Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 2.djvu/579

Rh logical order for the subject matter of the entire treatise is thus provided; book i. being preliminary on the family, book ii. being critical of previous theories and existing constitutions, books iii. vii. viii. giving Aristotle's own conception of an ideal state (unfortunately not concluded in the raost interesting part of all), books iv. vi. v. forming a return from the ideal point of view to practical statesmanship, and suggesting remedies for the different evils apparent in the actual Governments of Greece. Suffice it, however, to say that the Politics of Aristotle have come down to us in a fragmentary condition, not carrying out nil that their author had intended, and probably never having received his last hand. The contents of this work r.re interesting, first, from an antiquarian point of view, as throwing a flood of light on Grecian history; secondly, from the knowledge of human nature and the wise remarks applicable to all times with which they abound. On the other hand, Aristotle's considerations are too much confined to Greek states, that is, to states on an extremely small scale, to allow of his political theories being very useful in modern times. Owing to this his Politics have been comparatively little studied. It is said 1 that in the Italian republics, from their resemblance to the Greek states, more attention than elsewhere was paid to this treatise. Aristotle had no political ties; he lived at Athens as a metic, or foreigner, without the rights or duties of a citizen, and thus he was in a position to write, with the utmost impartiality, of political questions. But his statesmanship does not appear to have extended to what we should call the "balance of power," by which national existence might be preserved and guaranteed. He limited his view to the well-being of each little state within itself, though he probably would not have objected to, and perhaps even contemplated, the hegemony of Macedonia, provided that under this each Greek city were left to carry on its own civic life.

His ideal state contrasts favourably, from a scientific point of view, with that of Plato. For while giving, as we have seen above, great and predominant weight to the idea of the state, he refuses to allow the individual and the family to be absorbed by the state. He thus resists all approaches to that communism 2 which was carried to so great extravagance in the Republic of Plato. The form of government which, ideally speaking, he prefers, is a wise monarchy or aristocracy, some government, in short, in which neither wealth nor numbers shall be permitted to determine everything. In some points it must be confessed that he exhibits a narrow and conservative spirit, and a belief in the divine right of things as they are, which puts him at a disadvantage in comparison either with Plato or with modern views. Thus, despite counter opinions in his own day, he maintains the institution of slavery as based on nature, and even lays it down 3 that it is justifiable to make war upon and reduce to slavery those races who were evidently intended by nature to be subject. In accordance with his physiological system, he treats woman 4 as stunted man, fixed by nature in a position of inferiority; and, therefore, he resists Plato's proposals for the emancipation and improved education of women. And by a third mis application of his favourite conception of " nature," he denounces interest 5 as unnatural, money being a mere instrument of exchange, whereas interest unnaturally increases it. These specimens of backwardness of thought all occur in the first book of the Politics, and may serve to show how much " Truth is the daughter of Time," and into what weaknesses the strongest individual minds may fall on questions not yet sufficiently ventilated and sifted by time. From his unfinished theory of education 6 in the eighth book of the Politics, Aristotle was led on to the composition of his work On Poetry. This also is a fragment, and while promising 7 to treat of tragedy, comedy, and epic poetry, it treats only of tragedy, adding a few brief remarks on epic poetry, and omitting comedy altogether. Aristotle, when he wrote it, had not yet written the third book of his Rhetoric* and he had not yet got the division of the two subjects clear in his niiiid; for he introduces into his fragment On Poetry observations on style, and even on grammar, which would have been more appropriate elsewhere.

His account of tragedy is a profound piece of aesthetic philosophy. By implication he defends tragedy against Plato, who had wished to banish the drama from his ideal republic, as tending to make men unmanly. In his celebrated definition of tragedy, 9 Aristotle says that, " by pity and fear, it effects the purification of such feelings. On the exact meaning of these terms a lively discussion 10 has taken place in Germany. The question is, whether purification" (/&amp;lt;a$apcris) has a moral significance, such as was associated with the term in the Greek " mysteries," or whether it is a purely medical metaphor, and means simply " purging." In the Politics (viii. 7, 3) Aristotle has used the same term (Ka$apcris) in reference to the effect of certain kinds of music, and had promised to give a fuller explanation of it in his treatise On Poetry; but this promise is unfulfilled, and we have rather to go back to the Politics 11 as affording most light on the subject. The result of the discussion seems to be that K&amp;lt;x$apcris is a medical term, and that Aristotle's meaning is that tragedy, by causing the feelings of pity and fear to "operate" pleasurably, relieves 12 the moral nature of a certain burden. We must regret, however, that the fuller disquisition on this subject, which he had promised, has not been given. Much stress has been laid, especially by the French, on " the unities " of the drama, as supposed to be prescribed by Aristotle On Poetry. But in reality he attaches no importance to the external " unities " of time and place. In enumerating the differences between tragedy and epic poetry, he says, 13 that "the one generally tries to limit its action to a period of twenty-four hours, or not much to exceed that, while the other is imlimited in point of time." But he does not lay this down as a law for tragedy. The peculiarity of the Greek drama, in which a chorus remained constantly present and the curtain never fell, almost necessitated "the unities," but Aristotle only concerns him self with internal unity, which he says that tragedy must have in common with every other work of art, 14 and which consists in making every part bear an organic relation to the whole, so that no part could be altered or omitted without the whole suffering. This principle, much more valuable than that of "the unities," is habitually