"DEAR GUARDIAN, 'CALLING in yesterday at a coffee-house in the city, I saw a very short, corpulent, angry man, reading your paper about the ants. I observed that he reddened and swelled over every sentence of it. After having perused it throughout, he laid it down upon the table, called the woman of the coffee-house to him and asked her, in a magisterial voice, if she knew what she did in taking in such papers! The woman was in such a confusion, that I thought it a piece of charity, to interpose in her behalf, and asked him, whether he had found any thing in it of dangerous import. 'Sir, (said he,) it is a republican paper from one end to the other, and if the author had his deserts'- -He here grew so exceeding choleric and fierce, that he could not proceed; until, after having recovered himself, he laid his finger upon the following sentence, and read it with a very stern voice'Though ants are very knowing, I do not take them to be conjurors and, therefore, they could not guess that I had put some corn in that room. I perceived, for several days, that they were very much perplexed, and went a great way to fetch their provi sions. I was not willing, for some time, to make them more easy; for I had a mind to know, whether they would at last find out the treasure, and see it at a great distance, and whether smelling enabled them to know what is good for their nourishment.' Then throwing the paper upon the table; 'Sir, (says he,) these things are not to be suffered—I would engage, out of this sentence, to draw up an indictment that 'He here lost his voice a second time, in the extremity of his rage, and the whole company, who were all of them tories, bursting out into a sudden laugh, he threw down his penny in great wrath, and retired with a most formidable frown. This, sir, I thought fit to acquaint you with, that you may make what use of it you please. I only wish that you would sometimes diversify your papers with many other pieces of natural history, whether of insects or animals; this being a subject which the most common reader is capable of understanding, and which is very diverting in its nature; besides, that it highly redounds to the praise of that Being, who has inspired the several parts of the sensitive world with such wonderful and different kinds of instinct, as enable them to provide for themselves, and preserve their species in that state of existence wherein they are placed. There is no party concerned in speculations of this nature, which, instead of inflaming those unnatural heats that prevail among us, and take up most of our thoughts, may divert our minds to subjects that are useful, and suited to reasonable creatures. Dissertations of this kind are the more proper for your purpose, as they do not require any depth of mathematics, or any previous science, to qualify the reader for the understanding of them. To this I might add, that it is a shame for men to be ignorant of these worlds of wonders which are transacted in the midst of them, and not to be acquainted with those objects which are every where before their eyes. To which I might further add, that several are of opinion, there is no other use in many of these creatures, than to furnish matter of contemplation and wonder to those inhabitants of the earth, who are its only creatures that are capable of it. "I am, sir, "Your constant reader, and humble servant." After having presented my reader with this set of letters, which are all upon the same subject, I shall here insert one that has no relation to it. But it has always been my maxim, never to refuse going out of my way to do any honest map a service, especially when I have an interest in it myself. "MOST VENERABLE NESTOR, 'As you are a person that very eminently distinguish yourself in the promotion of the public good, I desire your friendship in signifying to the town, what concerns the greatest good of life, health. I do assure you, sir, there is in a vault, under the Exchange in Cornhill, over against Pope's-Head Alley, a parcel of French wines, full of the seeds of good-humour, cheerfulness, and friendly mirth. I have been told, the learned of our nation agree, there is no such thing as bribery in liquors, therefore I shall presume to send you of it, lest you should think it inconsistent with integrity to recommend what you do not understand by experience. In the mean time, please to insert this, that every man may judge for himself. "I am, sir," &c. As you are a person that. In our management of the relatives, who, which, that, it may be a good general rule, to apply who, to persons; which to things; and that, to things chiefly. But, when the antecedent is the second person, not only that, but which, is used for who, by our best writers. And this use, which is enough authorized, may be worth retaining, not merely for the grace of variety, but for the convenience of pronunciation. As to the second person singular, we have an instance of that, for who, in the passage before us-"You are a person that very eminently distinguish yourself;" and elsewhere, frequently. But when a vowel follows the relative, it seems preferable to who, as "It is thou, O king, that art become strong: Dan. iv. 22.-And again, "Thou that art named the house of Jacob.' Micah, ii. 7.—which, in the same circumstance, is preferred to who," Our father, which art in heaven "-plainly, to avoid the ill effect, which the open vowels in-who art-would have on the ear, in both cases. So, likewise, in the second person plural, "Ye that are of the fountain of Israel," Ps. lxviii. 26. [marginal reading in our bibles]—and, Ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness." Gal. vi. 1. No. 161. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15. -incoctum generoso pectus honesto.-PERS. EVERY principle that is a motive to good actions, ought to be encouraged, since men are of so different a make, that the same principle does not work equally upon all minds. What some men are prompted to by conscience, duty, or religion, which are only different names for the same thing, others are prompted to by Honour. The sense of honour is of so fine and delicate a nature, that it is only to be met with in minds which are naturally noble, or in such as have been cultivated by great examples, or a refined education. This paper, therefore, is chiefly designed for those who, by means of any of these advantages are, or ought to be, actuated by this glorious principle. But as nothing is more pernicious than a principle of action when it is misunderstood, I shall consider honour with respect to three sorts of men. First of all, with regard to those who have a right notion of it. have a mistaken notion of it. Secondly, with regard to those who And thirdly, with regard to those who treat it as chimerical, and turn it into ridicule. In the first place, true honour, though it be a different princi ple from religion, is that which produces the same effects. The lines of action, though drawn from different parts, terminate in the same point. Religion embraces virtue, as it is enjoined by the laws of God; honour, as it is graceful and ornamental to human nature. The religious man fears, the man of honour scorns to do an ill action. The one considers vice as something that is beneath him, the other as something that is offensive to the Divine Being. The one as what is unbecoming, the other as what is forbidden. Thus Seneca speaks in the natural and genuine lan guage of a man of honour, when he declares, that, were there no God, to see or punish vice, he would not commit it, because it is of so mean, so base, and so vile a nature. I shall conclude this head with the description of honour in the part of young Juba. Honour's a sacred tie, the law of kings, The noble mind's distinguishing perfection, That aids and strengthens virtue where it meets her, And imitates her actions where she is not, It ought not to be sported with--CATO. In the second place, we are to consider those who have mistaken notions of honour, and these are such as establish any thing to themselves for a point of honour, which is contrary, either a I shall conclude this head. Mr. Addison here applies, and, in applying, "explains, his own famous verses, in Cato. The honour, which the Guardian celebrates in the first division of this paper, is true honour: so he expressly calls it; and the false is considered distinctly under the second head. Now true honour, as contrasted to religion, may be well enough given, as it is here, under the idea of philosophical or stoical virtue: but, as opposed to false honour, in the days of paganism, it could only be that principle, which we call a love of honest fame. This last, then, is Juba's honour in his panegyric, as is clear, indeed, from his own words in the close of the scene where, speaking of Cato, he says- "I'd rather have that man approve my deeds, and what Mr. A. has been describing in this paper, under the name of true honour, is pagan virtue itself. It was proper to begin with this observation, because it lets us see in what manner, and to what purpose he applies Juba's panegyric to the present subject. It is as if he had said,— What Juba says of true pagan honour, when compared with stoical virtue, holds, in proportion, of stoical virtue, i. e. true philosophical honour, when compared with religion. Each is assistant or supplemental to the other. This being premised, let us now consider the verses themselves. Honour, in these verses, means true pagan honour, and is that principle of human action, which respects honest fame, that is, the esteem of wise and good men as the virtue celebrated in them, is stoical virtue, which regulates itself by the sense of the honestum simply, or, in other words, by self esteem. These principles are clearly distinct from each other, but may subsist togeth r; and, when they do so, they as clearly draw the same way. Hence, we see, that the principle of honour must needs |