Viewed in another light, the classes of men are five.*

1. Those who are by nature good, and whose goodness has an influence upon others; such as professors of the Institute, elders of the faith, and adepts in the spirit. This class is the aim of crea­tion, the choicest of God’s servants; on them rests the bounty of the Eternal, and to them is turned the countenance of goodness without end. In fact, the other classes are admitted to the feast of being, only as following in the train of these:

This class the wise declare a prince should hold the nearest to himself, and place in authority above the other classes. Nay, the very employment of these wise and able individuals about the person of a king, they hold for a sure sign that his power and pros­perity are on the rise.

We are told that Hasán the Bowide, who in his day possessed the sovereignty of Herāt, and was conspicuous above all the princes of his age for attachment to men of learning and wisdom, under­took a holy war with the Roman empire. In the outset of the contest victory sided with the army of the faith, and the infidels were completely defeated. On this the Romans raised a levée en masse, and, concentrating their forces from all the outposts, again offered battle to the army of the faith. These were then obliged to give way, and some of them were so unfortunate as to be made prisoners. When the king took his seat to examine the captives, there proved to be one among them from Herāt, named Abú Nasar. On ascertaining this, the king said he would entrust him with a message which he was to carry to his emperor. Abú Nasar answered that he would do his bidding. “Then tell Hasán the Bowide,” said the king, “that I left Constantinople with the purpose of devastating Irāk. Now, how­ever, that I have inquired concerning his character and situation, it is clear to me that the star of his prosperity has yet to reach the zenith of its com­pleteness, and is still in the ascendant of its fortunes. For one whose star was sinking in the void of extinction, and the twilight of supineness and evani­tion, would never have about his person men of such high attainments and noted excellence as Ibn Abíd, Abú Jaafar, the treasurer Aly bin Kāsim, and Abú Aly Yashāghy. The assemblage of such a galaxy in attendance on his court is sufficient proof of the firmness of his fortunes and the farther improvement of his position and renown. For this reason I leave his dominions unmolested.”*

2. Those who are by nature good, but whose goodness has no influence on others. The rank of these is below that of the first, in whom beauty of character receives its last tint from the faculty of instructing and improving others, and is invested with the highest of all distinctions in this sort of resemblance to the divine nature. Whereas these, though adorned with perfection of their own, come short of the honor of perfecting others. Yet are they to be treated with a certain distinction, and provision to be made for their interests and honor.

3. Those who by nature are neither good nor bad. Upon this class the shadow of protection is to be thrown, and the wings of condescension to be lowered, in order that their capacities may be pre­served from perversion, and, as far as in them lies, they may attain to their appropriate perfection.

4. Those who are bad, but whose badness has no influence on others; such as neglecters of prayer, indulgers in interest and wine, and, generally, all who do not restrict themselves to the principles of the Institute. This class is to be treated with dis­respect and depreciation, and deterred from their abominable courses by admonitory rebukes and salu­tary disappointments.

5. Those whose natural depravity, besides sub­sisting in themselves, has an influence upon others. This class is the vilest of creation, and the opposite of the first class. Those of them whose reformation is hopeless may be borne with at discretion, provided their abandonment is not entire; but, when assuming an entire character, such wickedness it is a duty both of law and reason to repress in the best and easiest way.*

Of the means of prevention there is, 1. Imprison­ment, which is inhibition of intercourse with other members of the state. 2. Fettering, which is inhi­bition of bodily exertion. 3. Banishment, which is inhibition of entrance into the state. If not prevented by these means, authorities differ as to the right of capital punishment; going mostly no further than as it is limited to the amputation of the limb instru­mental in such wickedness, such as the hand, foot, or tongue; or to the privation of some one of the senses. On this point the truth is that we ought to adhere rigorously to the Institute; applying to our own situation the limitations there set to ampu­tation and execution, and abstaining from any thing beyond them. For we are told, He that overpasses the limitations set by God, verily he injureth his own soul. We are not to be eager to execute: neither, when, according to the Institute, a person is deserving of death, are we to show him any mercy. No com­passion shall possess you in the religion of God. For in like manner as a physician holds it justifiable, nay, obligatory, to sacrifice one member for the safety of all, the king also, who is physician to the world, is occasionally bound, under the highest of all authorities, whose majesty is supreme, to commit execution on an individual for the benefit of the public.*

When the mutual correspondence of these classes has been cared for, and their proportions determined, a further adjustment is to be effected between them in the distribution of benefits. Now these are of three sorts: security, possessions, and honors. Of these every individual is entitled to a certain portion, to diminish which is injustice to him, and to aug­ment which is injustice to other citizens. For to elevate any one above his equals without pre-emi­nent desert is to be unjust to them. It may too happen that the defalcation is no less an injustice to the many, because, when a person entitled to a certain rank is degraded from such his right, it breaks the spirit of other persons having a similar title, and relaxes the organization of the whole state.

When benefits have been thus distributed in the measure of men’s respective claims, the next thing is to maintain them; not suffering that which is the rightful portion of any man to depart from him, or else, on its departure, supplying him with a substi­tute for the distinction or the right, in such sort as not to involve any injury to the citizens at large.

As to oppression, it should be prevented by punishing those addicted to it; and for every specific act an appropriate infliction should be assigned. If in return for small oppression the punishment be great, it is injustice towards the offender; if in requital for great oppression small punishment be inflicted, it is injustice to the citizens.

By many authorities it is held that wrong offered to any one of the individuals is wrong towards the whole body of citizens.* Hence it follows, that punishment is not barred by the pardon of that person on whom the wrong was practised; the prince who governs and regulates the whole having legal power to punish him. Others, again, dispute this position. Now, if the controversy proceeds upon the directions of the Prince of men (which are decisive upon justice), it must be determined in this wise. That which belongs to the class of divine juris­diction, such as theft, adultery, highway robbery, is not barred by pardon; the prince being bound to insist on punishment. That which belongs to the class of human right is barred by pardon of the claim­ant, as in cases of mere abuse and defamation; but if of a violent nature, as in the case of battery, injury, or contumely, many writers of the sect of Shāfei hold that the prince may still chastise the offender, for the sake of public discipline; the ruling principle of the regulations being in fact this: — Some crimi­nality is of such a nature that its injurious tendency extends to all the members of the state, such as adultery, theft, and the like. In these instances, indulgence would lead to disorganization, and there­fore pardon does not affect the proceedings. Some, again, is confined to a single individual, and reaches not the rest, such as defamation; and here all neces­sarily depends upon the individual’s pardon. Some again there are where [in some sort] both presump­tions may be entertained; that of its extending to others, and the contrary. Here it may depend on the judgment and discretion of the prince to put in practice whatever he finds most opportune and advisable.* Hence it is, that where there is no proper heir of a murdered man, but the right of inheritance is vested in the Fisque, it rests entirely with the prince to direct taliation, or to pardon, as he likes.*

The maintenance of equity is to be methodically conducted only when the prince himself inquires into his subjects’ circumstances, and conducts each of them to his due share of provision and dignity. And this object can only be realized when subjects and complainants have access to their prince in time of need. If this is not at all times to be effected, they should appoint a day for giving audience to all who may require it, that they may state without interposition, in their sovereign’s presence, the neces­sities devolving on them in the progress of events. The kings of Ajam actually had such an appointed time, at which there was public audience to all classes of men. His Sanctity, the refuge of revela­tion, used to pray as follows: “O Lord God! the officer who is benevolent to my followers in the exercise of authority committed to him, be thou benevolent to him: and the officer who is severe with my followers in the exercise of the authority committed to him, with him be thou severe.” Omar Ibn-ul-khitāb, on appointing any one to office, used to exhort him not to keep himself secluded from necessitous parties; not to shut the door in their faces; or else there was the Prophet’s authority [as above] for saying, that the Almighty would shut him out from mercy when want and necessity befell him.*

We are told in the sacred traditions* that Pharaoh, with all his daring unbelief, retained two good qualities: one, that he was easy of access, and all who had occasion might expect to see him without difficulty; the other, that he was noted for a graceful generosity and munificence, and sup­plied all classes of mankind from the open table of his general bounty. Such, they relate, was his excess of generosity, that when a woman of the children of Israel was in labour, and the food proper to her situation was not ready in his kitchen, no sooner was he apprised of the circumstance than his anger blazed high, insomuch that, furnace-like, it made the kitchen-servants victims of its devour­ing fury. From that time forward, he directed that they should daily keep in readiness all manner of food adapted for all classes of persons, well or ill, and should supply every one with that which his state required. But when the tempest of God’s wrath began to gather over him, and the determi­nation, formed before time began, drew on his ruin and destruction, then indeed, according to the text, God changes not the upright but by changing that which is within them, for these two qualities the contraries were substituted. His estrangement arrived at that pitch, that he was as constant to retirement in the light of day, as in the darkest night; and, like the phœnix of the west, he made his dwelling entirely in the twilight of seclusion and concealment; or rather, it may be said, like the skulking bat, in the den of aversion and repug­nance, where none but Eblis and his attendant demons could obtain an interview. Thus when his Sanctity Moses (on whom be peace!) became honored with the privilege of talking with God, at that same night, according to the divine direction, he arrived at the gate of the royal palace, and remained there for a whole year, without obtaining an inter­view;* till a day when one of the mirth-makers of the king’s banquet informed him, for matter of derision, how strange a thing had happened, in the arrival at his gates of a person of such and such a seeming, charged, according to his own account, with a message from God. On this, Pharaoh ordered him to be summoned, that they might turn him into ridicule and mockery. Upon this followed the recrimination recorded in the words symbolic of truth. However much his snowy hand* might exercise the powerful detergent which his miracles contained, he failed to free the royal heart from the adhesions of idolatry. Like the vipers that brood over buried treasures, the Prophet’s serpent gave manifest evidence to the riches of his faith, yet Pharaoh followed not on its traces;* but imitated rather that snake itself, in obstinate adherence to its poisonous retreat; till his fortunes drew to a result that could not be obviated, and terminated in the saddest of conclusions. Then it was that his nig­gardice reached such a pitch, that none but the inspired scribes were privy to his meals, and flies were the only guests who ever sat down to his table. Insomuch that, according to accounts recorded by the elders of the Jewish tribes, on what day Moses, (peace be with him!) by the mighty aid of God, marched out of Egypt, and Pharaoh hurried in pursuit, there was nothing killed in all his offices but one mangy kid, on the liver of which he break­fasted, reserving the flesh for the imperial banquet of which he was to partake with his nobles on his return; and that he himself, autocrat as he was, assigned the rations both for himself and for his submissive and servile soldiery.