the shape of revenue to Rome; for the population was scanty, and, from the condition of society, wealth was impossible. But the Isaurian guerillas, and the Cilician buccaneers, occupying for many centuries caves and mountain fortresses, that without gunpowder were almost impregnable, gave a sanguinary interest to the conflict, which compensated the small money value. For eight centuries Cilicia was the scourge of the Levant. Palestine again presented even a bloodier contest, though less durable, in a far narrower compass. But Egypt-poor, effeminate Egypt! always "a servant of servants - offered, amidst all her civilization, no shadow of resistance. As a test of military merits, she could not found a claim for any man; for six hundred miles she sank on her knees at the bidding of the Roman centurion. So far, the triumph was nothing. On the other hand, Egypt was by wealth the first of all provinces. She was the greatest of coeval granaries.16 The province technically called Africa, and the island of Sicily, were bagatelles by comparison; and what, therefore, she wanted is the negative criterion of merit, having so much wealth, she possessed redundantly in the affirmative criterion. Transalpine Gaul, again, was a fine province under both criteria. She took much beating. In the half-forgotten language of the fancy, she was 66 a glutton"; and, secondly, on the affirmative side, she was also rich. Thus might an ancient Roman have explained and reconciled the apparently conflicting principles upon which triumphs had been awarded. Where a stranger had fancied a want of equitable consistency, because two provinces had been equally bloodless acquisitions, and yet had not equally secured a triumph, he would now be disabused of his error by the sudden explanation, that the one promised great wealth, the other little. And where, again, between two provinces equally

-

worthless as regarded positive returns of use, he had failed to understand why one should bring vast honor to the winner, the other none at all, his embarrassment would be relieved at once by showing him that the unhonored conquest had fallen at the first summons, possibly as a mere effect of reaction from adjacent victories; whilst the other conquest had placed on the record a brilliant success, surmounting a resistance that had baffled a series of commanders, and so far flattering to the Roman pride; but in another sense transcendently important, as getting rid of an ominous exposure which proclaimed to the world a possibility of hopeful opposition to Rome.

Now exactly the same principle, transferred to the theory of value in exchange, will explain the two poles on which it revolves. Sometimes you pay for an article on the scale of its use, its use with regard to your individual purposes. On this principle, you pay for A suppose twice as much as you would consent to pay for B. The point at which you pause, and would choose to go without B rather than pay more for it, does not rise more than one half so high on the scale as the corresponding ne plus ultra for A. This is affirmative price. On the other hand, sometimes you pay for an article on the scale of its costliness; i. e. of its resistance to the act of reproduction. This principle is not a direct natural expression of any intrinsic usefulness; it is an indirect, and properly an exponential, expression of value, by an alien accident perfectly impertinent to any interest of yours,not what good it will do to yourself, but what harm it has done to some other man, (viz. what quantity of trouble it has imposed upon him,) that is the immediate17 question which this second principle answers. But unnatural (that is, artificial) as such a principle seems, still, in all civilized countries, this is the principle which takes effect by way

of governing force upon price full twenty times for once that the other and natural principle takes effect.

Now, having explained the two principles, I find it my next duty to exemplify them both by appropriate cases. These, if judiciously selected, will both prove and illustrate. In the reign of Charles II. occurred the first sale in England of a RHINOCEROS. The more interesting wild beasts those distinguished by ferocity, by cruelty, and agility had long been imported from the Mediterranean; and, as some of them were "good fellows and would strike," (though, generally speaking, both the lion and the tiger are the merest curs in nature,) they bore tolerable prices, even in the time of Shakespeare. But a rhinoceros had not been yet imported; and, in fact, that brute is a dangerous connection to form. As a great lady from Germany replied some seventy years ago to an Englishman who had offered her an elephant, “Mit nichten, by no means; him eat too mauch." In spite, however, of a similar infirmity, the rhinoceros fetched, under Charles II., more than £2,000. But why? on what principle? Was it his computed negative value? Not at all. A granite obelisk from Thebes, or a Cleopatra's needle, though as heavy as a pulk of rhinoceroses, would not have cost so much to sling and transport from the Niger to the Thames. But in such a case there are two reasons why the purchaser is not anxious to inquire about the costs. In buying a loaf, that is an important question, because a loaf will be bought every day, and there is a great use in knowing the cost, or negative value, as that which will assuredly govern an article of daily reproduction. But in buying a rhinoceros, which it is to be hoped that no man will be so ill-fated as to do twice in one world, it is scarcely to be hoped that the importer will tell any truth at all, nor is it of much consequence that he should; for the buyer cares

little by comparison as to the separate question on the negative price of the brute to his importer. He cares perhaps not very much more as to the separate question upon the affirmative return likely to arise for himself in the case of his exhibiting such a monster. Neither value taken singly was the practical reply to his anxieties. That reply was found in both values, taken in combination, the negative balanced against the affirmative. It was less important to hear that the cost had been £1,000, so long as the affirmative return was conjecturally assigned at little beyond £2,200, than to hear that the immediate cost to the importer had been £2,000, but with the important assurance that £5,000, at the very least, might be almost guaranteed from the public exhibition of so delicate a brute. The creature had not been brought from the Barbary States, our staple market for monsters, but from some part of Africa round the Cape; so that the cost had been unusually great. But the affirmative value, founded on the public curiosity, was greater; and, when the two terms in the comparison came into collision, then was manifested the excess of the affirmative value, in that one instance, as measured against the negative. An encore" was hardly to be expected for a rhinoceros in the same generation; but for that once it turned out that a moderate fortune might be raised upon so brutal a basis. TURKISH HORSES. Pretty nearly at the same time, viz. about the year 1684, an experiment of the same nature was made in London upon an animal better suited to sale, but almost equally governed in its price by affirmative qualities. In this instance, however, the qualities lay in excess of beauty and docility, rather than of power and strange conformation. Three horses, of grace and speed at that time without parallel in Western Europe, were brought over to England, and paraded before the

66

English court. Amongst others, Evelyn saw them, and thus commemorates the spectacle: -"December 17. Early in the morning, I went into St. James's Park to see three Turkish or Asian horses, newly brought over, and now first showed to his Majesty" (Charles II., who died about six weeks later). "There were (had been) "four, but one of them died at sea, being three weeks coming from Hamborow. They were taken from a bashaw at the siege of Vienna, at the late famous raising that leaguer.18 I never beheld so delicate a creature as one of them was; of somewhat a bright bay; in all regards beautifull and proportion'd to admiration; spirited, proud, nimble; making halt, turning with that swiftnesse, and in so small a compass, as was admirable. With all this, so gentle and tractable, as call'd to mind what Busbequius speakes to the reproch of our groomes in Europe, who bring up their horses so churlishly as makes most of them retain their ill habits." Busbequius talks nonsense. This, and the notion that our Western (above all, our English) horses are made short-lived by luxurious stables, &c., are old "crazes" amongst ourselves. Mr. Edmond Temple, in his Peru, evidently supposes that, with worse grooming, and if otherwise sufficiently ill-treated, our English horses would live generally to the age of forty,possibly, I add, of a thousand, which would be inconvenient. As to the conceit of Busbequius, it is notorious to Englishmen that the worsttempered horses in the world (often mere devils in malignity) are many of the native breeds in Hindostan, who happen, unfortunately for the hypothesis, to have oftentimes the very gentlest grooms. The particular horses brought over from the Turkish rout under Vienna, by their exquisite docility would seem to have been Arabs. The cross of our native breed by the Arab blood, which has since raised the English racer to perfection, was soon