for the surname ; as when the father had many wives, or when the mother was of the better family. So Joab and his brethren are always called the sons of Zeruiah, who was David's sister.* If the name of the father was not distinction enough, they added the grandfather's as Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan.† And this is the reason of so many names that appear tiresome to us for they went sometimes as high as the great-grandfather, or highSometimes a surname was taken from the head of a particular branch, from a town, a country, or a nation, if they were originally strangers; as Uriah the Hittite, Araunah the Jebuzite.

er.

The Greeks had no surnames but what they took from their father or country. The Romans had family names, to which they only added the distinction of some great office or remarkable victory; but in deeds, they always set down the father's name. Many of the European nations still retain the same custom; and most of our surnames come from the proper names of the fathers, which have remained with their children. As to the titles of lordships, they are not above seven or eight hundred years old, no more than the lordships themselves. We must

not be surprised to see in Scripture, David the son of Jesse, and Solomon the son of David, any more than Alexander the son of Philip, and Ptolemy the son of Legus, in Greek authors.

The principal distinction that birth occasioned among the Israelites, was that of the Levites and priests. The whole tribe of Levi was dedicated to God, and had no inheritance but the tenths and the firstfruits, which it received from the other tribes. Of all the Levites, the descendants of Aaron only were priests; the rest were employed in the other functions of religion; in singing psalms, taking care of the tabernacle or temple, and instructing the people. Two of the other tribes were sufficiently distinguished. That of Judah was always the most illustrious * 1 Chron. ii, 16. Jerem. xxxix, 14,

*

and the most numerous; of which, according, to Jacob's prophecy, their kings and the Messiah himself, were to come. That of Ephraim held the second rank on account of Joseph. Yet the eldest branches and the heads of each family were most esteemed in every tribe and this made Saul say, surprised with the respect that Samuel paid him, Am not I of the smallest of the tribes of Israel, and my family the least of all the families of the tribe of Benjamin ?† Age too made a great distinction; and the name of old man in Scripture generally denotes dignity. Indeed, there was nothing but age and experience that could distinguish men equally noble, and of the same education and employments and almost equally rich.

CHAPTER II.

Their Employments.—Agriculture.

We do not find any distinct professions among the Israelites. From the eldest of the tribe of Judah to the youngest of that of Benjamin, they were all husbandmen and shepherds, driving their ploughs and watching their flocks themselves. The old man

of Gibeah, that lodged the Levite, whose wife was abused, was coming back at night from his work, when he invited him to sojourn with him.‡ Gideon himself was threshing his corn when the angel told him he should deliver his people.§ Ruth got into the good graces of Boaz by gleaning at his harvest. Saul, though a king, was driving oxen, when he received the news of the danger Jabesh Gilead was in. Every body knows that David was keeping sheep, when Samuel sent to look for him to anoint him king ;** and he returned to his flock after he had been called to play upon the harp before Saul.†† After he was king, his sons made a great feast at the shearing of their sheep. Elisha was called to be a prophet as he

*Gen. xlix, 10. †1 Sam. ix, 21. 1 Sam. xi, 5. ** 1 Sam. xvi, 11. xiii, 23.

Judg. xix, 16. §Judg. vi, 11. tf1 Sam. xvii, 15. 2 Sam.

drove one of his father's twelve ploughs.* The child that he brought to life again was with his father at the harvest when it fell sick.† And Judith's husband, though very rich, got the illness of which he died on the like occasion. The Scripture abounds with such examples.

This, without doubt, is what most offends those who are not acquainted with antiquity, and have no opinion of any customs but their own. When they hear of ploughmen and shepherds, they figure to themselves a parcel of clownish boors, that lead a slavish miserable life, in poverty and contempt, without courage, without sense or education. They don't consider, that what makes our country people commonly so wretched is their being slaves to all the rest of mankind since they work not only for their own maintenance, but to furnish necessaries for all those that live in high and polished life. For it is the countryman that provides for the citizens, the officers of the courts of judicature and treasury, gentlemen, and ecclesiastics and whatever ways we make use of to turn money into provisions, or provisions into money, all will end in the fruits of the earth, and those animals that are supported by them. Yet when we compare all these different conditions together, we generally place those that work in the country in the last rank: and most people set a greater value upon fat idle citizens, that are weak and lazy and good for nothing, because, being richer, they live more luxuriously, and at their ease.

But if we imagine a country, where the difference of conditions is not so great, where to live genteelly is not to live without doing any thing at all, but carefully to preserve one's liberty, which consists in being subject to nothing but the laws and public authority; where the inhabitants subsist upon their own stock, without depending upon any body, and are content with a little, rather than do a mean thing to grow rich; a country where idleness, effeminacy, Judith vii, 3.

* 1 Kings xix, 19. †2 Kings iv, 18.

and ignorance of what is necessary for the support of life, are discountenanced, and where pleasure is in less esteem than health and strength: in such a country it would be more creditable to plough, or keep a flock, than to follow diversions, and idle away the whole of a man's time. Now there is no necessity of having any recourse to Plato's commonwealth to find men of this character, for so lived the greatest part of mankind for nearly four thousand years.

To begin with what we are best acquainted with. Of this sort were the maxims of the Greeks and Romans. We see everywhere in Homer, kings and princes living upon the fruits of their lands and their flocks, and working with their own hands.* Hesiod has written a poem on purpose to recommend husbandry, as the only creditable means of subsisting and improving one's fortune; and finds fault with his brother, to whom he addresses it, for living at other people's expense, by pleading causes, and following affairs of that kind. He reckons this employment, which is the sole occupation of so many amongst us, no better than idleness. We see by Xenophon's Economics that the Greeks had no way lessened their opinion of husbandry, when they were at the highest pitch of politeness.

As all

We must not therefore impute the fondness of the Romans for husbandry to stupidity and want of letters it is rather a sign of their good sense. men are born with limbs and bodies fit for labour, they thought every one ought to make use of them; and that they could not do it to better purpose than in making the earth afford them a certain maintenance and innocent plenty. It was not, however, covetousness that recommended it to them; since the same Romans despised gold, and the presents of strangers. Nor was it want of courage and bravery; since at that very time they subdued all Italy, * See the Iliad and Odyssey passim.

Hesiodi opera et Dies, lib. i, v. 26. Hesiod flourished about 876 years before the Christian era, and was the first poet who celebrated agriculture in verse.

and raised those powerful armies with which, they afterward conquered the whole world. On the contrary, the painful and frugal life they led in the country was the chief reason of their great strength, making their bodies robust by inuring them to labour, and accustoming them to severe discipline. Whoever is acquainted with the life of Cato the Censor, cannot suspect him of a low way of thinking, or of meanness of spirit; yet that great man, who had gone through all the offices in the commonwealth when it flourished most, who had governed provinces and commanded armies; that great orator, lawyer, and politician, did not think it beneath him to write of the various ways of managing lands and vines, the method of building stables for different sorts of beasts, and a press for wine or oil: and all this in the most circumstantial manner; so that, we see, he understood it perfectly, and did not write out of ostentation or vainglory, but for the benefit of mankind.*

Let us then frankly own that our contempt of husbandry is not founded upon any solid reason; since this occupation is no way inconsistent with courage, or any other virtue that is necessary either in peace or war, or even in true politeness. Whence then does it proceed? I will endeavour to show the real cause. It comes only from use, and the old customs of our own country. The Franks and other people of Germany, lived in countries that were covered with forests: they had neither corn nor wine, nor any good fruits: so that they were obliged to live by hunting, as the savages still do in the cold countries of America. After they had crossed the Rhine, and settled on better lands, they were ready enough to take the advantages that result from agriculture, arts, and trade; but would not apply themselves to any of them. They left this occupation to the Romans whom they had subdued, and continued in their ancient ignorance, which time seemed to

*See his work De Re Rustica.