gnorant of all that which was needful for the understanding of the
laws; for, as it is most certain, they had not the knowledge either of the
Greek or Latin tongue, but only of the Gothic and barbarian. The laws,
nevertheless, were first taken from the Greeks, according to the testimony
of Ulpian, L. poster. de origine juris, which we likewise may perceive by
that all the laws are full of Greek words and sentences. And then we find
that they are reduced into a Latin style the most elegant and ornate that
whole language is able to afford, without excepting that of any that ever
wrote therein, nay, not of Sallust, Varro, Cicero, Seneca, Titus Livius,
nor Quintilian. How then could these old dotards be able to understand
aright the text of the laws who never in their time had looked upon a good
Latin book, as doth evidently enough appear by the rudeness of their style,
which is fitter for a chimney-sweeper, or for a cook or a scullion, than
for a jurisconsult and doctor in the laws?

Furthermore, seeing the laws are excerpted out of the middle of moral and
natural philosophy, how should these fools have understood it, that have,
by G--, studied less in philosophy than my mule? In respect of human
learning and the knowledge of antiquities and history they were truly laden
with those faculties as a toad is with feathers. And yet of all this the
laws are so full that without it they cannot be understood, as I intend
more fully to show unto you in a peculiar treatise which on that purpose I
am about to publish. Therefore, if you will that I take any meddling in
this process, first cause all these papers to be burnt; secondly, make the
two gentlemen come personally before me, and afterwards, when I shall have
heard them, I will tell you my opinion freely without any feignedness or
dissimulation whatsoever.

Some amongst them did contradict this motion, as you know that in all
companies there are more fools than wise men, and that the greater part
always surmounts the better, as saith Titus Livius in speaking of the
Carthaginians. But the foresaid Du Douhet held the contrary opinion,
maintaining that Pantagruel had said well, and what was right, in affirming
that these records, bills of inquest, replies, rejoinders, exceptions,
depositions, and other such diableries of truth-entangling writs, were but
engines wherewith to overthrow justice and unnecessarily to prolong such
suits as did depend before them; and that, therefo