‘Those who created the Latin language and those who spoke it well do not give the word _humanitas_ the vulgar meaning which is synonymous with the Greek word _philanthropia_, which means an active kindness, a tender benevolence for all men. But they give the word the meaning which the Greeks attach to _paideia_, which we call education, knowledge of the fine arts. Those who show the most taste and disposition for these studies are the most worthy to be called _humanissimi_. For man alone among all living beings is able to devote himself to cultivating a study which for that reason has been called _humanitas_. Such is the meaning given to this by the ancients, particularly by Varro and Cicero. Almost all their works show examples, so I shall content myself with quoting one only. I have chosen the opening of the first book of Varro “Concerning human things”: “Praxiteles, qui propter artificium egregium nemini est paulum modo humaniori ignotus (Praxiteles, whose excellent talent as an artist has made him known to every man at all skilled in the arts)”. Here _humanior_ does not bear the vulgar meaning of easy, tractable, benevolent even though lacking in knowledge of letters. That meaning would not express the author’s thought. It means an educated, a learned man, one who is acquainted with Praxiteles through books and history.’ (Aulus Gellius, _Noctes Atticae_, Book XIII, XVI.) Note J (Page 82) _... they cannot sufficiently denounce all institutions based on liberty and discussion._ Note that the novelty here lies in the passion, the fury with which they condemn liberty of discussion. Otherwise, we see most of the so-called liberal thinkers in history themselves recognize the necessity for submission to the sovereign’s judgment. Spinoza declares that ‘there is no possible government if every man makes himself the defender of his own rights and the rights of others.’ The _Letters of Descartes_ contain passages in favour of the ‘reason of State.’ It is perhaps not sufficiently noticed how frequently the old French absolute monarchists say that justice is the chief function of the sovereign. ‘The most important of the King’s rights,’ says one of these theorists (Guy Coquille, _Institution du droit des Français_, 1608) ‘is to make _the laws and general statutes for the good order of his Kingdom_.’ Another (Loyseau, _Des Seigneuries_, 1608) says: ‘The usage of public _lordship must be regulated by justice_ ...’ Bossuet (_Instruction à Louis XIV_) says: ‘When the King administers justice or has it exactly administered in accordance with the laws, _which is his principal function_ ...’ The modern absolute monarchists, even French, seem to be inspired by the German theorist, who says: ‘The State has two functions to perform: the administration of justice and the waging of war. _But war is by far the principal._’ (Treitschke.) Note this famous passage from Bossuet (_Pol._, Book VIII, art. II, par. I):