Dryden, John, 1631-1700; English literature -- Early modern, 1500-1700 -- History and criticism
'No man can be my judge, unless he be my superior; and he
cannot be my superior, who is not so by my consent, nor to any
other purpose than I consent to. This cannot be the case of a
nation, which can have no equal within itself. Controversies
may arise with other nations, the decision of which may be left
to judges chosen by mutual agreement; but this relates not to
our question. A nation, and especially one that is powerful,
cannot recede from its own right, as a private man, from the
knowledge of his own weakness, and inability to defend himself,
must come under the protection of a greater power than his own.
The strength of a nation is not in the magistrate, but the
strength of the magistrate is in the nation. The wisdom,
industry, and valour of a prince may add to the glory and
greatness of a nation, but the foundation and substance will
always be in itself. If the magistrate and people were upon
equal terms, as Caius and Sejus, receiving equal and mutual
advantages from each other, no man could be judge of their
differences, but such as they should set up for that end. This
has been done by many nations. The ancient Germans referred the
decision of the most difficult matters to their priests; the
Gauls and Britons to the Druids; the Mahometans for some ages
to the caliphs of Babylon; the Saxons in England, when they had
embraced the Christian religion, to their clergy. Whilst all
Europe lay under the popish superstition, the decision of such
matters was frequently assumed by the pope: men often submitted
to his judgment, and the princes that resisted were for the
most part excommunicated, deposed and destroyed. All this was
done for the same reasons. These men were accounted holy and
inspired, and the sentence pronounced by them was usually
reverenced as the judgment of God, who was thought to direct
them; and all those who refused to submit were esteemed
execrable. But no man or number of men, as I think, at the
institution of a magistrate, did ever say, if any difference
happen between you or your successors and us, it shall be
determined by yourself, or by them, whether they be men, women,
children, mad, foolish, or vicious. Nay, if any such thing had
been, the folly, turpitude, and madness of such a sanction or
stipulation must necessarily have destroyed it. But if no such
thing was ever known, or could have no effect, if it had been
in any place, it is most absurd to impose it upon all. The
people therefore cannot be deprived of their natural rights
upon a frivolous pretence to that which never was, and never
can be. They who create magistracies, and give to them such
name, form, and power, as they think fit, do only know, whether
the end for which they were created be performed or not. They
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account