The Press.
London, England, 1858-02-06 00:00:00

TIIE PRESS, FEBRUARY 6,1858.

chief good, that it is Ti),Eiov and etV'Teiptict and in-
capable of improvement or addition. (3) That man has
an iFyov, or proper function; that man's Ai El4l perfects
this, and that his well-being is inseparable from it. (dl
The psychology of Plato, as a basis for moral distinctions.
(5) The practical conclusion of Ethics, that philosophy
is the highest good and the greatest happiness, being an
approach to the nature of the Divine Being. DO The
doctrine of Mic 47%, which is only a modification of
Plato's MET;;,iTi;. (7) The doctrine of Ty6rsTis,
which is an adaptation, with alterations, of a Socraticu-
Platonic view. (ti) The theory of pleasure, its various
kinds, and the transcendency of mental pleasures. (9)
The theory of friendship, which seems based on the ques-
tions started and not answered in the Lysis of Plato. (10)
Many a conception, of which mere scattered hints are to
be found in Plato, appear here worked out definitely. To
this we may add, that the very metaphors in the Ethics of
Aristotle seem, for the most part, taken from Plato. So
great an influence had the one philosopher produced upon
the mind and writings of the other, in spite of their wide
dissimilarities of nature and tendency.

The whole of this essay is very ably executed.
It is at once profound and transparent. But
as we have only space for one more extract,
wo must choose one of a more popular and
intelligible kind, such as the following com-
parison of the two philosophers as men:—

If we compare Plato and Aristotle as to the tone in
which they write, it will appear that Aristotle is on the one
hand more human than Plato; this he shows in his respect
for the opinions of the multitude. He will not atlirm that
the dead have no connection with this life, because it would
be " a hard doctrine and going against opinions too much "
xitsv Tai.c Si.fecic Ivan-joy. Ea. T.
xi. 1). He is totally opposed to anything unnatural in
life or institutions. And he recognises with a sort of
enthusiasm the worth of moral virtue, without the inces-
sant demand which Plato made, that this should be
accompanied by philosophy. On the other hand, Aristotle
is less delicate and reverent than Plato in his mode of
speaking of human happiness, especially as attained by
the philosopher. In Plato there seems often, if not
always, present, a sense of the weakness of the individual
as contrasted with the eternal and the divine. If Plato
requires philosophy to make morality, he also always in-
fuses morality into philosophy; the philosopher in his
pictures does not triumph over the world, but rather is
glad to seize on "some tradition like a stray plank," to
prevent his being lost; he feels that his philosophy on
earth is but " knowing in part." Aristotle, on the contrary,
rather represents the strength than the weakness of human
nature. And in his picture of the happiness of philosophy
we cannot but feel that there is overmuch elation, and
something that requires toning dawn. In the manner of
the writing it is obvious that we miss the art, the grace,
the rich and delicate imagination of Plato. Above al', we
miss the subtle humour which plays round all the moral
phenomena. Aristotle does not show any trace of arch.
ness. There are sayings in the Ethics which might cause
a smile, but they are apparently given unconsciously, in
illustration of the point in question. In Eth. x. v. 8, to
show that the different creatures have each their different
proper pleasures, Aristotle quotes from Heraclitus the
saying that "An ass likes hay better than gold," without
any sense of anything ludicrous in the illustration. The
same thing occurs in one of the Eudemian books (vit.
vi. 2), where it is mentioned to illustrate the hereditariness
of hot temper, that " A father being kicked out by his son,
begged him to stop at the door, for he said he had kicked
his father as far as that." This is mentioned with perfect
gravity among a list of arguments. Aristotle's rich and
manifold knowledge of human nature exhibits itself in his
Ethics. It might be doubted whether Plato would have
written the masterly analytic account of the various
virtues in Books 111. and IV. These are not living dra-
matic portraits such as Plato would have made—there is
nothing personal or dramatic about them ; but they are
a wonderful catalogue and analysis of very subtle charac-
teristics.

Tue italics are our own. The passage so dis-
tinguished is a memorable one. We believe
that students who have read Plato often,
whether they comprehend his metaphysics or
not, come at last to regard him with a degree
of personal affection which can never be enter-
tained for his successor. The reason is that
assigned in the text. Plato, with all his spe-
culations, is truly human ; Aristotle, with all
his practicality, is merely a name.
The fourth essay deals with Aristotle's
" Forms of Thought." Here Sir Alexander
takes up the " four causes," the " end in it-
self," the notion contained in ;v4ystrs, the
doctrine of " the mean," and other topics
familiar to students of the Ethics. His ex-
position of the last-mentioned is, as we have
before remarked, singularly lucid, or, if we
may use amore expressive phrase, well cut.
We strongly recommend the twelve pages in
which it is contained to the attention of Aris•
totelic neophytes. The dissertation on tvii.ries
is also excellent, though we doubt if Sir Alex-
ander is warranted in the following :

The word "energy," which comes more directly from
iyi,:ytia, has ceased to convey the philosophical meaning
of its original, being restricted to the notion of force and
vigour. The employment of the term " energy," as a
translation of ;viiyE let, has been a material hindrance to
the proper understanding of Aristotle. This is especially

139

the case with regard to the Ethics, where there is an sp.
pearance of plausibility, though an utterly fallacious one,
in such a translation.
We mean, of course, that all teachers of Aris-
totle are aware of this, and that the caution in
the text is superfluous.
We have observed in other passages some
tendency to overrate the ignorance or indiffe-
rence of contemporaries. In his essay on
modern ethical systems, we are most need-
lessly warned against reading Aristotle.'" as if
" it were a modern treatise;' or comparing him
with Bishop Butler without "having first
" recognised the essential difference in their
" points of view." As a reason for this admo-
nition, the discovery that the idea. of " duty ' '
has been imported into modern ethics is some-
what ostentatiously paraded.
To criticise Sir Alexander's observations
upon Paley and Butler would lead us out of
our way. He is unfair to the latter for the
same reason that makes so many modern wri-
ters unfair to him. They will insist upon
dragging him out of the limits which he
prescribed to himself. They choose to forget
that he only chose a part and not the whole of
moral philosophy. He never aspired to found
a school, and it is eminently uncandid to
judge him as if he had.
From the fund Of Aristotelian learning dis-
played in these pages, we are justified in form-
ing sanguine expectations of the volume to
come ; for not even if we admit that Aristotle
" stands apart from ourselves," does that de-
tract aught from his value to the great mass of
students. Aristotle, we must remember, pre-
sents himself under two aspects. His place
in philosophy is one thing, his place in educa-
tion another. Regarded from the first point
of view, his theory is more important than his
method ; from the second, his method is more
important than his theory. We know of no
modern writer, nor does Sir Alexander mention
any, by a study of whom the same habit of
mind can he formed as by a study of Aristotle.
the certainty that every word, if not always
used in the same sense, is always used in a
technical sense, and the consciousness that
the meaning of a passage will probably elude
us unless we have carefully weighed every one
of its component parts, an invaluable men-
tal discipline. Other writer?, classical or not,
can supply us with long chains of argumenV—
in this respect Plato is mope serviceable than
A ristotle---but the latter demands an unbroken
mental vigilance, and a perpetual apprehension
of error, which afford the best antidote to a
habit of superficial study with which we are
acquainted.

A Letter to R. D. Mangles, Esq., MP., Chair-
man of the East India Company, in Defence of
the Liberty of the Press in India. By John
Connon, Proprietor, late Editor, of the
Bombay Gazette, late Secretary of the Bom-
bay Chamber of Commerce, Izc. London :
Algar and Street.
THE above is the title of a very able pamphlet,
intended to illustrate and enforce a petition to
the House of Commons, 'printed in extenso at
the end of it, and which winds up with the
following sentence, in which all who know
India will agree :
That it is your petitioners' firm persuasion that the
various authorities and agencies for the Government of
India have nothing to fear in the discharge of their duty
from a free press, but something to learn and much to be
the better fur, as has been acknowledged by some of the
highest, and many other of those authorities themselves.

This petition the author purposes present-
ing during the present session. He does not
say by whose hands, hut we have no dtoubt
that, in a cause so noble, there will be no lack
of members ready to undertake the duty and
to support the prayer. It is to be hoped for
the honour of England that, except the mere
Ministerial hacks, there will be found no one
so degraded as to sanction a code for our own
press in India, far more stringent than that
which is so constantly made the theme of
vituperation by the Times and its correspon-
dent in France. Indeed, the claim to freedom
of discussion in India and in England rests on
precisely the same foundation; and, therefore,
if it be right to gag the press in India, it
must be equally right to gag it in England
too. It is often quite as inconvenient to the