i8o1.] 
obftacles. It would feem that an intereft, 
equally powerful as general, ought to ac- 
celerate its progrefs: but the other {ci- 
ences have leifure to collect their mate- 
rials before they build their theories ; 
whereas it is frequently compelled to act, 
while the fociety expects laws. When 
once thete are eftablifhed, it is not always 
eafy to reform them: it frequently hap- 
pens that circumftances oppofe the re- 
formation, and it becomes neceflary to 
wait till rime fhal! prefent a more favour- 
able conjuncture. During this fpectes of 
ftagnation, generations fucceed to genera- 
tions. If, in thofe intervals, there appear 
a few philofophers who think and write, 
fometimes their ideas are long confidered 
only as fine but impracticable theories : 
and where is the reader who needs to be 
told to how many-fhackles, and even per- 
fecutions, fuch men have been expofed in 
every age?) Their moft glorious triumph 
is to overcome thofe obftacles, and to 
ftrike every mind with the brilliant light 
of truth. Of moft of the other fciences 
the fole’object is to illumine the under- 
ftanding ; whereas the political art, aét- 
ing as mediatrefs between jarring perfonal 
interefts, has to regulate the paflions, and 
particularly one of the ftrongeft and moft 
dangerous to which man is fubjeét—the 
luft of domineering—a pafiion, which, at 
@ moment when it feems completely fub- 
dued, re-appears under. a different form,, 
and, alternately bold and crafty, turns to 
its own ambitious purpofes thole very laws 
which were framed for its coercion. Fi- 
nally, whether through the defect of infor- 
mation, or through habit and want of ac- 
tivity, it often happens that a people, fa- 
tisfied with the advances which they have 
already made in legiflation, do not employ 
even the moft natural and fuitable means 
for its further improvement. If their own 
legiflative fyftem either is or appears to be 
fuperior to that of other nations, they 
fometimes conceive for it an efteem which 
degenerates into pride: to difpel their il- 
lufion, a ray of new light muft burft in 
upon them from fome other nation, that 
can place before their eyes the example of 
reforms effected with evident fuccefs, 
which they had themfelves either not 
thought of, or deemedimpracticable. Thus, 
in very flow progreffion, nations mutually 
inftruct each other: thus the political 
fcience, to attain that degree of perfec- 
tion of which it is fufceptible, fhould be 
cultivated in every ftate, and feemingly 
ought, in a manner, to be the joint work 
of the entire human race. 
The treatife of Ariftotle is the moft im- 
Bitaubé on the Policy of the Ancients. 
11g 
portant that has remained to us on that 
iubieét, from ancient times. The idea 
has occurred to me, that an analyfis of © 
feveral of his fundamental principles, ac- 
companied by obfervations on thofe prin- 
ciples and on the policy of the ancients, 
might perhaps not be deemed a ufelefs aid 
in the ftudy of a work which unites the 
concifenefs of a Jegiflator with the profun- 
dity of a philofopher. Notwithftanding 
the opinion entertained by the author of 
the ** Travels of Anarcharfis,” I ami dif- 
pofed to believe that the produétion in 
queltion has come down to us, if not en- 
tire, at Jealt in anorder which is, in gene- 
ral, tolerably methedic. That learned 
man, without confining himfelf to the re- 
gular track of the Greek writer, has 
given a picture of the treatife fomewhat 
in the manner of that painter who, wifh- 
ing to reprefent a beautiful woman, fe- 
lected the moft beautiful features which - 
nature had diftributed to different females, 
and combined them on his canvas. I had 
my doubts whether, after his performance, 
my undertaking, which befides was lefa 
extenfive with refpect to the totality, was 
likely to prove ufeful: but he encouraged 
me to purfue it. My plan is different 
from his: he introduces, as fpeaker, a 
philofophic traveler to whom he has been 
able to impart the gift of eloyuence ; 
whereas I fhall prefent fome features of 
Ariftotle himfelf. The advantage of m 
plan is that it will enable me to analyfe his 
principles more at large, to follow the 
train of connexion between them, and to 
prefent his own method. 
IT fhall conclude thefe preliminary re- 
marks by obferving that the ideas which 
Ariftotle holds forth are fometimes nothing 
more than objeétions, although he has not 
always made that circumftance fufficiently 
known: but, from an attentive perufal of 
the context, we difcover that he replies to 
them. Educated in the Socratic fchool, 
that philofopher appears to have been un- 
able, in feveral of his writings, entirely to 
difcard the form ‘of dialogue, although he 
did not overtly admit it. His contempora- 
ries, acquainted with the fubjects treated 
in that fchool, were capable of compre 
hending his meaning from the flighteft 
hint. Befides, his written works were 
thefes which he developed in his oral dif- 
courfes; for the ancient philofophers 
united, inacertain degree, the fpeculative 
and the aétive life in their converfations, 
which were devoted to philofophic re- 
fearches: we behold an attractive picture 
of them in the writings of Plato, in read- 
ing which, we fancy eurltlves actually 
prefeat 
