The Press.
London, England, 1855-12-29 00:00:00

7 DECEMBER 29,1855.

study them, is their singular, and we fear
almost unapproachable, impartiality. Not
absolute impartiality, for that is impos-
sible. They were men with human passions,
and citizens with their national traditions.
But there was none of that desperate earnest-
ness in favour of particular governmental
doctrines which distinguishes the moderns
They had their sympathies and their antipa-
thies, but they were rather confined to parties
than to principles ; and they were entirely
free, be it remembered, from the irritating in-
fluence of religious animosity. Their pre-
judices, in fact, as compared to ours, were
" as moonlight unto sunlight, and as water
" unto wine."

Now, of all the impartial and cool-headed
observers which the world has ever seen, per-
haps Aristotle was the most so. In addition
to this, his political experience was enormous.
From the numerous Polities scattered along
the shores of the Mediterranean he could
draw an inexhaustible fund of illustrations.
His mind was of a singularly practical and
logical character. He was not likely to be led
astray by visionary schemes of perfection, nor
had he, on the other hand, any unworthy con-
ception of the dignity of political science.

We should at first, then, be disposed to
imagine that any treatise on political philoso-
phy proceeding from a writer so qualified must
in its conclusions be final—that he would
have fathomed most of the difficulties which
beset Government, and, as far as human inge-
nuity could attain, have removed them. Yet
not even the most ardent admirers of Aristotle
will contend that he has done this. Read,
indeed, by the light which Thucydides, Plato,
and Aristophanes shed upon his pages, he is
still pregnant with instruction ; yet the in-
fluence which " The Politics " has exercised
over the human mind is undoubtedly much
less than the author anticipated, and less
even than has been exercised by many far
inferior writers.

There are many reasons, perhaps, why
Aristotle should not have done more
than he did, but there are two more pro-
minent than the rest. The first was, the
smallness of the communities upon which his
inductions were based, to the direct effects
of which upon our own interpretation of
Aristotle we shall presently revert. The
second and more important is to be sought
in the character of his own mind. We
have just said that it was practical and logical :
it was so to a fault. When Aristotle looked
abroad upon the Grecian world, he would see
that pretty nearly every known form of poli-
tical constitution had been worked out, yet
none had sufficed to insure national inde-
pendence What, then, was the remedy? To
collect together examples of each kind ; to
analyse them carefully; to detect in each its
respective elements of strength and weakness ;
and thus to deduce the scheme of a irOX‘Tita
which should combine as many of the former
with a few of the latter as human frailty would
admit of? Or was it to regard existing facts
as of secondary importance ; to look into the
nature of things, and endeavour to discover,
a priori, what was the true character of Govern-
ment, and to trust almost entirely to those
faculties which tell us that two and two make
four with greater certainty than our senses
can tell us that a stone is a stone ? The
former was the method of Aristotle, the latter
of Plato. It followed as an obvious conse-
quence from the former theory that Aristotle
should consider the existing materials as
adequate to his purpose ; and his purpose was
strengthened by his love of analysis This
habit of logical division, in itself invaluable,
from his servant became almost his master—
ins( much that when he had, in Mr. Congreve's
words, " registered the phenomena of Greek
society," he seemed to fancy that his task was
accomplished. Herein, we contend, consists
his inferiority to Plato ; yet it is on this very
ground that Mr. Congreve, somewhat strangely,
endeavours to prove that he was superior. If,
as his editor admits, it was a defect in
Aristotle that he considered his diLta sufficient
for the formation of a final judgment, how can
we be justified in finding fault with Plato for
thinking the reverse ? If these " registered
phenomena " were inadequate to the require-
ments of science; we cannot blame the Vhilo-