[Footnote 22:  It is instructive to compare Mandeville’s a priori guesses with, the results of Mr. Maine’s historical investigation into the condition of early societies.  The evidence shows that society originated in the family system.  Mandeville conjectured that solitary families would never attain to government; but Mr. Maine considers that there was a complete despotic government in single families.  ’They have neither assemblies for consultation nor themistes, but every one exercises jurisdiction over his wives and children, and they pay no regard to one another.’  The next stage is the rise of gentes and tribes, which took place probably when a family held together instead of separating on the death of the patriarch.  The features of this state were chieftainship and themistes, that is, government not by laws, but by ex post facto decisions upon cases as they arose.  This gradually developed into customary law, which was in its turn superseded, on the invention of writing, by written codes.  Maine’s Ancient Law, Chap.  V.]

[Footnote 23:  It is perhaps worth while to quote a sentence or two, giving the author’s opinion on the theory of the Moral Sense.  ’Against every account of the principle of approbation, which makes it depend upon a peculiar sentiment, distinct from every other, I would object, that it is strange that this sentiment, which Providence undoubtedly intended to be the governing principle of human nature, should, hitherto have been so little taken notice of, as not to have got a name in any language.  The word Moral Sense is of very late formation, and cannot yet be considered as making part of the English tongue.  The word approbation has but within these few years been appropriated to denote peculiarly anything of this kind.  In propriety of language we approve of whatever is entirely to our satisfaction—­of the form of a building, of the contrivance of a machine, of the flavour of a dish of meat.  The word conscience does not immediately denote any moral faculty by which we approve or disapprove.  Conscience supposes, indeed, the existence of some such faculty, and properly signifies our consciousness of having acted agreeably or contrary to its directions.  When love, hatred, joy, sorrow, gratitude, resentment, with so many other passions which are all supposed to be the subjects of this principle, have made themselves considerable enough to get titles to know them by, is it not surprising that the sovereign of them all should hitherto have been so little heeded; that, a few philosophers excepted, nobody has yet thought it worth while to bestow a name upon it?’]