These are the principal duties of the king to his people as indicated or conceived of by Lao-tzŭ—the king being in his contemplation an absolute sovereign. I shall now add, as a comment, the views on this subject set forth by two other authors in widely different circumstances. The writer of Deuteronomy says:—“When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that _are_ about me; thou shalt in any wise set _him_ king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose; _one_ from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which _is_ not thy brother. But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: *** Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away, neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold, &c. *** That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment _to_ the right hand or _to_ the left; to the end that he may prolong _his_ days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.”[38] The other writer is the philosopher of Malmesbury. After establishing for the king a title as extravagantly high as any oriental flatterer could have done, he proceeds to prescribe his duties to his people. These are summed up in the sentence, “The safety of the people is the supreme law”—according to the old maxim, “Salus populi suprema lex.” Under this are included both spiritual and temporal benefits; but the difficulty about the former is left in suspense. Of the latter he says:—“The benefits of subjects respecting this life only, may be distributed into four kinds—1, That they be defended against foreign enemies; 2, That peace be preserved at home; 3, That they be enriched, as much as may consist with public security; 4, That they enjoy a harmless liberty.”[39] 3. The next point to be considered is _the relation of a government to the neighbouring states_. On this subject Lao-tzŭ has very little to say, and what he does say concerns only the small feudal dependencies of the kingdom of _Chow_. All the world—that is, all the world known—was the king’s; but holding under him, at this time indeed only nominally for the most part, were chiefs of smaller and larger provinces and principalities. It is of this, in their relations to each other and to their titular superior, that Lao-tzŭ makes mention.