the same year. So ineffectual did the Star\nChamber inquiry prove to have been that in this edition the publisher\nnot only omitted the _Imprimaturs_ altogether and so abandoned all\npretence of having any official sanction for the publication, but even\nadded to the first Probleme, \u2018Why have Bastards best Fortune?\u2019, which\nwas particularly offensive to the Court, twenty-three lines which had\nnot appeared in the first edition. This edition, as before a quarto\nand with the same imprint, but containing only twenty-four leaves, is\nconsiderably rarer than its predecessor. It is unlikely, however, that\nthis fact is to be attributed to the King\u2019s having had any greater\nsuccess than before in suppressing it. More probably the demand for it\nwas less, so that part of the edition remained unsold and was\nsubsequently destroyed.\n\nIn 1652 the younger Donne, in the course of his exploitation of his\nfather\u2019s writings, prepared an authorized edition of the _Juvenilia_,\nwhich was printed by Thomas Newcomb for Humphrey Moseley. The number\nof the Paradoxes was now increased to twelve and of the Problemes to\nseventeen, the offensive passages in the first Probleme being allowed\nto remain. To these were added two \u2018Characters\u2019, \u2018An Essay of Valour\u2019,\n\u2018A Sheaf of Miscellany Epigrams\u2019, a reprint of _Ignatius his\nConclave_, and, finally, the _Essays in Divinity_. The Epigrams\npurport to have been written by the elder Donne in Latin and to have\nbeen translated into English by Jasper Mayne,\u00a0D.D. They may have been\nprinted by the younger Donne in good faith, as it seems to be certain\nthat his father\u2019s _Epigrammata mea Latina_ once existed; but the\nepigrams attributed to him in this volume are, as Mr.\u00a0Gosse has shown\n(_Life and Letters of Donne, i.\u00a016_), certainly spurious, and may well\nhave been composed, as well as translated, by Mayne, who was an\nunprincipled, though witty, divine. The _Essays in Divinity_ had been\nprinted in 1651 for a different publisher, but they are very rarely\nfound as a separate volume in a contemporary binding, for the younger\nDonne, as he made clear in his preface, sought to temper the\nsecularity of the _Juvenilia_ by issuing them in company with the\n_Essays in Divinity_, and in this way to invest the volume with an\naltogether fictitious respectability.\n\nEven in 1652 the Paradoxes and Problemes were not printed entire.\nAnother Probleme concerning Sir Walter Raleigh has been preserved in\nthe Bodleian Library (Tanner MSS.\u00a0299, f.\u00a032), the copier stating that\nit \u2018was so bitter that his son, Jack Donne,\u00a0LL.D., thought fit not to\nprint it with the rest\u2019. Yet another has recently been discovered in a\nmanuscript containing Donne\u2019s poems.\n\nThe _Juvenilia_ have not been reprinted since 1652. In the present\nedition the text follows that of the second edition of 1633, amplified\nfrom the third edition of 1652 and with the additional Probleme from\nthe Bodleian manuscript, already printed by Mr.\u00a0Edmund Gosse in his\n_Life and Letters of Donne, 1899, ii.\u00a052_. The spurious epigrams have\nnot been included.\n\n                                        GEOFFREY KEYNES\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\nPARADOXES\n\n\n\n\n1.\n\n_A Defence of Womens Incon\u017ftancy._\n\n\nThat Women are _Incon\u017ftant_, I with any man confe\u017f\u017fe, but that\n_Incon\u017ftancy_ is a bad quality, I again\u017ft any man will maintaine: For\nevery thing as it is one better than another, \u017fo is it fuller of\n_change_; The _Heavens_ them\u017felves continually turne, the _Starres_\nmove, the _Moone_ changeth; _Fire_ whirleth, _Ayre_ flyeth, _Water_\nebbs and flowes, the face of the _Earth_ altereth her lookes, _time_\n\u017ftayes not; the Colour that is mo\u017ft light, will take mo\u017ft dyes: \u017fo in\nMen, they that have the mo\u017ft rea\u017fon are the mo\u017ft alterable in their\nde\u017fignes, and the darke\u017ft or mo\u017ft ignorant, do \u017feldome\u017ft change;\ntherefore Women changing more than Men, have al\u017fo more _Rea\u017fon_. They\ncannot be immutable like \u017ftockes, like \u017ftones, like the Earths dull\nCenter; Gold that lyeth \u017ftill, ru\u017fteth; Water, corrupteth; Aire that\nmoveth not, poy\u017foneth; then why \u017fhould that which is the perfection of\nother things, be imputed to Women as greate\u017ft imperfection? Becau\u017fe\nthereby they deceive men. Are not your wits plea\u017fed with tho\u017fe je\u017fts,\nwhich coozen your expectation? You can call it Plea\u017fure to be beguil\u2019d\nin troubles, and in the mo\u017ft excellent toy in the world, you call it\nTreachery: I would you had your _Mi\u017ftre\u017f\u017fes_ \u017fo con\u017ftant, that they\nwould never change, no not \u017fo much as their _\u017fmocks_, then \u017fhould you\n\u017fee what \u017flutti\u017fh vertue, _Con\u017ftancy_ were. _Incon\u017ftancy_ is a mo\u017ft\ncommendable and cleanely quality, and Women in this quality are farre\nmore ab\u017folute than the Heavens, than the Starres, Moone, or any thing\nbeneath it; for long ob\u017fervation hath pickt certainety out of their\nmutability. The Learned are \u017fo well acquainted with the Starres,\nSignes and Planets, that they make them but Characters, to reade the\nmeaning of the Heaven in his owne forehead. Every \u017fimple Fellow can\nbe\u017fpeake the change of the _Moone_ a great while beforehand: but I\nwould faine have the learned\u017ft man \u017fo skilfull, as to tell when the\n\u017fimple\u017ft Woman meaneth to varie. Learning affords no rules to know,\nmuch le\u017f\u017fe knowledge to rule the minde of a Woman: For as _Philo\u017fophy_\nteacheth us, that _Light things doe alwayes tend upwards_, and _heavy\nthings decline downeward_; Experience teacheth us otherwi\u017fe, that the\ndi\u017fpo\u017fition of a _Light_ Woman, is to fall downe, the nature of Women\nbeing contrary to all Art and Nature. Women are like _Flies_, which\nfeed among us at our Table, or _Fleas_ \u017fucking our very blood, who\nleave not our mo\u017ft retired places free from their familiarity, yet for\nall their fellow\u017fhip will they never bee tamed nor commanded by us.\nWomen are like the _Sunne_, which is violently carryed one way, yet\nhath a proper cour\u017fe contrary: \u017fo though they, by the ma\u017ftery of \u017fome\nover-ruling churli\u017fh Husbands, are forced to his Byas, yet have they a\nmotion of their owne, which their Husbands never know of. It is the\nnature of nice and fa\u017ftidious mindes to know things onely to bee weary\nof them: Women by their \u017flye _changeablene\u017f\u017fe_, and plea\u017fing\ndoublene\u017f\u017fe, prevent even the mi\u017flike of tho\u017fe, for they can never be\n\u017fo well knowne, but that there is \u017ftill more unknowne. Every Woman is\na _Science_; for hee that plods upon a Woman all his life long, \u017fhall\nat length find him\u017felfe \u017fhort of the knowledge of her: they are borne\nto take downe the pride of wit, and ambition of wi\u017fedome, making\n_fooles_ wi\u017fe in the adventuring to winne them, _wi\u017femen_ fooles in\nconceit of lo\u017fing their labours; witty men \u017ftarke mad, being\nconfounded with their uncertaineties. _Philo\u017fophers_ write again\u017ft\nthem for \u017fpight, not de\u017fert, that having attained to \u017fome knowledge in\nall other things, in them onely they know nothing, but are meerely\nignorant: _Active_ and _Experienced_ men raile again\u017ft them, becau\u017fe\nthey love in their livele\u017f\u017fe and decrepit age, when all goodne\u017f\u017fe\nleaves them. The\u017fe envious _Libellers_ ballad again\u017ft them, becau\u017fe\nhaving nothing in them\u017felves able to de\u017ferve their love, they\nmaliciou\u017fly di\u017fcommend all they cannot obtaine, thinking to make men\nbeleeve they know much, becau\u017fe they are able to di\u017fprai\u017fe much, and\nrage again\u017ft _Incon\u017ftancy_, when they were never admitted into \u017fo much\nfavour as to be for\u017faken. In mine Opinion \u017fuch men are happy that\nWomen are _Incon\u017ftant_, for \u017fo may they chance to bee beloved of \u017fome\nexcellent Women (when it comes to their turne) out of their\n_Incon\u017ftancy_ and mutability, though not out of their owne de\u017fert. And\nwhat rea\u017fon is there to clog any Woman with one Man, bee hee never \u017fo\n\u017fingular? Women had rather, and it is farre better and more Iudiciall\nto enjoy all the vertues in \u017feverall Men, than but \u017fome of them in\none, for otherwi\u017fe they lo\u017fe their ta\u017fte, like divers \u017forts of meat\nminced together in one di\u017fh: and to have all excellencies in one Man\n(if it were po\u017f\u017fible) is _Confu\u017fion_ and _Diver\u017fity_. Now who can\ndeny, but \u017fuch as are ob\u017ftinately bent to undervalue their worth, are\ntho\u017fe that have not \u017foule enough to comprehend their excellency, Women\nbeing the mo\u017ft excellente\u017ft Creatures, in that Man is able to \u017fubject\nall things el\u017fe, and to grow wi\u017fe in every thing, but \u017ftill per\u017fi\u017fts a\nfoole in Woman? The greate\u017ft _Scholler_, if hee once take a Wife, is\nfound \u017fo unlearned, that he mu\u017ft begin his _Horne-booke_, and all is\nby _Incon\u017ftancy_. To conclude therefore; this name of _Incon\u017ftancy_,\nwhich hath \u017fo much beene poy\u017foned with \u017flaunders, ought to bee changed\ninto _variety_, for the which the world is \u017fo delightfull, _and a\nWoman for that the mo\u017ft delightfull thing in this world_.\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n2.\n\n_That Women ought to paint._\n\n\n_Foulene\u017f\u017fe_ is _Loth\u017fome_: can that be \u017fo which helpes it? who\nforbids his Beloved to gird in her wa\u017fte? to mend by \u017fhooing her\nuneven lamene\u017f\u017fe? to burni\u017fh her teeth? or to perfume her breath? yet\nthat the _Face_ bee more preci\u017fely regarded, it concernes more: For as\nopen confe\u017f\u017fing \u017finners are alwaies puni\u017fhed, but the wary and\nconcealing offenders without witne\u017f\u017fe doe it al\u017fo without puni\u017fhment;\n\u017fo the \u017fecret parts needs the le\u017f\u017fe re\u017fpect; but of the _Face_,\ndi\u017fcovered to all Examinations and \u017furvayes, there is not too nice a\nIealou\u017fie. Nor doth it onely draw the bu\u017fie eyes, but it is \u017fubject to\nthe divine\u017ft touch of all, to _ki\u017f\u017fing_, the \u017ftrange and my\u017fticall\nunion of \u017foules. If \u017fhee \u017fhould pro\u017ftitute her \u017felfe to a more\nunworthy Man than thy \u017felfe, how earne\u017ftly and ju\u017ftly would\u017ft thou\nexclaime? that for want of this ea\u017fier and ready way of repairing, to\nbetray her body to ruine and deformity (the tyrannous _Ravi\u017fhers_, and\n\u017fodaine _Deflourers_ of all Women) what a heynous Adultery is it? What\nthou love\u017ft in her _face_ is _colour_, and _painting_ gives that, but\nthou hate\u017ft it, not becau\u017fe it is, but becau\u017fe thou knowe\u017ft it. Foole,\nwhom ignorance makes happy; the Starres, the Sunne, the Skye whom thou\nadmire\u017ft, alas, have no _colour_, but are faire, becau\u017fe they \u017feeme to\nbee coloured: If this \u017feeming will not \u017fatisfie thee in her, thou ha\u017ft\ngood a\u017f\u017furance of her _colour_, when thou \u017fee\u017ft her _lay_ it on. If\nher _face_ bee _painted_ on a Boord or Wall, thou wilt love it, and\nthe Boord, and the Wall: Can\u017ft thou loath it then when it \u017fpeakes,\n\u017fmiles, and ki\u017f\u017fes, becau\u017fe it is _painted_? Are wee not more\ndelighted with \u017feeing Birds, Fruites, and Bea\u017fts _painted_ then wee\nare with Naturalls? And doe wee not with plea\u017fure behold the _painted_\n\u017fhape of Mon\u017fters and Divels, whom true, wee dur\u017ft not regard? Wee\nrepaire the ruines of our hou\u017fes, but fir\u017ft cold tempe\u017fts warnes us of\nit, and bytes us through it; wee mend the wracke and \u017ftaines of our\nApparell, but fir\u017ft our eyes, and other bodies are offended; but by\nthis providence of Women, this is prevented. If in _ki\u017f\u017fing_ or\n_breathing_ upon her, the _painting_ fall off, thou art angry, wilt\nthou be \u017fo, if it \u017fticke on? Thou did\u017ft love her, if thou beginne\u017ft to\nhate her, then \u2019tis becau\u017fe \u017fhee is not _painted_. If thou wilt \u017fay\nnow, thou did\u017ft hate her before, thou did\u017ft hate her and love her\ntogether, bee con\u017ftant in \u017fomething, and love her who \u017fhewes her great\n_love_ to thee, in taking this paines to \u017feeme _lovely_ to thee.\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n3.\n\n_That by Di\u017fcord things increa\u017fe._\n\n  _Nullos e\u017f\u017fe Deos, inane C\u0153lum\n   Affirmat C\u0153lius, probatq; quod \u017fe\n   Factum vidit, dum negat h\u00e6c, beatum._\n\n\nSo I a\u017f\u017fevere this the more boldly, becau\u017fe while I maintaine it, and\nfeele the _Contrary repugnancies_ and _adver\u017fe fightings_ of the\n_Elements_ in my Body, my Body increa\u017feth; and whil\u017ft I differ from\ncommon opinions by this _Di\u017fcord_, the number of my _Paradoxes_\nincrea\u017feth. All the rich benefits we can frame to our \u017felves in\n_Concord_, is but an _Even_ con\u017fervation of things; in which\n_Evenne\u017f\u017fe_ wee can expect no _change_, no _motion_; therefore no\n_increa\u017fe_ or _augmentation_, which is a _member of motion_. And if\nthis _unity_ and _peace_ can give _increa\u017fe_ to things, how mightily\nis _di\u017fcord_ and _war_ to that purpo\u017fe, which are indeed the onely\nordinary _Parents_ of _peace_. _Di\u017fcord_ is never \u017fo barren that it\naffords no fruit; for the _fall_ of one _e\u017ftate_ is at the wor\u017ft the\n_increa\u017fer_ of another, becau\u017fe it is as impo\u017f\u017fible to finde a\n_di\u017fcommodity_ without _advantage_, as to finde _Corruption_ without\n_Generation_: But it is the _Nature_ and _Office_ of _Concord_ to\n_pre\u017ferve_ onely, which property when it leaves, it differs from it\n\u017felfe, which is the greate\u017ft _di\u017fcord_ of all. All _Victories_ and\n_Emperies_ gained by _warre_, and all _Iudiciall_ decidings of doubts\nin _peace_, I doe claime children of _Di\u017fcord_. And who can deny but\n_Controver\u017fies_ in _Religion_ are growne greater by _di\u017fcord_, and not\nthe _Controver\u017fie_, but _Religion_ it \u017felfe: For in a _troubled\nmi\u017fery_ Men are alwaies more _Religious_ then in a _\u017fecure peace_. The\nnumber of _good_ men, the onely charitable nouri\u017fhers of _Concord_,\nwee \u017fee is thinne, and daily melts and waines; but of _bad di\u017fcording_\nit is infinite, and growes hourely. Wee are a\u017fcertained of all\n_Di\u017fputable_ doubts, onely by _arguing_ and differing in _Opinion_,\nand if formall _di\u017fputation_ (which is but a painted, counterfeit, and\ndi\u017f\u017fembled _di\u017fcord_) can worke us this benefit, what \u017fhall not a full\nand maine _di\u017fcord_ accompli\u017fh? Truely me thinkes I owe a _devotion_,\nyea a _\u017facrifice_ to _di\u017fcord_, for ca\u017fting that _Ball_ upon _Ida_,\nand for all that bu\u017fine\u017f\u017fe of _Troy_, whom ruin\u2019d I admire more then\n_Babylon_, _Rome_, or _Quinzay_, removed _Corners_, not onely\nfulfilled with her _fame_, but with _Cities_ and _Thrones_ planted by\nher _Fugitives_. La\u017ftly, between _Cowardice_ and _de\u017fpaire_, _Valour_\nis gendred; and \u017fo the _Di\u017fcord_ of _Extreames_ begets all vertues,\nbut of the _like things_ there is no i\u017f\u017fue without a miracle:\n\n  _Vxor pe\u017f\u017fima, pe\u017f\u017fimus maritus\n   Miror tam mal\u00e8 convenire._\n\nHee wonders that betweene two \u017fo _like_, there could be any _di\u017fcord_,\nyet perchance for all this _di\u017fcord_ there was nere the le\u017f\u017fe\n_increa\u017fe_.\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n4.\n\n_That good is more common then evill._\n\n\nI have not been \u017fo pittifully tired with any _vanity_, as with \u017filly\n_Old Mens_ exclaiming again\u017ft the\u017fe times, and extolling their owne:\nAlas! they betray them\u017felves, for if the _times_ be _changed_, their\nmanners have changed them. But their \u017fen\u017fes are to _plea\u017fures_, as\n_\u017fick Mens_ ta\u017ftes are to _Liquors_; for indeed no _new thing_ is done\nin the _world_, all things are what, and as they were, and _Good_ is\nas ever it was, more plenteous, and mu\u017ft of nece\u017f\u017fity be _more common\nthen evill_, becau\u017fe it hath this for _nature_ and _perfection_ to bee\n_common_. It makes _Love_ to all _Natures_, all, all affect it. So\nthat in the _Worlds_ early _Infancy_, there was a time when nothing\nwas _evill_, but if this _World_ \u017fhall \u017fuffer _dotage_ in the\nextreame\u017ft _crookedne\u017f\u017fe_ thereof, there \u017fhall be no time when nothing\n\u017fhal be _good_. It dares appeare and \u017fpread, and gli\u017fter in the\n_World_, but _evill_ buries it \u017felfe in night and darkne\u017f\u017fe, and is\ncha\u017fti\u017fed and \u017fuppre\u017f\u017fed when _good_ is cheri\u017fhed and rewarded. And as\n_Imbroderers_, _Lapidaries_, and other _Arti\u017fans_, can by all things\nadorne their workes; for by adding better things, the better they \u017fhew\nin _Lu\u017fh_ and in _Eminency_; \u017fo _good_ doth not onely pro\u017ftrate her\n_amiablene\u017f\u017fe_ to all, but refu\u017fes no end, no not of her utter\ncontrary _evill_, that \u017fhee may bee the more _common_ to us. For\n_euill manners_ are _parents_ of _good Lawes_; and in every _evill_\nthere is an _excellency_, which (in common \u017fpeech) we call _good_. For\nthe fa\u017fhions of _habits_, for our moving in _ge\u017ftures_, for phra\u017fes in\nour _\u017fpeech_, we \u017fay they were _good_ as long as they were u\u017fed, that\nis, as long as they were _common_; and wee eate, wee walke, onely when\nit is, or \u017feemes _good_ to doe \u017fo. All _faire_, all _profitable_, all\n_vertuous_, is _good_, and the\u017fe three things I thinke embrace all\nthings, but their utter _contraries_; of which al\u017fo _faire_ may be\n_rich_ and _vertuous_; _poore_ may bee _vertuous_ and _faire_;\n_vitious_ may be _faire_ and _rich_; \u017fo that _good_ hath this good\nmeanes to be _common_, that \u017fome \u017fubjects \u017fhe can po\u017f\u017fe\u017f\u017fe intirely;\nand in \u017fubjects poy\u017foned with _evill_, \u017fhe can humbly \u017ftoop to\naccompany the _evill_. And of _indifferent_ things many things are\nbecome perfectly good by being _common_, as _cu\u017ftomes_ by u\u017fe are made\nbinding _Lawes_. But I remember nothing that is therefore _ill_,\nbecau\u017fe it is _common_, but _Women_, of whom al\u017fo; _They that are mo\u017ft\ncommon, are the be\u017ft of that Occupation they profe\u017f\u017fe_.\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n5.\n\n_That all things kill them\u017felves._\n\n\nTo affect, yea to effect their owne _death_ all _living_ things are\nimportuned, not by _Nature_ only which perfects them, but by _Art_ and\n_Education_, which perfects her. _Plants_ quickened and inhabited by\nthe mo\u017ft unworthy _\u017foule_, which therefore neither _will_ nor _worke_,\naffect an _end_, a _perfection_, a _death_; this they \u017fpend their\n_\u017fpirits_ to attaine, this attained, they langui\u017fh and wither. And by\nhow much more they are by mans _Indu\u017ftry_ warmed, cheri\u017fhed, and\npampered; \u017fo much the more early they climbe to this _perfection_,\nthis _death_. And if among\u017ft _Men_ not to _defend_ be to _kill_, what\na hainous _\u017felfe-murther_ is it, not to _defend it \u017felfe_. This\n_defence_ becau\u017fe _Bea\u017fts_ neglect, they kill them\u017felves, becau\u017fe they\nexceed us in _number_, _\u017ftrength_, and a _lawle\u017f\u017fe liberty_: yea, of\n_Hor\u017fes_ and other bea\u017fts, they that inherit _mo\u017ft courage_ by being\nbred of _gallante\u017ft parents_, and by _Artificial nur\u017fing_ are\nbettered, will runne to their owne _deaths_, neither \u017follicited by\n_\u017fpurres_ which they need not, nor by _honour_ which they apprehend\nnot. If then the _valiant_ kill him\u017felfe, who can excu\u017fe the _coward_?\nOr how \u017fhall _Man_ bee free from this, \u017fince the _fir\u017ft Man_ taught us\nthis, except we cannot kill our \u017felves, becau\u017fe he kill\u2019d us all. Yet\nle\u017ft \u017fomething \u017fhould repaire this _Common ruine_, we daily kill our\n_bodies_ with _\u017furfeits_, and our mindes with _angui\u017fhes_. Of our\n_powers_, _remembring_ kils our _memory_; Of _Affections_, _Lu\u017fting_\nour _lu\u017ft_; Of _vertues_, _Giving_ kils _liberality_. And if the\u017fe\nkill them\u017felves, they do it in their be\u017ft & \u017fupreme _perfection_: for\nafter _perfection_ immediately follows _exce\u017f\u017fe_, which changeth the\nnatures and the names, and makes them not the \u017fame things. If then the\nbe\u017ft things kill them\u017felves \u017foone\u017ft, (for no _affection_ endures, and\nall things labour to this _perfection_) all travell to their owne\n_death_, yea the frame of the whole _World_, if it were po\u017f\u017fible for\n_God_ to be _idle_, yet becau\u017fe it _began_, mu\u017ft _dye_. Then in this\n_idlene\u017f\u017fe_ imagined in _God_, what could kill the _world_ but it\n\u017felfe, \u017fince _out of it, nothing is_?\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n6.\n\n_That it is po\u017fsible to find \u017fome vertue in \u017fome Women._\n\n\nI am not of that \u017feard _Impudence_ that I dare defend _Women_, or\npronounce them good; yet we \u017fee _Phy\u017fitians_ allow \u017fome _vertue_ in\nevery _poy\u017fon_. Alas! why \u017fhould we except _Women_? \u017fince certainely,\nthey are good for _Phy\u017ficke_ at lea\u017ft, \u017fo as \u017fome _wine_ is good for a\n_feaver_. And though they be the _Occa\u017fioners_ of many \u017finnes, they\nare al\u017fo the _Puni\u017fhers_ and _Revengers_ of the \u017fame \u017finnes: For I\nhave \u017feldome \u017feene one which con\u017fumes his _\u017fub\u017ftance_ and _body_ upon\nthem, e\u017fcape _di\u017fea\u017fes_, or _beggery_; and this is their _Iu\u017ftice._\nAnd if _\u017fuum cuiq; dare_, bee the fulfilling of all _Civill Iu\u017ftice_,\nthey are _mo\u017ft ju\u017ft_; for they deny that which is theirs to no man.\n\n  _Tanquam non liceat nulla puella negat._\n\nAnd who may doubt of great wi\u017fdome in them, that doth but ob\u017ferve with\nhow much labour and cunning our _Iu\u017fticers_ and other _di\u017fpen\u017fers_ of\nthe _Lawes_ \u017ftudy to imbrace them: and how zealou\u017fly our _Preachers_\ndehort men from them, onely by urging their _\u017fubtilties_, and\n_policies_, and _wi\u017fedome_, which are in them? Or who can deny them a\ngood mea\u017fure of _Fortitude_, if hee con\u017fider how _valiant men_ they\nhave overthrowne, and being them\u017felves overthrowne, how much and how\npatiently they _beare_? And though they bee mo\u017ft _intemperate_, I care\nnot, for I undertooke to furni\u017fh them with _\u017fome vertue_, not with\n_all_. _Nece\u017f\u017fity_, which makes even bad things good, prevailes al\u017fo\nfor them, for wee mu\u017ft \u017fay of them, as of \u017fome \u017fharpe pinching\n_Lawes_; If men were free from _infirmities_, they were needle\u017f\u017fe.\nThe\u017fe or none mu\u017ft \u017ferve for _rea\u017fons_, and it is my great\nhappine\u017f\u017fe that _Examples_ prove not _Rules_, for to confirme this\n_Opinion_, the World yeelds not _one Example._\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n7.\n\n_That Old men are more fanta\u017ftike then Young._\n\n\nWho reads this _Paradox_ but thinks mee more _fanta\u017ftike_ now, than I\nwas ye\u017fterday, when I did not think thus: And if one day make this\n\u017fen\u017fible change in men, what will the burthen of many yeeres? To bee\n_fanta\u017ftike_ in _young men_ is _conceiptfull di\u017ftemperature_, and a\n_witty madne\u017f\u017fe_; but in _old men_, who\u017fe \u017fen\u017fes are withered, it\nbecomes _naturall_, therefore more full and perfect. For as when wee\n_\u017fleepe_ our _fancy_ is mo\u017ft \u017ftrong; \u017fo it is in _age_, which is a\n_\u017flumber_ of the _deepe \u017fleepe of death_. They taxe us of\n_Incon\u017ftancy_, which in them\u017felves _young_ they allowed; \u017fo that\nreprooving that which they did approove, their _Incon\u017ftancy_ exceedeth\nours, becau\u017fe they have changed _once more_ then wee. Yea, they are\nmore idlely bu\u017fied in _conceited apparell_ then wee; for we, when we\nare _melancholy_, weare _blacke_; when _lu\u017fty_, _greene_; when\n_for\u017faken_, _tawney_; plea\u017fing our owne _inward_ affections, leaving\nthem to others indifferent; but they pre\u017fcribe _lawes_, and con\u017ftraine\nthe _Noble_, the _Scholer_, the _Merchant_, and all _E\u017ftates_ to a\ncertaine _habit_. The _old men_ of our time have changed with patience\ntheir owne _bodies_, much of their _lawes_, much of their _languages_;\nyea their _Religion_, yet they accu\u017fe us. To be _Amorous_ is proper\nand _naturall_ in a _young man_, but in an _old man_ most\n_fanta\u017ftike_. And that _ridling humour_ of _Iealou\u017fie_, which \u017feekes\nand would not finde, which requires and repents his knowledge, is in\nthem mo\u017ft common, yet mo\u017ft _fanta\u017ftike_. Yea, that which falls never\nin _young men_, is in them mo\u017ft _fanta\u017ftike_ and _naturall_, that is,\n_Covetou\u017fne\u017f\u017fe_; even at their _journeyes end_ to make great\nprovi\u017fion. Is any _habit_ of _young men_ \u017fo _fanta\u017ftike_, as in the\nhotte\u017ft \u017fea\u017fons to be _double-gowned_ or _hooded_ like our _Elders_?\nOr \u017feemes it \u017fo _ridiculous_ to weare long haire, as to weare _none_.\nTruely, as among the _Philo\u017fophers_, the _Skeptike_, which _doubts\nall_, was more contentious, then either the _Dogmatike_ which\n_affirmes_, or _Academike_ which _denyes all_; \u017fo are the\u017fe uncertaine\n_Elders_, which both cals them _fanta\u017ftike_ which follow others\n_inventions_, and them al\u017fo which are led by their owne humorous\n\u017fugge\u017ftion, more _fanta\u017ftike_ then other.\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n8.\n\n_That Nature is our wor\u017ft Guide._\n\n\nShal \u017fhe be _guide_ to all _Creatures_, which is her \u017felfe one? Or if\n\u017fhe al\u017fo have a _guide_, \u017fhall any _Creature_ have a better guide then\nwee? The affections of _lu\u017ft_ and _anger_, yea even to _erre_ is\n_naturall_; \u017fhall we follow the\u017fe? Can \u017fhee be a good _guide_ to us,\nwhich hath corrupted not us onely but her \u017felfe? Was not the _fir\u017ft\nman_, by the de\u017fire of _knowledge_, corrupted even in the _white\u017ft\nintegrity_ of _Nature_? And did not _Nature_ (if _Nature_ did any\nthing) infu\u017fe into him this de\u017fire of _knowledge_, and \u017fo this\n_corruption_ in him, into us? If by _Nature_ wee \u017fhall under\u017ftand our\n_e\u017f\u017fence_, our _definition_, or _rea\u017fon_, _noblene\u017f\u017fe_, then this\nbeing alike common to all (the _Idiot_ and the _Wizard_ being equally\n_rea\u017fonable_) why \u017fhould not all men having equally all one _nature_,\nfollow one cour\u017fe? Or if we \u017fhall under\u017ftand our _inclinations_;\nalas! how unable a guide is that which followes the _temperature_ of\nour \u017flimie _bodies_? for we cannot \u017fay that we derive our\n_inclinations_, our _mindes_, or _\u017foules_ from our _Parents_ by any\nway: to \u017fay that it is _all from all_, is _error_ in _rea\u017fon_, for\nthen with the fir\u017ft nothing remaines; or is a _part from all_, is\n_errour_ in _experience_, for then this _part_ equally imparted to\nmany children, would like _Gavel-kind lands_, in few generations\nbecome nothing; or to \u017fay it by _communication_, is _errour_ in\n_Divinity_, for to communicate the _ability_ of communicating _whole\ne\u017f\u017fence_ with any but God, is utter _bla\u017fphemy_. And if thou hit thy\n_Fathers nature_ and _inclination_, he al\u017fo had his _Fathers_, and \u017fo\nclimbing up, all comes of one man, and have one _nature_, all \u017fhall\nimbrace one cour\u017fe; but that cannot bee, therefore our _complexions_\nand whole _bodies_, wee inherit from _Parents_; our _inclinations_ and\nminds follow that: For our minde is heavy in our _bodies afflictions_,\nand rejoyceth in our _bodies plea\u017fure_: how then \u017fhall this _nature_\ngoverne us, that is governed by the wor\u017ft part of us? _Nature though\noft cha\u017fed away, it will returne_; \u2019tis true, but tho\u017fe _good motions_\nand _in\u017fpirations_ which be our guides mu\u017ft bee _wooed_, _courted_,\nand _welcomed_, or el\u017fe they abandon us. And that old _Axiome_,\n_nihil invita, &c._ mu\u017ft not be \u017faid thou _\u017fhalt_, but thou _wilt_ doe\nnothing again\u017ft _Nature_; \u017fo _unwilling_ he notes us to curbe our\n_naturall appetites_. Wee call our _ba\u017ftards_ alwayes our _naturall\ni\u017f\u017fue_, and we define a _Foole_ by nothing \u017fo ordinary, as by the name\nof _naturall_. And that poore knowledge whereby we conceive what\n_raine_ is, what _wind_, what _thunder_, wee call _Metaphy\u017ficke,\n\u017fupernaturall_; \u017fuch _\u017fmall_ things, \u017fuch _no_ things doe we allow to\nour pliant _Natures_ apprehen\u017fion. La\u017ftly, by following her, we lo\u017fe\nthe plea\u017fant, and lawfull commodities of this life, for wee \u017fhall\ndrinke water and eate rootes, and tho\u017fe not \u017fweet and delicate, as now\nby Mans _art_ and _indu\u017ftry_ they are made: we \u017fhall lo\u017fe all the\nnece\u017f\u017fities of _\u017focieties_, _lawes_, _arts_, and _\u017fciences_, which are\nall the workeman\u017fhip of _Man_: yea we \u017fhall lack the la\u017ft _be\u017ft\nrefuge_ of mi\u017fery, _death_; becau\u017fe _no death is naturall_: for if yee\nwill not dare to call all _death violent_ (though I \u017fee not why\n_\u017fickne\u017f\u017fes_ be not _violences_) yet _cau\u017fes_ of all _deaths_ proceed\nof the _defect_ of that which _nature_ made perfect, and would\npre\u017ferve, and therefore all again\u017ft _nature_.\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n9.\n\n_That only Cowards dare dye._\n\n\n_Extreames_ are equally removed from the _meane_; \u017fo that headlong\n_de\u017fperatene\u017f\u017fe_ a\u017fmuch offends true _valour_, as backward\n_Cowardice_: of which \u017fort I reckon ju\u017ftly all _un-inforced deaths_.\nWhen will your _valiant_ man dye of nece\u017f\u017fity? \u017fo _Cowards_ \u017fuffer\nwhat cannot be avoided: and to runne into _death unimportun\u2019d_, is to\nrunne into the fir\u017ft condemned de\u017fperatene\u017f\u017fe. Will he dye when he is\n_rich_ and _happy_? then by living he may doe more good: and in\n_afflictions_ and _mi\u017feries_, _death_ is the cho\u017fen refuge of\n_Cowards_.\n\n  _Fortiter ille facit, qui mi\u017fer e\u017f\u017fe pote\u017ft._\n\nBut it is taught and practi\u017fed among our _Galants_, that rather than\nour reputations \u017fuffer any _maime_, or we any _mi\u017fery_, wee \u017fhall\noffer our _bre\u017fts_ to the _Cannons_ mouth, yea to our _\u017fwords_ points:\nAnd this \u017feemes a very _brave_ and a very _climbing_ (which is a\n_Cowardly_, earthly, and indeed a very _groveling_) _\u017fpirit_. Why doe\nthey _chaine_ the\u017fe \u017flaves to the _Gallyes_, but that they thru\u017ft\ntheir _deaths_, and would at every loo\u017fe leape into the _\u017fea_? Why doe\nthey take weapons from _condemned_ men, but to barre them of that ea\u017fe\nwhich _Cowards_ affect, _a \u017fpeedy death_. Truely this _life_ is a\n_tempe\u017ft_, and a _warfare_, and he which _dares dye_, to e\u017fcape the\n_angui\u017fh_ of it, \u017feems to mee, but \u017fo _valiant_, as hee which dares\n_hang_ him\u017felfe, le\u017ft hee be _pre\u017ft_ to the _warres_. I have \u017feene one\nin that extremity of _melancholy_, which was then become _madne\u017f\u017fe_,\nto make his owne _breath_ an _In\u017ftrument_ to \u017ftay his breath, and\nlabour to choake him\u017felfe, but alas! he was _mad_. And we knew another\nthat langui\u017fhed under the _oppre\u017f\u017fion_ of a poore _di\u017fgrace_ \u017fo much,\nthat hee tooke more _paines to dye_, then would have \u017ferved to have\nnouri\u017fhed _life_ and _\u017fpirit_ enough to have outlived his _di\u017fgrace_.\nWhat _Foole_ will call this _Cowardline\u017f\u017fe_, _Valour_? or this\n_Ba\u017fene\u017f\u017fe_, _Humility_? And la\u017ftly, of the\u017fe men which dye the\n_Allegoricall death_ of entring into _Religion_, how few are found fit\nfor any \u017fhew of _valiancy_? but onely a _\u017foft_ and _\u017fupple metall_,\nmade onely for _Cowardly_ \u017folitarine\u017f\u017fe.\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n10.\n\n_That a Wi\u017fe Man is knowne by much laughing._\n\n\n_Ride, \u017fi \u017fapis, \u00f4 puella ride_; If thou bee\u017ft _wi\u017fe_, _laugh_: for\n\u017fince the _powers_ of _di\u017fcour\u017fe_, _rea\u017fon_, and _laughter_, bee\nequally _proper_ unto Man onely, why \u017fhall not hee be onely mo\u017ft\n_wi\u017fe_, which hath mo\u017ft u\u017fe of _laughing_, a\u017fwell as he which hath\nmo\u017ft of _rea\u017foning_ and _di\u017fcour\u017fing_? I alwaies did, and \u017fhall\nunder\u017ftand that _Adage_;\n\n  _Per ri\u017fum multum po\u017f\u017fis cogno\u017fcere \u017ftultum_,\n\nThat by much _laughing_ thou mai\u017ft know there is a _foole_, not, that\nthe _laughers_ are _fooles_, but that among them there is \u017fome\n_foole_, at whome _wi\u017femen_ laugh: which moved _Era\u017fmus_ to put this\nas his fir\u017ft _Argument_ in the mouth of his _Folly_, that _\u017fhee made\nBeholders laugh_: for _fooles_ are the mo\u017ft laughed at, and laugh the\nlea\u017ft them\u017felves of any. And _Nature_ \u017faw this _faculty_ to bee \u017fo\nnece\u017f\u017fary in man, that \u017fhee hath beene content that by _more cau\u017fes_\nwe \u017fhould be importuned to _laugh_, then to the _exerci\u017fe_ of any\nother _power_; for things in them\u017felves utterly _contrary_, beget this\neffect; for wee laugh both at _witty_ and _ab\u017furd_ things: At both\nwhich \u017forts I have \u017feen Men _laugh \u017fo long_, and _\u017fo earne\u017ftly_, that\nat la\u017ft they have _wept_ that they could laugh no more. And therfore\nthe _Poet_ having de\u017fcribed the quietne\u017f\u017fe of a _wi\u017fe retired man_,\n\u017faith in one, what we have \u017faid before in many lines; _Quid facit\nCanius tuus? ridet_. We have received that even the _extremity_ of\n_laughing_, yea of _weeping_ al\u017fo, hath beene accounted _wi\u017fedome_:\nAnd that _Democritus_ and _Heraclitus_, the _lovers_ of the\u017fe\n_Extremes_, have been called _lovers of wi\u017fedome_. Now among our\n_wi\u017femen_ I doubt not, but many would be found who would laugh at\n_Heraclitus_ weeping, none which weepe at _Democritus_ laughing. At\nthe hearing of _Comedies_ or other witty reports, I have noted \u017fome,\nwhich not under\u017ftanding _je\u017fts_, &c. have yet cho\u017fen this as the be\u017ft\nmeanes to \u017feeme _wi\u017fe_ and _under\u017ftanding_, to laugh when their\n_Companions laugh_; and I have pre\u017fumed them _ignorant_, whom I have\n\u017feene _unmoved_. A _foole_ if he come into a _Princes Court_, and \u017fee\na _gay_ man leaning at the wall, \u017fo _gli\u017ftering_, and \u017fo _painted_ in\nmany _colours_ that he is hardly di\u017fcerned from one of the _pictures_\nin the _Arras_, hanging his _body_ like an _Iron-bound-che\u017ft_, girt in\nand thicke ribb\u2019d with _broad gold laces_, may (and commonly doth)\nenvy him. But alas! \u017fhall a _wi\u017feman_, which may not onely not _envy_,\nbut not _pitty_ this _mon\u017fter_, do nothing? Yes, let him _laugh_. And\nif one of the\u017fe _hot cholerike firebrands_, which nouri\u017fh them\u017felves\nby _quarrelling_, and kindling others, \u017fpit upon a _foole_ one\n_\u017fparke_ of _di\u017fgrace_, he, like a _thatcht hou\u017fe_ quickly burning,\nmay bee _angry_; but the _wi\u017feman_, as _cold_ as the _Salamander_, may\nnot onely not be _angry_ with him, but not be _\u017forry_ for him;\ntherefore let him _laugh_: \u017fo he \u017fhall be knowne a Man, becau\u017fe he can\n_laugh_, a _wi\u017fe Man_ that hee knowes at _what_ to laugh, and a\n_valiant Man_ that he _dares_ laugh: for he that _laughs_ is ju\u017ftly\nreputed more _wi\u017fe_, then at whom it is _laughed_. And hence I thinke\nproceeds that which in the\u017fe later _formall_ times I have much noted;\nthat now when our _\u017fuper\u017ftitious civility_ of _manners_ is become a\nmutuall _tickling flattery_ of one another, almo\u017ft every man affecteth\nan _humour_ of _je\u017fting_, and is content to be _deject_, and to\n_deforme_ him\u017felfe, yea become _foole_ to no other _end_ that I can\n\u017fpie, but to give his _wi\u017fe Companion_ occa\u017fion to _laugh_: and to\n\u017fhew them\u017felves in _promptne\u017f\u017fe_ of _laughing_ is \u017fo great in\n_wi\u017femen_, that I thinke all _wi\u017femen_, if any _wi\u017feman_ do reade this\n_Paradox_, will _laugh_ both at it and me.\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n11.\n\n_That the gifts of the Body are better then tho\u017fe of the Minde._\n\n\nI \u017fay againe, that the _body_ makes the _minde_, not that it created\nit a _minde_, but _formes_ it a _good_ or a _bad mind_; and this\n_minde_ may be confounded with _\u017foule_ without any violence or\ninju\u017ftice to _Rea\u017fon_ or _Philo\u017fophy_: then the _\u017foule_ it \u017feemes is\nenabled by our _body_, not this by it. My _Body_ licen\u017feth my _\u017foule_\nto _\u017fee_ the Worlds _beauties_ through mine _eyes_; to _heare_\nplea\u017fant things through mine _eares_; and affords it apt _Organs_ for\nthe conveiance of all perceivable _delight_. But alas! my _\u017foule_\ncannot make any _part_, that is not of it \u017felfe di\u017fpo\u017fed, to _\u017fee_ or\n_heare_, though without doubt \u017fhe be as able and as willing to \u017fee\n_behind_ as _before_. Now if my _\u017foule_ would \u017fay, that \u017fhee enables\nany part to ta\u017fte the\u017fe plea\u017fures, but is her \u017felfe onely delighted\nwith tho\u017fe rich _\u017fweetne\u017f\u017fes_ which her _inward eyes_ and _\u017fen\u017fes_\napprehend, \u017fhee \u017fhould di\u017f\u017femble; for I \u017fee her often \u017folaced with\n_beauties_, which \u017fhee \u017fees through mine _eyes_, and with _mu\u017ficke_\nwhich through mine _eares_ \u017fhe heares. This _perfection_ then my\n_body_ hath, that it can impart to my _minde_ all his _plea\u017fures_; and\nmy _minde_ hath \u017ftill many, that \u017fhe can neither teach my _indi\u017fpo\u017fed_\npart her _faculties_, nor to the be\u017ft _e\u017fpou\u017fed_ parts \u017fhew it\n_beauty_ of _Angels_, of _Mu\u017ficke_, of _Spheres_, whereof \u017fhe boa\u017fts\nthe _contemplation_. Are _cha\u017ftity_, _temperance_, and _fortitude_\ngifts of the _mind_? I appeale to _Phy\u017fitians_ whether the _cau\u017fe_ of\nthe\u017fe be not in the _body_, _health_ is the gift of the _body_, and\n_patience_ in \u017fickene\u017f\u017fe the gift of the _minde_: then who will \u017fay\nthat _patience_ is as good a happine\u017f\u017fe, as _health_, when wee mu\u017ft be\nextremely _mi\u017ferable_ to purcha\u017fe this _happine\u017f\u017fe_. And for\nnouri\u017fhing of _civill \u017focieties_ and _mutuall love_ among\u017ft men, which\nis our _chiefe end_ while wee are men; I \u017fay, this _beauty_,\n_pre\u017fence_, and _proportion_ of the _body_, hath a more _ma\u017fculine_\nforce in begetting this _love_, then the _vertues_ of the _minde_: for\nit \u017ftrikes us _\u017fuddenly_, and po\u017f\u017fe\u017f\u017feth us _immoderately_; when to\nknow tho\u017fe _vertues_ requires \u017fome _Iudgement_ in him which \u017fhall\ndi\u017fcerne, a _long time_ and _conver\u017fation_ betweene them. And even at\n_la\u017ft_ how much of our _faith_ and _beleefe_ \u017fhall we be driven to\nbe\u017ftow, to a\u017f\u017fure our \u017felves that the\u017fe _vertues_ are not\n_counterfeited_: for it is the \u017fame to _be_, and _\u017feeme vertuous_,\nbecau\u017fe that he that hath _no vertue_, can _di\u017f\u017femble_ none, but he\nwhich hath a _little_, may _gild_ and _enamell_, yea and transforme\nmuch _vice_ into _vertue_: For allow a man to be _di\u017fcreet_ and\n_flexible_ to _complaints_, which are great _vertuous_ gifts of the\n_minde_, this _di\u017fcretion_ will be to him the _\u017foule_ & _Elixir_ of\nall _vertues_, \u017fo that touched with this, even _pride_ \u017fhal be made\n_humility_; and _Cowardice_, honourable and wi\u017fe _valour_. But in\nthings _\u017feene_ there is not this danger, for the _body_ which thou\nlove\u017ft and e\u017fteeme\u017ft _faire_, is _faire_; certainely if it bee not\n_faire_ in _perfection_, yet it is _faire_ in the \u017fame _degree_ that\nthy _Iudgement_ is good. And in a _faire body_, I doe \u017feldome \u017fu\u017fpect\na _di\u017fproportioned minde_, and as \u017feldome hope for a _good_ in a\n_deformed_. When I \u017fee a _goodly hou\u017fe_, I a\u017f\u017fure my \u017felfe of a\n_worthy po\u017f\u017fe\u017f\u017four_, from a _ruinous weather-beaten building_ I turn\naway, becau\u017fe it \u017feems either \u017ftuffed with _varlets_ as a _Pri\u017fon_, or\nhandled by an _unworthy_ and _negligent tenant_, that \u017fo \u017fuffers the\n_wa\u017fte_ thereof. And truely the gifts of _Fortune_, which are\n_riches_, are onely _handmaids_, yea _Pandars_ of the _bodies\nplea\u017fure_; with their \u017fervice we nouri\u017fh _health_, and pre\u017ferve\n_dainty_, and wee buy _delights_; \u017fo that _vertue_ which mu\u017ft be loved\nfor _it \u017felfe_, and re\u017fpects no further _end_, is indeed _nothing_:\nAnd _riches_, who\u017fe _end_ is the _good_ of the _body_, cannot be \u017fo\n_perfectly good_, as the _end_ whereto it levels.\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n12.\n\n_That Virginity is a Vertue._\n\n\nI call not that _Virginity a vertue_, which re\u017fideth only in the\n_Bodies integrity_; much le\u017f\u017fe if it be with a purpo\u017fe of perpetuall\nkeeping it: for then it is a mo\u017ft inhumane vice\u2014But I call that\n_Virginity a vertue_ which is willing and de\u017firous to yeeld it\u017felfe\nupon hone\u017ft and lawfull termes, when ju\u017ft rea\u017fon requireth; and untill\nthen, is kept with a mode\u017ft cha\u017ftity of Body and Mind. Some perchance\nwill say that _Virginity_ is in us by _Nature_, and therefore no\n_vertue_. True, as it is in us by _Nature_, it is neither a _Vertue_\nnor _Vice_, and is onely in the body: (as in Infants, Children, and\nsuch as are incapable of parting from it). But that _Virginity_ which\nis in Man or Woman of perfect age, is not in them by _Nature_:\n_Nature_ is the greate\u017ft enemy to it, and with mo\u017ft \u017fubtile\nallurements \u017feeks the over-throw of it, continually beating again\u017ft it\nwith her _Engines_, and giving \u017fuch forcible a\u017f\u017faults to it, that it\nis a \u017ftrong and more then ordinary _vertue_ to hold out till marriage.\n_Ethick_ Philo\u017fophy \u017faith, _That no Vertue is corrupted, or is taken\naway by that which is good_: Hereupon \u017fome may \u017fay, that _Virginity_\nis therefore no vertue, being taken away by marriage. _Virginity_ is\nno otherwi\u017fe taken away by marriage, then is the light of the \u017ftarres\nby a greater light (the light of the Sun:) or as a le\u017f\u017fe Title is\ntaken away by a greater: (an E\u017fquire by being created an Earle) yet\n_Virginity_ is a _vertue_, and hath her Throne in the middle: The\nextreams are, in _Exce\u017f\u017fe_; to violate it before marriage; in defect,\nnot to marry. In ripe years as \u017foon as rea\u017fon per\u017fwades, and\nopportunity admits, The\u017fe extreams are equally removed from the mean:\nThe exce\u017f\u017fe proceeds from _Lu\u017ft_, the defect from _Peevi\u017fhne\u017f\u017fe_,\n_Pride_ and _Stupidity_. There is an old Proverb, That, _they that dy\nmaids, mu\u017ft lead Apes in Hell_. An Ape is a ridiculous and\nunprofitable Bea\u017ft, who\u017fe fle\u017fh is not good for meat, nor its back for\nburden, nor is it commodious to keep an hou\u017fe: and perchance for the\nunprofitablene\u017f\u017fe of this Bea\u017ft did this proverb come up: For surely\nnothing is more unprofitable in the Commonwealth of _Nature_, then\nthey that dy old maids, becau\u017fe they refu\u017fe to be u\u017fed to that end\nfor which they were only made. The Ape bringeth forth her young, for\nthe mo\u017ft part by twins; that which \u017fhe loves be\u017ft, \u017fhe killeth by\npre\u017f\u017fing it too hard: so fooli\u017fh maids \u017foothing them\u017felves with a\nfal\u017fe conceit of _vertue_, in fond ob\u017ftinacie, live and die maids; and\n\u017fo not only kill in them\u017felves the _vertue_ of _Virginity_, and of a\nVertue make it a Vice, but they also accu\u017fe their parents in\ncondemning marriage. If this application hold not touch, yet there may\nbe an excellent one gathered from an Apes tender love to Conies in\nkeeping them from the Wea\u017fel and Ferret. From this \u017fimilitude of an\nApe & an old Maid did the afore\u017faid proverb fir\u017ft ari\u017fe. But alas,\nthere are \u017fome old Maids that are _Virgins_ much again\u017ft their wills,\nand fain would change their _Virgin-life_ for a _Married_: \u017fuch if\nthey never have had any offer of fit Hu\u017fbands, are in \u017fome \u017fort\nexcu\u017fable, and their willingne\u017f\u017fe, their de\u017fire to marry, and their\nforbearance from all di\u017fhone\u017ft, and unlawful copulation, may be a kind\nof inclination to _vertue_, although not _Vertue_ it \u017felfe. This\n_Virtue_ of _Virginity_ (though it be \u017fmall and fruitle\u017f\u017fe) it is an\nextraordinary, and no common _Vertue_. All other _Vertues_ lodge in\nthe _Will_ (it is the _Will_ that makes them _vertues_.) But it is the\nunwillingne\u017f\u017fe to keep it, the de\u017fire to for\u017fake it, that makes this a\n_vertue_. As in the naturall generation and formation made of the \u017feed\nin the womb of a woman, the body is joynted and organized about the 28\nday, and so it begins to be no more an _Embrion_, but capable as a\nmatter prepared to its form to receive the \u017foule, which faileth not to\nin\u017finuate and inne\u017ft it \u017felfe into the body about the fortieth day;\nabout the third month it hath motion and \u017fen\u017fe: Even \u017fo _Virginity_ is\nan _Embrion_, an unfa\u017fhioned lump, till it attain to a certain time,\nwhich is about twelve years of age in women, fourteen in men, and then\nit beginneth to have the \u017foule of _Love_ infu\u017fed into it, and to\nbecome a _vertue_: There is al\u017fo a certain limited time when it\ncea\u017feth to be a _vertue_, which in men is about fourty, in women about\nthirty years of age: yea, the lo\u017f\u017fe of \u017fo much time makes their\n_Virginity_ a _Vice_, were not their endeavour wholly bent, and their\nde\u017fires altogether fixt upon marriage: In Harve\u017ft time do we not\naccount it a great vice of \u017floath and negligence in a Hu\u017fband-man, to\nover\u017flip a week or ten dayes after his fruits are fully ripe; May we\nnot much more account it a more heynous vice, for a _Virgin_ to let\nher Fruit (_in potentia_) con\u017fume and rot to nothing, and to let the\n_vertue_ of her _Virginity_ degenerate into _Vice_, (for _Virginity_\never kept is ever lo\u017ft.) Avarice is the greate\u017ft deadly \u017fin next\nPride: it takes more plea\u017fure in hoording Trea\u017fure then in making u\u017fe\nof it, and will neither let the po\u017f\u017fe\u017f\u017for nor others take benefit by\nit during the Mi\u017fers life; yet it remains intire, and when the Mi\u017fer\ndies mu\u017ft come to \u017fom body. _Virginity_ ever kept, is a vice far wor\u017fe\nthen Avarice, it will neither let the po\u017f\u017fe\u017f\u017for nor others take\nbenefit by it, nor can it be bequeathed to any: with long keeping it\ndecayes and withers, and becomes corrupt and nothing worth. Thus\n\u017feeing that _Virginity_ becomes a vice in defect, by exceeding a\nlimited time; I coun\u017fell all female _Virgins_ to make choyce of \u017fome\n_Paracel\u017fian_ for their Phy\u017fitian, to prevent the death of that\n_Vertue_: The _Paracel\u017fians_ (curing like by like) \u017fay, That if the\nlives of living Creatures could be taken down, they would make us\nimmortall. By this rule, female _Virgins_ by a di\u017fcreet marriage\n\u017fhould \u017fwallow down into their _Virginity_ another _Virginity_, and\ndevour \u017fuch a life & \u017fpirit into their womb, that it might make them\nas it were, immortall here on earth, be\u017fides their perfect\nimmortality in heaven: And that _Vertue_ which otherwi\u017fe would\nputrifie and corrupt, \u017fhall then be compleat; and \u017fhall be recorded in\nHeaven, and enrolled here on Earth; and the name of _Virgin_ \u017fhall be\nexchanged for a far more honorable name, _A Wife_.\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\nPROBLEMES\n\n\n\n\n1.\n\n_Why have Ba\u017ftards be\u017ft Fortune?_\n\n\nBecau\u017fe _Fortune_ her\u017felfe is a _Whore_, but \u017fuch are not mo\u017ft\nindulgent to their _i\u017f\u017fue_; the old naturall rea\u017fon (but tho\u017fe\nmeetings in _\u017ftolne love_ are mo\u017ft _vehement_, and \u017fo contribute more\n_\u017fpirit_ then the _ea\u017fie_ and _lawfull_) might governe me, but that\nnow I \u017fee _Mi\u017ftre\u017f\u017fes_ are become _dome\u017ftike_ and _inordinary_, and\nthey and wives _waite_ but by _turnes_, and _agree_ a\u017fwell as they had\n_lived_ in the _Arke_. The old Morall rea\u017fon (that _Ba\u017ftards_ inherit\n_wickedne\u017f\u017fe_ from their _Parents_, and \u017fo are in a better way to\n_preferment_ by having a _\u017ftocke_ before-hand, then tho\u017fe that build\nall their _fortune_ upon the _poore_ and _weake_ \u017ftocke of _Originall\n\u017finne_) might prevaile with me, but that \u017fince wee are fallen into\n\u017fuch times, as now the _world_ might _\u017fpare_ the _Divell_, because\n_\u017fhe_ could be bad enough without _him_. I \u017fee men _\u017fcorne_ to be\n_wicked_ by _example_, or to bee _beholding_ to others for their\n_damnation_. It \u017feems rea\u017fonable, that \u017fince _Lawes_ rob them of\n_\u017fucce\u017f\u017fion_ in _civill benefits_, they \u017fhould have \u017fomething el\u017fe\n_equivalent_. As _Nature_ (which is _Lawes patterne_) having denyed\nWomen _Con\u017ftancy_ to _one_, hath provided them with _cunning_ to\nallure _many_; and \u017fo _Ba\u017ftards_ _de jure_ \u017fhould have better _wits_\nand _experience_. But be\u017fides that by _experience_ wee \u017fee many\n_fooles_ among\u017ft them, wee \u017fhould take from them one of their chiefe\u017ft\nhelpes to _preferment_, and we \u017fhould deny them to be _fools_, and\n(that which is onely left) that _Women_ chu\u017fe _worthier_ men then\ntheir _husbands_, is fal\u017fe _de facto_; either then it mu\u017ft bee that\nthe _Church_ having removed them from all place in the _publike\nService_ of _God_, they have better meanes then others to be _wicked_,\nand \u017fo _fortunate_: Or el\u017fe becau\u017fe the two _greate\u017ft powers_ in this\n_world_, the _Divell_ and _Princes_ concurre to their _greatne\u017f\u017fe_;\nthe one giving _ba\u017ftardy_, the other _legitimation_: As _nature_\nframes and con\u017ferves great _bodies_ of _contraries_. Or the cau\u017fe is,\nbecau\u017fe they abound mo\u017ft at _Court_, which is the _forge_ where\n_fortunes_ are made, or at lea\u017ft the _\u017fhop_ where they be _\u017fold_.\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n2.\n\n_Why Puritanes make long Sermons?_\n\n\nIt needs not _per\u017fpicuou\u017fne\u017f\u017fe_, for God knowes they are plain\nenough: nor doe all of them u\u017fe _Sem-briefe-Accents_ for \u017fome\nof them have _crotchets_ enough. It may bee they intend not\nto ri\u017fe like _glorious Tapers_ and _Torches_, but like\n_Thinne-wretched-\u017ficke-watching-Candles_, which _langui\u017fh_ and are in\na Divine _Con\u017fumption_ from the fir\u017ft minute, yea in their _\u017fnuffe_,\nand _\u017ftink_ when others are in their more profitable _glory_. I have\nthought \u017fometimes, that out of _con\u017fcience_, they allow _long mea\u017fure_\nto _cour\u017fe ware_. And \u017fometimes, that _u\u017furping_ in that place a\n_liberty_ to _\u017fpeak freely_ of _Kings_, they would _raigne_ as long as\nthey could. But now I thinke they doe it out of a _zealous_\nimagination, that, _It is their duty to preach on till their Auditory\nwake_.\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n3.\n\n_Why did the Divel re\u017ferve Je\u017fuites till the\u017fe latter dayes._\n\n\nDid he know that our _Age_ would deny the _Devils po\u017f\u017fe\u017f\u017fing_, and\ntherfore provided by the\u017fe to _po\u017f\u017fe\u017f\u017fe_ men and kingdomes? Or to end\nthe _di\u017fputation_ of _Schoolemen_, why the _Divell_ could not make\n_lice_ in _Egypt_; and whether tho\u017fe things hee _pre\u017fented_ there,\nmight be _true_, hath he \u017fent us a _true_ and _reall plague_, wor\u017fe\nthan tho\u017fe _ten_? Or in _o\u017ftentation_ of the _greatne\u017f\u017fe_ of his\n_Kingdome_, which even _divi\u017fion_ cannot _\u017fhake_, doth he \u017fend us\nthe\u017fe which _di\u017fagree_ with all the re\u017ft? Or knowing that our _times_\n\u017fhould di\u017fcover the _Indies_, and aboli\u017fh their _Idolatry_, doth he\n\u017fend the\u017fe to give them _another_ for it? Or peradventure they have\nbeene in the _Roman Church_ the\u017fe _thou\u017fand yeeres_, though we have\ncalled them by _other names_.\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n4.\n\n_Why is there more variety of Green then of other Colours?_\n\n\nIt is becau\u017fe it is the figure of _Youth_ wherin _nature_ wuld provide\nas many _green_, as _youth_ hath _affections_; and \u017fo pre\u017fent a\n_Sea-green_ for _profu\u017fe wa\u017fters_ in _voyages_; a _Gra\u017f\u017fe-green_ for\n\u017fudden _new men enobled_ from _Gra\u017fiers_; and a _Goo\u017fe-greene_ for\n\u017fuch _Polititians_ as pretend to pre\u017ferve the _Capitol_. Or el\u017fe\n_Prophetically_ fore\u017feeing an _age_, wherein they \u017fhall all _hunt_.\nAnd for \u017fuch as _mi\u017fdemeane_ them\u017felves a _Willow-greene_; For\n_Magi\u017ftrates_ mu\u017ft a\u017fwell have _Fa\u017fces_ born before them to _cha\u017ftize_\nthe _\u017fmall_ offences, as _Secures_ to _cut off_ the _great_.\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n5.\n\n_Why doe young Lay-men \u017fo much \u017ftudy Divinity._\n\n\nIs it becau\u017fe others tending bu\u017fily _Churches preferment_ neglect\n_\u017ftudy_? Or had the _Church_ of _Rome_ \u017fhut up all our wayes, till the\n_Lutherans_ broke downe their _uttermo\u017ft \u017ftubborne doores_, and the\n_Calvini\u017fts_ picked their _inwarde\u017ft_ and _\u017fubtle\u017ft lockes_? Surely\nthe _Devill_ cannot be \u017fuch a _Foole_ to hope that he \u017fhall make this\n\u017ftudy _contemptible_, by making it _common_. Nor that as the\n_Dwellers_ by the River _Origus_ are \u017faid (by drawing infinite\n_ditches_ to \u017fprinkle their _barren Country_) to have exhau\u017fted and\nintercepted their _maine channell_, and \u017fo lo\u017ft their more profitable\ncour\u017fe to the _\u017fea_; \u017fo we, by providing every _ones \u017felfe, divinity_\nenough for his _own u\u017fe_, \u017fhould neglect our _Teachers_ and _Fathers_.\nHee cannot hope for better _here\u017fies_ then hee hath had, nor was his\n_Kingdome_ ever \u017fo much advanced by _debating Religion_ (though with\n\u017fome _a\u017fper\u017fions_ of _Error_) as by a _dull_ and _\u017ftupid \u017fecurity_, in\nwhich many _gro\u017fe things_ are \u017fwallowed. Po\u017f\u017fible out of \u017fuch an\n_ambition_ as we have now, to \u017fpeake _plainely_ and _fellow-like_ with\n_Lords_ and _Kings_, wee thinke al\u017fo to acquaint our \u017felves with _Gods\n\u017fecrets_: Or perchance when we \u017ftudy it by _mingling humane_ re\u017fpects,\n_It is not Divinity_.\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n6.\n\n_Why hath the common Opinion afforded Women Soules?_\n\n\nIt is agreed that wee have not \u017fo much from them as any _part_ of\neither our _mortall \u017foules_ of _\u017fen\u017fe_, or _growth_, and we deny\n_\u017foules_ to others equal to them in all but in _\u017fpeech_ for which they\nare beholding to their _bodily in\u017ftruments_: For perchance an _Oxes_\nheart, or a _Goates_, or a _Foxes_, or a _Serpents_ would \u017fpeake ju\u017ft\n\u017fo, if it were in the _brea\u017ft_, and could move that _tongue_ and\n_jawes_. Have they \u017fo many _advantages_ and _meanes_ to hurt us (for,\never their _loving_ de\u017ftroyed us) that we dare not _di\u017fplea\u017fe_ them,\nbut give them what they will? And \u017fo when \u017fome call them _Angels_,\n\u017fome _Godde\u017f\u017fes_, and the _Palpulian Heretikes_ made them _Bi\u017fhops_,\nwee de\u017fcend \u017fo much with the \u017ftreame, to allow them _\u017foules_? Or doe\nwe \u017fomewhat (in this dignifying of them) flatter _Princes_ and _great\nPer\u017fonages_ that are \u017fo much governed by them? Or do we in that\n_ea\u017fine\u017f\u017fe_ and _prodigality_, wherein we daily lo\u017fe our owne _\u017foules_\nto we care not whom, \u017fo labour to per\u017fwade our \u017felves, that \u017fith a\n_woman_ hath a _\u017foule_, a _\u017foule_ is no great matter? Or doe wee lend\nthem _\u017foules_ but for _u\u017fe_, \u017fince they for our \u017fakes, give their\n_\u017foules_ againe, and their _bodies_ to boote? Or perchance becau\u017fe the\n_Deuill_ (who is all _\u017foule_) doth mo\u017ft _mi\u017fchiefe_, and for\n_convenience_ and _proportion_, becau\u017fe they would come neerer him,\nwee allow them \u017fome \u017foules; and \u017fo as the _Romanes_ naturalized \u017fome\n_Provinces_ in revenge, and made them _Romans_, onely for the\n_burthen_ of the _Common-wealth_; \u017fo we have given _women_ \u017foules\nonely to make them capable of _damnation_?\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n7.\n\n_Why are the Faire\u017ft, Fal\u017fe\u017ft?_\n\n\nI meane not of fal\u017fe _Alchimy Beauty_, for then the _que\u017ftion_ \u017fhould\nbe inverted, _Why are the Fal\u017fe\u017ft, Faire\u017ft_? It is not onely becau\u017fe\nthey are _much \u017folicited_ and _\u017fought_ for, \u017fo is _gold_, yet it is\nnot \u017fo _common_; and this _\u017fuite_ to them, \u017fhould teach them their\n_value_, and make them more _re\u017ferved_. Nor is it becau\u017fe the\n_delicate\u017ft blood_ hath the _be\u017ft \u017fpirits_, for what is that to the\nfle\u017fh? perchance \u017fuch _con\u017ftitutions_ have the _be\u017ft wits_, and there\nis no _proportionable \u017fubject_, for _Womens wit_, but deceipt? doth\nthe _minde_ \u017fo follow the _temperature_ of the _body_, that becau\u017fe\ntho\u017fe _complexions_ are apte\u017ft to change, the _mind_ is therefore \u017fo?\nOr as _Bells_ of the _pure\u017ft metall_ retaine their _tinkling_ and\n_\u017found_ large\u017ft; \u017fo the _memory_ of the la\u017ft _plea\u017fure_ la\u017fts longer\nin the\u017fe, and di\u017fpo\u017feth them to the next. But \u017fure it is not in the\n_complexion_, for tho\u017fe that doe but thinke them\u017felves _faire_, are\npre\u017fently inclined to this _multiplicity_ of _loves_, which being but\n_faire in conceipt_ are _fal\u017fe in deed_: and \u017fo perchance when they\nare _borne_ to this _beauty_, or have _made_ it, or have dream\u2019d it,\nthey ea\u017fily believe all _addre\u017f\u017fes_ and _applications_ of every _man_,\nout of a _\u017fen\u017fe_ of their own _worthine\u017f\u017f_ to be directed to them,\nwhich others _le\u017f\u017f worthy_ in their own thoughts apprehend not, or\ndi\u017fcredit. But I think the _true rea\u017fon_ is, that being like _gold_ in\nmany properties (as that _all \u017fnatch_ at them, but the _wor\u017ft po\u017f\u017fe\u017f\u017f_\nthem, that they care not how deep we dig for them, and that by the Law\nof nature, _Occupandi conceditur_) they would be like al\u017fo in this,\nthat as Gold to make it \u017felf of u\u017fe admits allay, \u017fo they, that they\nmay be tractable, mutable, and currant, have to allay _Fal\u017fhood_.\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n8.\n\n_Why Venus-\u017ftar only doth ca\u017ft a \u017fhadow?_\n\n\nIs it becau\u017fe it is nearer the earth? But they who\u017fe profe\u017f\u017fion it is\nto \u017fee that nothing be done in heaven without their con\u017fent (as _Re_ \u2014\n\u017fays in him\u017felf of _A\u017ftrologers_) have bid _Mercury_ to be nearer. Is\nit becau\u017fe the works of _Venus_ want \u017fhadowing, covering and\ndignifying? But tho\u017fe of _Mercury_ need it more; For Eloquence, his\noccupation, is all \u017fhadow and colours; let our life be a \u017fea, and then\nour rea\u017fons and even pa\u017f\u017fions are wide enough to carry us whether we\n\u017fhould go, but Eloquence is a \u017ftorm and tempe\u017ft that mi\u017fcarries: and\nwho doubts that Eloquence which mu\u017ft per\u017fwade people to take a yoke of\n\u017foveraignty (and then beg and make Laws to tye them fa\u017fter, and then\ngive money to the invention, repair and \u017ftrengthen it) needs more\n\u017fhadows and coloring, then to per\u017fwade any man or woman to that which\nis natural. And _Venus_ markets are \u017fo natural, that when we \u017folicite\nthe be\u017ft way (which is by _marriage_) our per\u017fwa\u017fions work not \u017fo much\nto draw a woman to us, as again\u017ft her nature to draw her from all\nother be\u017fides. And \u017fo when we go again\u017ft nature, and from _Venus-work_\n(for marriage is cha\u017ftitie) we need \u017fhadowes and colours, but not\nel\u017fe. In _Seneca\u2019s_ time, it was a cour\u017fe, an un-_Roman_ and a\ncontemptible thing even in a _Matron_, not to have had a _Love_ be\u017fide\nher hu\u017fband, which though the Law required not at their hands, yet\nthey did it _zealou\u017fly_ out of the Council of Cu\u017ftom and fa\u017fhion,\nwhich was _venery_ of _\u017fupererrogation_:\n\n  _Et te \u017fpectator plu\u017fquam delectat Adulter_,\n\nsaith _Martial_: And _Horace_, becau\u017fe many lights would not \u017fhew him\nenough, created many _Images_ of the \u017fame Object by wain\u017fcoting his\nchamber with looking-gla\u017f\u017fes: \u017fo that _Venus_ flies not light, as much\nas _Mercury_, who creeping into our under\u017ftanding, our darkne\u017fs would\nbe defeated, if he were perceived. Then either this _\u017fhadow_\nconfe\u017f\u017feth that \u017fame dark Melancholy Repentance which accompanies; or\nthat \u017fo violent fires, needs \u017fome \u017fhadowy refre\u017fhing and\nintermi\u017f\u017fion: Or el\u017fe light \u017fignifying both day and youth, and \u017fhadow\nboth night and age, \u017fhe pronounceth by this that \u017fhe profe\u017f\u017feth both\nall per\u017fons and times.\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n9.\n\n_Why is Venus-\u017ftar multinominous, called both =He\u017fperus= and\n=Ve\u017fper=._\n\n\nThe Moon hath as many names, but not as \u017fhe is a \u017ftar, but as \u017fhe hath\ndivers governments; but _Venus_ is _multinominous_ to give example to\nher _pro\u017ftitute di\u017fciples_, who \u017fo often, either to renew or refre\u017fh\nthem\u017felves towards lovers, or to di\u017fgui\u017fe them\u017felves from\n_Magi\u017ftrates_, are to take new names. It may be \u017fhe takes new names\nafter her many functions, for as \u017fhe is \u017fupream Monarch of all Suns at\nlarge (which is _lu\u017ft_) \u017fo is \u017fhe joyned in Commi\u017f\u017fion with all\n_Mythologicks_, with _Juno_, _Diana_, and all others for marriage. It\nmay be becau\u017fe of the divers names to her \u017felf, for her affections\nhave more names than any vice: _\u017fcilicet_, _Pollution_, _Fornication_,\n_Adultery_, _Lay-Ince\u017ft_, _Church-Ince\u017ft_, _Rape_, _Sodomy_,\n_Ma\u017ftupration_, _Ma\u017fturbation_, and a thou\u017fand others. Perchance her\ndivers names \u017fhewed her appliablene\u017fs to divers men, for _Neptune_\ndi\u017ftilled and wet her in love, the Sun warms and melts her, _Mercury_\nper\u017fwaded and \u017fwore her, _Jupiters_ authority \u017fecured, and _Vulcan_\nhammer\u2019d her. As _He\u017fperus_ \u017fhe pre\u017fents you with her _bonum utile_,\nbecau\u017fe it is whole\u017fome\u017ft in the morning: As _Ve\u017fper_ with her _bonum\ndelectabile_, becau\u017fe it is plea\u017fante\u017ft in the evening. And becau\u017fe\nindu\u017ftrious men ri\u017fe and endure with the Sun in their civil\nbu\u017fine\u017f\u017fes, this Star ca\u017fts them up a little before, and remembers\nthem again a little after for her bu\u017fine\u017fs; for certainly,\n\n  _Venit He\u017fperus, ite capellae_:\n\nwas \u017fpoken to Lovers in the per\u017fons of _Goats_.\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n10.\n\n_Why are New Officers lea\u017ft oppre\u017f\u017fing?_\n\n\nMu\u017ft the old Proverbe, that _Old dogs bite \u017forest_, be true in all\nkinde of _dogs_? Me thinkes the fre\u017fh _memory_ they have of the _mony_\nthey parted with for the _place_, \u017fhould ha\u017ften them for the\n_re-imbur\u017fing_: And perchance they doe but \u017feeme ea\u017fier to their\n_\u017fuiters_; who (as all other _Patients_) doe account all change of\npaine, ea\u017fie. But if it bee \u017fo, it is either becau\u017fe the \u017fodain\n_\u017fen\u017fe_ & _contentment_ of the _honor_ of the _place_, retards and\nremits the rage of their _profits_, and \u017fo having \u017ftayed their\n_\u017ftomackes_, they can forbeare the \u017fecond _cour\u017fe_ a while: Or having\novercome the _\u017fteepest_ part of the _hill_, and clambered above\n_Competitions_ and _Oppo\u017fitions_ they dare loyter, and take breath:\nPerchance being come from _places_, where they ta\u017fted _no gaine_, a\n_little_ \u017feems _much_ to them at fir\u017ft, for it is _long before a\nChristian con\u017fcience overtakes, or straies into an Officers heart_. It\nmay be that out of the _generall di\u017fea\u017fe_ of all men not to love the\n_memory_ of a _predece\u017f\u017for_, they \u017feeke to di\u017fgrace them by \u017fuch\n_ea\u017fine\u017f\u017fe_, and make good _fir\u017ft impre\u017f\u017fions_, that \u017fo having drawen\nmuch _water_ to their _Mill_, they may afterward _grind_ at ea\u017fe: For\nif from the rules of good _Hor\u017fe-man\u017fhip_, they thought it whole\u017fome\nto _jet_ out in a moderate _pace_, they \u017fhould al\u017fo take up towards\ntheir _journeys_ end, not mend their pace continually, and _gallop_ to\ntheir _Innes-doore_, the _grave_; except perchance their _con\u017fcience_\nat that time \u017fo touch them, that they thinke it an _injury_ and\n_damage_ both to him that mu\u017ft _\u017fell_, and to him that mu\u017ft _buy_ the\n_Office_ after their _death_, and a kind of _dilapidation_ if they by\ncontinuing _hone\u017ft_ \u017fhould di\u017fcredit the _place_, and bring it to a\n_lower-rent_, or _under-value_.\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n11.\n\n_Why does the Poxe \u017fo much affect to undermine the No\u017fe?_\n\n\n_Paracel\u017fus_ perchance \u017faith true, That every Di\u017fea\u017fe hath his\nexaltation in \u017fome part certaine. But why this in the No\u017fe? Is there\n\u017fo much mercy in this di\u017fea\u017fe, that it provides that one \u017fhould not\n\u017fmell his own \u017ftinck? Or hath it but the common fortune, that being\nbegot and bred in ob\u017fcure\u017ft and \u017fecrete\u017ft places, becau\u017fe therefore\nhis \u017ferpentine crawling and in\u017finuation \u017fhould not be \u017fu\u017fpected, nor\n\u017feen, he comes \u017foone\u017ft into great place, and is more able to de\u017ftroy\nthe worthie\u017ft member, then a di\u017fea\u017fe better born? Perchance as mice\ndefeat Elephants by knawing their _Probo\u017fcis_, which is their No\u017fe,\nthis wretched Indian Vermine practi\u017feth to doe the \u017fame upon us. Or as\nthe ancient furious Cu\u017ftome and Connivency of \u017fome Lawes, that one\nmight cut off their No\u017fe whome he deprehended in Adulterie, was but a\nTipe of this; And that now more charitable lawes having taken away all\nRevenge from particular hands, this common Magi\u017ftrate and Executioner\nis come to do the \u017fame office invi\u017fibly? Or by withdrawing this\ncon\u017fpicuous part, the No\u017fe, it warnes us from all adventuring upon\nthat Coa\u017ft; for it is as good a mark to take in a flag as to hang one\nout. Po\u017f\u017fibly heate, which is more potent and active then cold,\nthought her \u017felfe injured, and the Harmony of the world out of tune,\nwhen cold was able to \u017fhew the high-way to Noses in _Muscovia_, except\n\u017fhe found the meanes to doe the \u017fame in other Countries. Or becau\u017fe by\nthe con\u017fent of all, there is an Analogy, Proportion, and affection\nbetween the No\u017fe and that part where this di\u017fea\u017fe is fir\u017ft contracted,\nand therefore _Heliogabalus_ cho\u017fe not his Minions in the Bath but by\nthe No\u017fe: And _Albertus_ had a knavi\u017fh meaning when he preferd great\nNo\u017fes; And the licentious Poet was _Na\u017fo Poeta_. I think this rea\u017fon\nis neare\u017ft truth, That the No\u017fe is mo\u017ft compa\u017f\u017fionate with this part:\nExcept this be nearer, that it is rea\u017fonable that this Di\u017fea\u017fe in\nparticular \u017fhould affect the mo\u017ft eminent and per\u017fpicuous part, which\nin general doth affect to take hold of the mo\u017ft eminent and\ncon\u017fpicuous men.\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n12.\n\n_Why die none for Love now?_\n\n\nBecau\u017fe women are become ea\u017fyer. Or becau\u017fe the\u017fe later times have\nprovided mankind of more new means for the de\u017ftroying of them\u017felves\nand one another, _Pox_, _Gunpowder_, _Young marriages_, and\n_Controver\u017fies_ in _Religion_. Or is there in true Hi\u017ftory no\nPrecedent or Example of it? Or perchance \u017fome die \u017fo, but are not\ntherefore worthy the remembring or \u017fpeaking of?\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n13.\n\n_Why do Women delight much in Feathers?_\n\n\nThey think that Feathers imitate wings, and \u017fo \u017fhew their re\u017ftle\u017f\u017fne\u017fs\nand in\u017ftability. As they are in matter, \u017fo they would be in name, like\n_Embroiderers_, _Painters_, and \u017fuch _Artificers_ of curious\n_vanities_, which the vulgar call _Pluminaries_. Or el\u017fe they have\nfeathers for the \u017fame rea\u017fon, which moves them to love the unworthie\u017ft\nmen, which is, that they may be thereby excu\u017fable in their incon\u017ftancy\nand often changing.\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n14.\n\n_Why doth not Gold \u017foyl the fingers?_\n\n\nDoth it direct all the venom to the heart? Or is it becau\u017fe bribing\n\u017fhould not be di\u017fcovered? Or becau\u017fe that \u017fhould pay purely, for which\npure things are given, as _Love_, _Honor_, _Justice_ and Heaven? Or\ndoth it \u017feldom come into innocent hands but into \u017fuch as for former\nfoulne\u017fs you cannot di\u017fcern this?\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n15.\n\n_Why do great men of all dependants, chu\u017fe to pre\u017ferve their little\nPimps?_\n\n\nIt is not becau\u017fe they are got neare\u017ft their \u017fecrets, for they whom\nthey bring come nearer. Nor commonly becau\u017fe they and their bawds have\nlain in one belly, for then they \u017fhould love their brothers a\u017fwel. Nor\nbecau\u017fe they are witne\u017f\u017fes of their weakne\u017fs, for they are weak ones.\nEither it is becau\u017fe they have a double hold and obligation upon their\nma\u017fters for providing them \u017furgery and remedy after, a\u017fwel as plea\u017fure\nbefore, and bringing them always \u017fuch \u017ftuff, as they \u017fhal always need\ntheir \u017fervice? Or becau\u017fe they may be received and entertained every\nwhere, and Lords fling off none but they \u017fuch as they may de\u017ftroy by\nit. Or perchance we deceive our \u017felves, and every Lord having many,\nand, of nece\u017f\u017fity, \u017fome ri\u017fing, we mark only the\u017fe.\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n16.\n\n_Why are Courtiers \u017fooner Athei\u017fts then men of other conditions?_\n\n\nIs it becau\u017fe as _Phy\u017fitians_ contemplating Nature, and finding many\nab\u017ftru\u017fe things \u017fubject to the \u017fearch of Rea\u017fon, thinks therefore that\nall is \u017fo; so they (\u017feeing mens de\u017ftinies, mad at Court, neck out and\nin joynt there, _War_, _Peace_, _Life_ and _Death_ derived from\nthence) climb no higher? Or doth a familiarity with greatne\u017fs, and\ndaily conver\u017fation and acquaintance with it breed a contempt of all\ngreatne\u017fs? Or becau\u017fe that they \u017fee that opinion or need of one\nanother, and fear makes the degrees of \u017fervants, Lords and Kings, do\nthey think that God likewi\u017fe for \u017fuch Rea\u017fon hath been mans Creator?\nPerchance it is becau\u017fe they \u017fee Vice pro\u017fper be\u017ft there, and,\nburthened with \u017finne, doe they not, for their ea\u017fe, endeavour to put\noff the feare and Knowledge of God, as facinorous men deny\nMagi\u017ftracy? Or are the mo\u017ft Athei\u017fts in that place, becau\u017fe it is the\nfoole that \u017faid in his heart, There is no God.\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n17.\n\n_Why are \u017ftate\u017fmen mo\u017ft incredulous?_\n\n\nAre they all wi\u017fe enough to follow their excellent pattern _Tiberius_,\nwho brought the \u017fenate to be diligent and indu\u017ftrious to believe him,\nwere it never so oppo\u017fite or diametricall, that it de\u017ftroyed their\nvery ends to be believed, as _A\u017finius Gallus_ had almo\u017ft deceived this\nman by believing him, and the Major and Aldermen of _London_ in\n_Richard_ the Third? Or are bu\u017fine\u017f\u017fes (about which the\u017fe men are\nconver\u017fant) \u017fo conjecturall, \u017fo \u017fubject to un\u017fu\u017fpected interventions\nthat they are therefore forc\u2019d to \u017fpeak oraculou\u017fly, whi\u017fperingly,\ngenerally, and therefore e\u017fcapingly, in the language of\nAlmanack-makers for weather? Or are tho\u017fe (as they call them) _Arcana\nimperii_, as by whom the Prince provokes his lu\u017ft, and by whom he\nvents it, of what Cloath his \u017focks are, and \u017fuch, \u017fo deep, and \u017fo\nirreveald, as any error in them is inexcu\u017fable? If the\u017fe were the\nrea\u017fons, they would not only \u017ferve for \u017ftate-bu\u017fine\u017fs. But why will\nthey not tell true, what a Clock it is, and what weather, but ab\u017ftain\nfrom truth of it, if it conduce not to their ends, as Witches will not\nname Je\u017fus, though it be in a cur\u017fe? eithere they know little out of\ntheir own Elements, or a Cu\u017ftom in one matter begets an habite in all.\nOr the lower \u017fort imitate Lords, they their Princes, the\u017fe their\nPrince. Or el\u017fe they believe one another, and \u017fo never hear truth. Or\nthey ab\u017ftain from the little Channel of truth, lea\u017ft, at la\u017ft, they\n\u017fhould _finde the fountain it \u017felf, God_.\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n18.\n\n_Why was Sir Walter Raleigh thought the fitte\u017ft Man, to write the\nHi\u017ftorie of the\u017fe Times?_\n\n\nWas it becau\u017fe that being told at his Arraignement, that a Witne\u017fs\naccu\u017fing him\u017felf had the \u017ftrength of two; he may \u017feem by Writing the\nills of his own Time to be believed? Or is it, becau\u017fe he might\nreenjoy tho\u017fe Times by the Meditation of them? Or becau\u017fe if he \u017fhould\nundertake higher Times, he doth not think, that he can come nearer to\nthe Beginning of the World? Or becau\u017fe like a Bird in a Cage, he takes\nhis Tunes from every pa\u017f\u017fenger, that la\u017ft whi\u017ftled? Or becau\u017fe he\nthinks not that the be\u017ft Echo which repeats mo\u017ft of the Sentence, but\nthat which repeats Le\u017fs more plainly?\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\nCHARACTERS\n\n\n1.\n\n_The Character of a =Scot= at the first \u017fight._\n\nAt his fir\u017ft appearing in the _Charterhou\u017fe_, an Olive coloured Veluet\n\u017fuit owned him, which \u017fince became mous-colour, A pair of un\u017fkour\u2019d\n\u017ftockings-gules, One indifferent \u017fhooe, his band of _Edenburgh_, and\ncuffs of _London_, both \u017ftrangers to his \u017fhirt, a white feather in a\nhat that had bin \u017fod, one onely cloak for the rain, which yet he made\n\u017ferve him for all weathers: A Barren-half-acre of Face, amid\u017ft whereof\nan eminent No\u017fe advanced him\u017felf, like the new Mount at _Wan\u017fted_,\noverlooking his Beard, and all the wilde Country thereabouts; He was\ntended enough, but not well; for they were certain dumb creeping\nFollowers, yet they made way for their Ma\u017fter, the Laird. At the\nfir\u017ft pre\u017fentment his Breeches were his Sumpter, and his Packets,\nTrunks, Cloak-bags, Portmanteau\u2019s and all; He then grew a\nKnight-wright, and there is extant of his ware at 100_l._ 150_l._ and\n200_l._ price. Immediately after this, he \u017fhifteth his \u017fuit, \u017fo did\nhis Whore, and to a Bear-baiting they went, whither I followed them\nnot, but _Tom. Thorney_ did.\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n2.\n\n_The true Character of a =Dunce=._\n\n\nHe hath a Soule drownd in a lump of Fle\u017fh, or in a piece of Earth that\n_Prometheus_ put not half his proportion of Fire into, a thing that\nhath neither edge of de\u017fire, nor feeling of affection in it, The mo\u017ft\ndangerous creature for confirming an _Athei\u017ft_, who would \u017ftraight\n\u017fwear, his \u017foul were nothing but the bare temperature of his body: He\n\u017fleeps as he goes, and his thoughts \u017feldom reach an inch further than\nhis eyes; The mo\u017ft part of the faculties of his \u017foul lye Fallow, or\nare like the re\u017ftive Jades that no \u017fpur can drive forwards towards the\npur\u017fuite of any worthy de\u017fign; one of the mo\u017ft unprofitable of all\nGods creatures, being as he is, a thing put clean be\u017fides his right\nu\u017fe, made fitt for the cart & the flail, and by mi\u017fchance Entangled\namong\u017ft books and papers, a man cannot tel po\u017f\u017fible what he is now\ngood for, \u017fave to move up and down and fill room, or to \u017ferve as\n_Animatum In\u017ftrumentum_ for others to work withal in ba\u017fe Imployments,\nor to be a foyl for better witts, or to \u017ferve (as They \u017fay mon\u017fters\ndo) to \u017fet out the variety of nature, and Ornament of the Univer\u017fe, He\nis meer nothing of him\u017felf, neither eates, nor drinkes, nor goes, nor\n\u017fpits but by imitation, for al which, he hath \u017fet forms & fa\u017fhions,\nwhich he never varies, but \u017fticks to, with the like plodding con\u017ftancy\nthat a milhors follows his trace, both the mu\u017fes and the graces are\nhis hard Mi\u017ftri\u017f\u017fes though he daily Invocate them, though he \u017facrifize\n_Hecatombs_, they \u017ftil look a \u017fquint, you \u017fhall note him oft (be\u017fide\nhis dull eye and louting head, and a certain clammie benum\u2019d pace) by\na fair di\u017fplai\u2019d beard, a Nightcap and a gown, who\u017fe very wrincles\nproclaim him the true genius of formality, but of al others, his\ndi\u017fcours and compo\u017fitions be\u017ft \u017fpeak him, both of them are much of one\n\u017ftuf & fa\u017fhion, he \u017fpeaks ju\u017ft what his books or la\u017ft company \u017faid\nunto him without varying one whit & very \u017feldom under\u017ftands him\u017felf,\nyou may know by his di\u017fcour\u017fe where he was la\u017ft, for what he read or\nheard ye\u017fterday he now di\u017fchargeth his memory or notebook of, not his\nunder\u017ftanding, for it never came there; what he hath he flings abroad\nat al adventurs without accomodating it to time, place, per\u017fons or\nocca\u017fions, he commonly lo\u017feth him\u017felf in his tale, and flutters up and\ndown windles without recovery, and what\u017foever next pre\u017fents it \u017felf,\nhis heavie conceit \u017feizeth upon and goeth along with, however\n_Heterogeneal_ to his matter in hand, his je\u017fts are either old flead\nproverbs, or lean-\u017ftarv\u2019d-hackny-_Apophthegm\u2019s_, or poor verball quips\noutworn by Servingmen, Tap\u017fters and Milkmaids, even laid a\u017fide by\nBalladers, He a\u017f\u017fents to all men that bring any \u017fhadow of rea\u017fon, and\nyou may make him when he \u017fpeaks mo\u017ft Dogmatically, even with one\nbreath, to averr pure contradictions, His Compo\u017fitions differ only\n_terminorum po\u017fitione_ from Dreams, Nothing but rude heaps of\nImmaterial-inchoherent dro\u017f\u017fie-rubbi\u017fh-\u017ftuffe, promi\u017fcuou\u017fly thru\u017ft up\ntogether, enough to Infu\u017fe dullne\u017fs and Barrenne\u017fs of Conceit into him\nthat is \u017fo Prodigall of his eares as to give the hearing, enough to\nmake a mans memory Ake with \u017fuffering \u017fuch dirtie \u017ftuffe ca\u017ft into it,\nas unwellcome to any true conceit, as Slutti\u017fh Mor\u017fells or Wallowi\u017fh\nPotions to a Nice-Stomack which whiles he empties him\u017felfe of, it\n\u017fticks in his Teeth nor can he be Delivered without Sweate and\nSighes, and Humms, and Coughs enough to \u017fhake his Grandams teeth out\nof her head; Heel \u017fpitt, and \u017fcratch, and yawn, and \u017ftamp, and turn\nlike \u017fick men from one elbow to another, and De\u017ferve as much pitty\nduring this torture as men in Fits of Tertian Feavors or \u017felfe la\u017fhing\nPenitentiaries; in a word, Rip him quite a\u017funder, and examin every\n\u017fhred of him, you \u017fhall finde him to be ju\u017ft nothing, but the \u017fubject\nof Nothing, the object of contempt, yet \u017fuch as he is you mu\u017ft take\nhim, for there is no hope he \u017fhould ever become better.\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\n21.\n\n_An E\u017f\u017fay of Valour._\n\n\nI am of opinion that nothing is \u017fo potent either to procure or merit\nLove, as Valour, and I am glad I am \u017fo, for thereby I \u017fhall do my \u017felf\nmuch ea\u017fe, becau\u017fe Valour never needs much wit to maintain it: To\n\u017fpeak of it in it \u017felf, It is a quality which he that hath, \u017fhall have\nlea\u017ft need of, so the be\u017ft League between Princes is a mutual fear of\neach other, it teacheth a man to value his reputation as his life, and\nchiefly to hold the Lye un\u017fufferable, though being alone, he holds\nfinds no hurt it doth him, It leaves it \u017felf to others cen\u017fures, for\nhe that brags of his own valour, di\u017f\u017fwades others from believing it,\nIt feareth a word no more than an Ague, It always makes good the\nOwner, for though he be generally held a fool, he \u017fhall \u017feldom hear \u017fo\nmuch by word of mouth, and that enlargeth him more than any\n\u017fpectacles, for it maketh a little fellow be called a tall man, it\nyeilds the wall to none but a woman, who\u017fe weakne\u017fs is her\nprerogative, or a man \u017feconded with a woman as an u\u017fher, which always\ngoes before his betters, It makes a man become the witne\u017fs of his own\nwords, and \u017ftand to whatever he hath \u017faid, and thinketh it a reproach\nto commit his reviling unto the Law, it furni\u017fheth youth with action,\nand age with di\u017fcour\u017fe, and both by futures, for a man mu\u017ft ever boa\u017ft\nhim\u017felf in the pre\u017fent ten\u017fe, and to come nearer home, nothing drawes\na woman like to it; for Valour towards men, is an Emblem of an ability\ntowards women, a good quality \u017fignifies a better. Nothing is more\nbehooffull for that Sex; for from it they receive protection, and we\nfree from the danger of it: Nothing makes a \u017fhorter cut for obtaining,\nfor a man of Arms is always void of Ceremony, which is the wall that\n\u017ftands between _Pyramus_ and _Thi\u017fbe_, that is, _Man_ and _Woman_, for\nthere is no pride in women but that which rebounds from our own\nba\u017fene\u017f\u017fe (as Cowards grow valiant upon tho\u017fe that are more Cowards)\n\u017fo that only by our pale a\u017fking we teach them to deny, and by our\n\u017fhamefac\u2019dne\u017fs, we put them in minde to be mode\u017ft, whereas indeed it\nis cunning _Rhetorick_ to per\u017fwade the hearers that they are that\nalready which he would have them to be; This kinde of ba\u017fhfulne\u017fs is\nfar from men of Valour, and e\u017fpecially from \u017fouldiers, for \u017fuch are\never men (without doubt) forward and confident, lo\u017fing no time lea\u017ft\nthey \u017fhould lo\u017fe opportunity, which is the be\u017ft Factor for a Lover,\nand becau\u017fe they know women are given to di\u017f\u017femble, they will never\nbelieve them when they deny, _Whilome_ before this age of wit, and\nwearing black, were broke in upon us, there was no way known to win a\nLady but by Tylting, Turnying, and riding through Forre\u017fts, in which\ntime the\u017fe \u017flender \u017ftriplings with little legs were held but of\n\u017ftrength enough to marry their widows, and even in our days there can\nbe given no rea\u017fon of the Inundation of Servingmen upon their\nMi\u017ftre\u017f\u017fes, but (only) that u\u017fually they carry their Ma\u017fters Weapons,\nand his Valour: To be accounted hand\u017fome, ju\u017ft, learned, or well\nfavoured, all this carries no danger with it, but it is to be admitted\nto the Title of Valiant Acts, at lea\u017ft the adventuring of his\nmortality, and al women take delight to hold him safe in their arms\nwho hath \u2019\u017fcapt thither through many dangers: To \u017fpeak at once, Man\nhath a priviledge in Valour; In clothes and good faces we but imitate\nwomen, and many of that Sex will not think much (as far as an an\u017fwer\ngoes) to di\u017f\u017femble wit too. So then the\u017fe neat youths, the\u017fe women in\nmens apparel are too near a woman to be beloved of her, They be both\nof a Trade, but be grim of a\u017fpect, and \u017fuch a one as Gla\u017fs dares take,\nand \u017fhe will de\u017fire him for neatne\u017fs and varietie; A \u017fkar in a mans\nface is the \u017fame that a mole in a womans; a Jewel \u017fet in white to make\nit \u017feem more white, for the \u017fkar in a man is a mark of honour and no\nblemi\u017fh, for \u2019tis a \u017fkar and a blemi\u017fh too in a Souldier too to be\nwith out one: Now as for al things el\u017fe which are to procure Love, as\na good face, wit, good clothes, or a good body, each of them I confe\u017fs\nmay work \u017fomewhat for want of a better, That is, if _Valour be not\ntheir Rivall_; A good face avails nothing if it be in a coward that is\nba\u017fhfull, the utmo\u017ft of it is to be ki\u017f\u017f\u2019d, which rather encrea\u017feth\nthen quencheth appetite; He that \u017fends her gifts \u017fends her word al\u017fo,\nthat he is a man of \u017fmall gifts otherwi\u017fe, for wooing by \u017figns and\ntokens implies the Author dumb; and if _Ovid_ who writ _the Law of\nLove_, were alive (as he is extant) would allow it as good a\ndiver\u017fity, that gifts \u017fhould be \u017fent as gratuities, not as bribes;\nWit getteth rather promi\u017fe then Love, Wit is not to be \u017feen, and no\nwoman takes advice of any in her loving, but of her own eyes, and her\nwaiting womans; Nay which is wor\u017fe, wit is not to be felt, and \u017fo no\ngood fellow; Wit apply\u2019d to a woman makes her di\u017f\u017folve (or di\u017fclo\u017fe)\nher \u017fimpering, and di\u017fcover her teeth with laughter, and this is\n\u017furely a purge for love; for the beginning of love is a kind of\nfooli\u017fh melancholy, as for the man that makes his Taylor his Bawd, and\nhopes to inveagle his Love with \u017fuch a coloured \u017fuit, \u017furely the \u017fame\ndeeply hazards the lo\u017fs of her favour upon every change of his\nclothes; So likewi\u017fe for the other, that Courts her \u017filently with a\ngood body, let me certifie him that his clothes depend upon the\ncomelyne\u017f\u017fe of the body, and \u017fo both upon opinion; \u017fhe that hath been\n\u017feduced by Apparel, let me give her to wit, _that men always put off\ntheir clothes before they go to bed_; and let her that hath been\nenamour\u2019d of her \u017fervants body, under\u017ftand, _that if \u017fhe \u017faw him in a\n\u017fkin of cloth_, that is, in a \u017fuit made to the pattern of his body,\n_\u017fhe would \u017fee \u017flender cau\u017fe to love him ever after_; there are no\nclothes \u017fit \u017fo well in a woman\u2019s eye, as a \u017fuit of Steel, though not\nof the fa\u017fhion, and no man \u017fo \u017foon \u017furpri\u017feth a womans affections as\nhe that is the \u017fubject of all whi\u017fperings, and hath always twenty\n\u017ftories of his own deeds depending upon him; Mi\u017ftake me not, I\nunder\u017ftand not by valour one that never fights but when he is back\u2019d\nby drink or anger, or hi\u017f\u017f\u2019d on with beholders, nor one that is\nde\u017fperate, nor one that takes away a Servingmans weapons when\nperchance it co\u017ft him his quarters wages, nor yet one that wears a\nPrivy coat of defence and therein is confident, for then \u017fuch as made\nBucklers, would be accounted the _Catalines_ of this Commonwealth\u2014I\nintend one of an even Re\u017folution grounded upon rea\u017fon, which is always\neven, having his power re\u017ftrained by the Law of not doing wrong. But\nnow I remember I am for Valour and therefore I mu\u017ft be a man of few\nwords.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber\u2019s Note\n\n\nInconsistent period spelling retained as printed. The original printing\nused _\u00df_ occasionally, but inconsistently, in place of _\u017f\u017f_: this usage\nhas not been retained.","title":"Paradoxes and Problemes: With two characters and an essay of valour. Now for the first time reprinted from the editions of 1633 and 1652 with one additional probleme.","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":13981}