in heaven. (4) These expressions suffice to characterize his purely ideal conception of his problem. But, though he admits that the conditions for his perfect state are hard to realize, he does not consider them beyond the limits of possibility: he contemplates, as a possible occurrence, the reduction of his imaginary institutions into practice. (43)

The form of a dialogue, which Plato has given to both his descriptions of a perfect state, is favourable to uncertainty and indefiniteness of meaning; and, accordingly, the frame of the first Platonic state, and the whole constitution and system of its government, are (as Aristotle remarks) only sketched in general terms, not filled up by a detailed and precise description.(") In the second Platonic state, the specification is more minute; but the picture, though full of details, is wanting in life and colour.(45)

(42) Rep. ix. ad fin. p. 592.

(43) Rep. vi. 13, p. 502 : νῦν δὴ, ὡς ἔοικε, ξυμβαίνει ἡμῖν περὶ τῆς νομοθεσίας ἄριστα μὲν εἶναι ἃ λέγομεν, εἰ γένοιτο, χαλεπὰ δὲ γενέσθαι, οὐ μέντοι ἀδύνατά γε. Ib. vii 17, p. 540 : ξυγχωρεῖτε περὶ τῆς πόλεώς τε καὶ πολιτείας μὴ παντάπασιν ἡμᾶς εὐχὰς εἰρηκέναι, ἀλλὰ χαλεπὰ μὲν, δυνατὰ δέ πῃ. In v. 18, p. 473, he says that the coincidence of philosophy and political rule will alone enable his state to become a possible creation, and to see the light of the sun.

In Rep. ix. ad fin., it is said that the politician cannot expect to find the ideal state, as described by Socrates, in any actual country on the face of the earth. There is a type (or idea) of it in heaven, which he who wishes may behold, and, when he has beheld it, he may chuse his habitation accordingly. It is, however, indifferent to him whether the ideal state exists somewhere, or will exist hereafter, as he cannot take part in the affairs of any other state. In the Timæus, c. 3, p. 19, Socrates, referring to the dialogue of the Republic, expresses a wish to see the perfect state in action. As to Plato's conception of his ideal problem, see Stallbaum's Dissertation, prefixed to his edition of the Republic, p. xlvii.-lii.

(44) οὐ μὴν ἀλλ ̓ οὐδὲ ὁ τρόπος τῆς ὅλης πολιτείας τίς ἔσται τοῖς κοινωνοῦσιν, οὔτ ̓ εἴρηκεν ὁ Σωκράτης οὔτε ῥᾴδιον εἶπειν.—Aristot. Pol. ii. 5. Again, c. 6, καὶ γὰρ ἐν τῇ Πολιτείᾳ περὶ ὀλίγων πάμπαν διώρικεν ὁ Σωκράτης.

A Venetian priest, named John Sozomen, a native of Cyprus, who lived in the seventeenth century, made a Latin version of the Republic of Plato, in which he reduced it into a continuous discourse, by taking it out of the dialogue form. See Bayle, Dict. in v. This change (says Bayle) ' rend l'ouvrage plus clair et plus court.'

As to the desultory nature of the dialogue style, compare the passage in Leg. iii. 5, p. 682 : ὅθεν δὴ κατ ̓ ἀρχὰς ἐξετραπόμεθα περὶ νόμων διαλεγόμενοι, περιπεσόντες μουσικῇ τε καὶ ταῖς μέθαις, νῦν ἐπὶ τὰ αὐτὰ πάλιν ἀφίγμεθα ὥσπερ κατὰ θεόν.

(45) The Laws of Plato were a later work than the Republic; they were written when he was an old man, and published after his death (see

Nevertheless, although the discussion is desultory, and the materials arbitrary and ideal, Plato is unable to escape from the law which binds the most elastic and discursive imagination. He is unable to emancipate himself from those conditions of possibility to which he had been accustomed: all his ideal creations breathe a Greek atmosphere. Though he declares that his archetype is in heaven-though he inscribes his ideal state upon a tabula rasathough he moulds it out of virgin wax-though it exists nowhere upon earth, yet the image present to his mind is that of a small Hellenic commonwealth, (*) with a few thousand free citizens and a class of slaves, and with all the peculiarities of Greek religion, poetry, education, music, and gymnastics. These assumptions, however natural they might seem to a Greek, strike every modern

above, n. 17). The Republic had doubtless been published during his life (see the story in Gell. N. A. xiv. 3); and, considering the state of Greek literature at that time, it was a work calculated to make a profound impression on the mind of any Athenian imbued with the slightest tincture of philosophy. It is probable, therefore, that its success induced Plato to write a second work on the same subject, treating the problem in a different manner. The dialogue of the Laws occupies a wholly original and independent ground; the interlocutors and circumstances are different from those of the Republic, and it contains no express reference or allusion to the previous work, though the same opinions and institutions are often reproduced. The name of Socrates does not occur in the entire dialogue. Literary history presents several examples of authors, who, having written a good book on a certain subject, have proceeded to write a second book, of inferior merit, on the same subject. The dialogue of the Laws contains passages worthy of its author; but the detailed description of the ideal legislation wants the speculative tendencies of the Republic, while it is necessarily without the vitality which belongs to a practical scheme. Brandis attributes its deficiencies either to the old age of the author, or to the barren and intractable nature of the problem.-Geschichte der Griechisch.-Rom. Phil. vol. 2, p. 552. The latter explanation seems to me the most probable. The introductory scholion to the Laws calls the Republic, as distinguished from the Laws, η μεγάλη Πολιτεία.

(46) The Platonic state is to be of moderate dimensions, neither large nor small. A thousand men-at-arms will suffice for its defence.—Rep. iv. 2, 3, p. 423. According to the constitution of the second state (which, out of condescension to the weakness of human nature, permits property), there are to be 5400 landowners (Leg. v. p. 737, 740, 745), whose lots of land are not to be aliened.-lb. p. 741. Aristotle considers this number of landowners enormous, and says it will require a territory as large as that of Babylon to support so many persons, with their wives and servants, in idleness.-Pol. ii. 6. All the citizens in Plato's state, both male and female, are likewise to mess together at public tables (syssitia). Compare Schleiermacher's Introduction to Plato, p. 359, 365, 381. Dobson's transl. Ritter, ubi sup. vol. ii. p. 434, 450.

reader, and prove how difficult it is to make an ideal state truly ideal. Like Icarus, in his own mythology, the great idealist is unable to sustain his soaring flight, and is drawn down to the earth by the irresistible law of his mental nature.

§ 11 The chronological interval between the political dialogues of Plato, and the political treatise of Aristotle, is not great-probably not much more than a quarter of a century.(*7) The scientific interval is, however, immense. Aristotle regarded politics as a positive science, like natural history, founded on experience. He attempted to describe the nature of a political community, and of political government, and to derive a series of general theorems as to the characteristics of the several forms of government and the causes of their preservation or destruction, from observed facts. A large part of his treatise is purely scientific, and attempts neither to lay down practical maxims, nor to construct pattern institutions. Even Aristotle, however, proposes the problem of the perfect state as the scope of his treatise; and he considers the scientific materials of his system as a mere substratum, upon which the ideal superstructure is to be raised.

In the conclusion of his treatise on Ethics, (48) Aristotle adverts to the influence of a state-education and of the civil laws upon moral character. He then announces his intention of treating the subject of legislation and of the state, or political government in general, in order that, so far as was in his power, the philosophy of human affairs might be completed.(49) For this purpose, he sketches the contents of his treatise on Politics, which is to follow his Ethics, and to form a part of the same philosophical series. First, he is to recite all plans of government formed by his predecessors which are deserving of attention; next, from the various constitutions thus brought

(47) Aristotle was born fifteen years after the death of Socrates. He was forty-six years younger than Plato, and survived him twenty-five years. (48) See Eth. Nic. x. 10, ad fin.

(49) ὅπως εἰς δύναμιν ἡ περὶ τὰ ἀνθρώπινα φιλοσοφία τελειωθῇ.1. Compare the first chapter of the Meteorologics, where he traces out his encyclopædia of physics.

together, he is to consider what are the circumstances which preserve and destroy each form of government, and for what reasons some states are well, and others ill governed. Having ascertained these matters, he hopes to be able to discover which form of government is the best; how each government is to be ordered, and what laws and customs it must possess in order to fulfil this condition. (50)

Such is the announcement at the close of the Ethics, with which the actual plan of the Politics, as executed by him, on the whole coincides. After an introductory book upon the nature of political, as distinguished from domestic government, he proceeds to examine the plans of an ideal or perfect state, proposed by Plato and others; (5) after which he analyses those real models -particularly the Spartan and Cretan constitutions—which the ancient politicians considered as approaching nearest to an ideal perfection. (52) Having, in the third book, investigated the nature of a state, and the differences between the forms of a government, he returns to the problem of the best constitution. (53) On this subject, he lays it down that it is the business of the same science to consider, what is absolutely the best form of government; what one would wish, supposing that no impeding circumstances existed; and what form of government suits a given community. To these two he adds a third ideal problem, viz., to consider how a given constitution ought to have been originally framed; and, if so framed, would have been preserved for the longest time. Lastly, he says it is necessary to know that form of government which is best suited to the generality of states.

(50) Compare Eth. Nic. v. 10. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ μὴ φυσικὰ ἀλλ ̓ ἀνθρώπινα δίκαια οὐ ταὐτὰ πανταχοῦ, ἐπεὶ οὐδ ̓ αἱ πολιτείαι, ἀλλὰ μία μόνον πανταχοῦ κατὰ φύσιν ἡ ἀρίστη.

(51) See Pol. i. ad fin.; and ii. ad init.

(52) With respect to the real models, there are (he says) two questions: 1, what is its relation to the ideal type? 2, whether its laws have been made in accordance with the end proposed for the constitution? ii. 9, ad init. The real constitutions, alleged as models, are called by Aristotle Kupia (as we might say, masterpieces), as opposed to those vπÒ TI@ν eipnμéval, or ideal models, ii. 12, ad fin.

(53) See b. iii. ad fin.

Most of the writers on politics, he adds, whatever their merits may be, fail in producing anything useful. For it is necessary to consider, not only what is absolutely the best constitution, but also what is possible; and, in like manner, that which is most easily applied to any state.(5) Whereas the writers in question

(54) Aristotle remarks on the remoteness of the Platonic institutions from those of all actually-existing states.-Pol. ii. 7, ad init. Cicero describes the Platonic state as 'præclara illa quidem fortasse, sed a vitâ hominum abhorrens et a moribus.'-Rep. ii. 11.

Plutarch contrasts the practical influence of Alexander, in extending Greek institutions over Asia, with Plato, who, having written one republic, never was able, on account of its severe character, to induce anybody to use it in practice.-De Alex. Fort. i. 5. The Platonic state (says Athenæus, xi. p. 508 B) may be better than all others; but what does this serve if no one makes use of it? Plato seems to have composed his laws for imaginary, and not for real men. He ought to have made such laws as men would adopt; he ought to have imitated those who aim at possibilities, and not those who frame their views according to their wishes. Plato is, indeed, said to have asked Dionysius the Younger to give him a territory, with inhabitants, to be formed into a state according to his ideal model. Diog. Laert. iii. 21. The Arcadians and Thebans are also reported to have called in the assistance of Plato at the foundation of Megalopolis, which he refused, on the ground that they did not wish for equality.-1b. 23; Elian, V. H. ii. 42. A similar story is told of the Cyrenæans, with a different ground of refusal, in Plutarch, ad Princ. Inerudit. c. i. All these accounts of Plato's connexion with practical legislation are probably apocryphal. They are so regarded by Ast, ib. p. 392. Aristides says that Plato's reputation was not great during his life : Πλάτωνος οὐ πολὺς ἦν λόγος ἐπ ̓ αὐτοῦ Πλάτωνος, ἀλλ ̓ ὕστερον πρού βη δόξα, Orat. xxvii. vol. 1. p. 549, ed. Dindorf.

Porphyry states that Plotinus, who was in favour with the Emperor Gallienus, petitioned him to rebuild a city in Campania, said to have been inhabited by philosophers, but then in ruins, and to grant the neighbouring land to the city, with the intention that its future inhabitants should use the laws of Plato, and its name be Platonopolis. He promised to retire to this city with his companions, and his petition would have been granted, if some of the emperor's favourites had not interfered.-Vit. Plotin. c. 12 (prefixed to the Oxford edition of the works of Plotinus, 3 vols., 4to, 1835). According to Diog. Laert. v. 4, Aristotle legislated for his native city, Stagira, when it was restored by Alexander. Compare Plut. Alexand. 7, where the restoration seems to be ascribed to Philip.

The constitution of Carolina was drawn by Locke, in 1669, under the superintendence of Lord Shaftesbury: it was promulgated as law, but never fully acted on; and it was finally abrogated in 1693. In the strangeness of its combinations, and the complexity of its legislation, it somewhat resembled the ideal states, such as Oceana. At the head of the government was an officer styled a palatine, and there were two classes of hereditary nobility, styled landgraves and caciques. It prohibited hired advocates, and written comments on the constitution. See Grahame's Hist. of the United States, vol. ii. p. 84-90, 136; and Bancroft's Hist. of the U. S. c. 13. It was the subject of the highest encomiums at its first promulgation, and it was treated as a sacred and unalterable instrument,' which was to endure for ever.