The Banquet | Page 8

the
Vulgar Tongues, because it is not right that it should know one more
than the other; and thus, what man soever might possess the complete
knowledge of the Latin tongue, the use of that knowledge would show
him all distinctions of the Vulgar. But this is not so, for one used to the
Latin does not distinguish, if he be a native of Italy, the vulgar tongue
of Provence from the German, nor can the German distinguish the
vulgar Italian tongue from that of Provence: hence, it is evident that the
Latin is not cognizant of the Vulgar. Again, it is not cognizant of its
friends, because it is impossible to know the friends without knowing
the principal; hence, if the Latin does not know the Vulgar, as it is

proved above, it is impossible for it to know its friends. Again, without
conversation or familiarity, it is impossible to know men; and the Latin
has no conversation with so many in any language as the Vulgar has, to
which all are friends, and consequently cannot know the friends of the
Vulgar.
And this, that it would be possible to say, is no contradiction; that the
Latin does converse with some friends of the Vulgar: but since it is not
familiar with all, it is not perfectly acquainted with its friends, whereas
perfect knowledge is required, and not defective.


CHAPTER VII.
Having proved that the Latin Commentary could not have been a
capable servant, I will tell how it could not have been an obedient one.
He is obedient who has the good disposition which is called obedience.
True obedience must have three things, without which it cannot be: it
should be sweet, and not bitter; entirely under control, and not
impulsive; with due measure, and not excessive; which three things it
was impossible for the Latin Commentary to have; and, therefore, it
was impossible for it to be obedient. That to the Latin it would have
been impossible, as is said, is evident by such an argument as this: each
thing which proceeds by an inverse order is laborious, and
consequently is bitter, and not sweet; even as to sleep by day and to
wake by night, and to go backwards and not forwards. For the subject
to command the sovereign, is to proceed in the inverse order; because
the direct order is, for the sovereign to command the subject; and thus it
is bitter, and not sweet; and because to the bitter command it is
impossible to give sweet obedience, it is impossible, when the subject
commands, for the obedience of the sovereign to be sweet. Hence if the
Latin is the sovereign of the Vulgar Tongue, as is shown above by
many reasons, and the Songs, which are in place of commanders, are in
the Vulgar Tongue, it is impossible for the argument to be sweet. Then
is obedience entirely commanded, and in no way spontaneous, when

that which the obedient man does, he would not have done of his own
will, either in whole or in part, without commandment. And, therefore,
if it might be commanded to me to carry two long robes upon my back,
and if without commandment I should carry one, I say that my
obedience is not entirely commanded, but is in part spontaneous; and
such would have been that of the Latin Commentary, and consequently
it would not have been obedience entirely commanded. What such
might have been appears by this, that the Latin, without the command
of this Lord, the Vernacular, would have expounded many parts of his
argument (and it does expound, as he who searches well the books
written in Latin may perceive), which the Vulgar Tongue does
nowhere.
Again, obedience is within bounds, and not excessive, when it goes to
the limit of the command, and no further; as Individual Nature is
obedient to Universal Nature when she makes thirty-two teeth in the
man, and no more and no less; and when she makes five fingers on the
hand, and no more and no less; and the man is obedient to Justice when
he does that which the Law commands, and no more and no less.
Neither would the Latin have done this, but it would have sinned not
only in the defect, and not only in the excess, but in each one; and thus
its obedience would not have been within due limit, but intemperate,
and consequently it would not have been obedient. That the Latin
would not have been the executor of the commandment of his Lord,
and that neither would he have been a usurper, one can easily prove.
This Lord, namely, these Songs, to which this Commentary is ordained
for their servant, commands and desires that they shall be explained to
all