e of a society and that of a man, this
classification would be indefensible. It might more truly be contended
that, as the military power obeys the commands of the Government, it is
the Government which answers to the Will; while the military power is
simply an agency set in motion by it. Or, again, it might be contended
that whereas the Will is a product of predominant desires, to which the
Reason serves merely as an eye, it is the craftsmen, who, according to
the alleged analogy, ought to be the moving power of the warriors.

Hobbes sought to establish a still more definite parallelism: not,
however, between a society and the human mind, but between a society and
the human body. In the introduction to the work in which he develops
this conception, he says--

"For by art is created that great LEVIATHAN called a COMMONWEALTH,
or STATE, in Latin CIVITAS, which is but an artificial man; though
of greater stature and strength than the natural, for whose
protection and defence it was intended, and in which the
_sovereignty_ is an artificial _soul_, as giving life and motion to
the whole body; the _magistrates_ and other _officers_ of
judicature and execution, artificial _joints_; _reward_ and
_punishment_, by which, fastened to the seat of the sovereignty,
every joint and member is moved to perform his duty, are the
_nerves_, that do the same in the body natural; the _wealth_ and
_riches_ of all the particular members are the _strength_; _salus
populi_, the _people's safety_, its _business_; _counsellors_, by
whom all things needful for it to know are suggested unto it, are
the _memory_; _equity_ and _laws_ an artificial _reason_ and
_will_; _concord_, _health_; _sedition_, _sickness_; and _civil
war_, _death_."

And Hobbes carries this comparison so far as actually to give a drawing
of the Leviathan--a vast human-shaped figure, whose body and limbs are
made up of multitudes of men. Just noting that these different analogies
asserted by Plato and Hobbes, serve to cancel each other (being, as they
are, so completely at variance), we may say that on the whole those of
Hobbes are the more plausible. But they are full of inconsistencies. If
the sovereignty is the _soul_ of the body-politic, how can it be that
magistrates, who are a kind of deputy-sovereigns, should be comparable
to _joints_? Or, again, how can the three mental functions, memory,