One great disadvantage, which increases the diffi culty of studying this author, arises from our ignorance of the order in which his works were meant to be read. In the course of his inquiries, new light must sometimes have broke in upon him; and hence his opinions may occasionally have undergone an essential change. From this cause, inconsistency is often unjustly charged upon writers who have the candour to correct the mistakes which have been detected either by their own penetra tion or by the inquisitorial judgments of others. A man who wrote so much as Aristotle did, could have little leisure for revision; and it would be matter of surprise if there were not many things in writings so voluminous, which more mature consideration would have induced him to retract, and many omissions which he could have easily supplied.
With a view to render his writings more perspicuous, Arne have proposed to alter the arrangement of their parts ; as in the case of his Metaphysics, beginning with the fifth and tenth books. This may be tolerated ; but when they proceed to change also the collocation of sentences and of words, to such a degree as to form new combinations of thought, which probably never oc eurred to the author himself, there is reason to protest against a license so exorbitant. Availing themselves of the principles of matter, form, and privation, they use the works of Aristotle as a quarry, out of which ex tracting insulated propositions, and detaching members of sentences from each other, at one time interposing something of their own, and at another removing what they dislike, they compose a new structure, fairer in its proportions than the venerable fragments which time has deformed, or at least more accommodated to the fashion of modern days. With almost 'equal reason, might a man pretend to construct a system of science by the mere aid of a lexicon; or to discover the whole of the Nov= Organum in the recondite anilities of Al bertus Magnus, or the incomprehensible subtilties of Duns Scotus, whose metaphysical fecundity was so pro digious, that it may fairly be questioned if it be within the range of possibility to say more than he has said, lvithout ever accidentally communicating any useful idea. It is quite provoking to find grave authors lay ing hold of casual expressions of Aristotle, with a view to make it appear that he anticipated discoveries which were not dreamed of till many ages after his death. Dr Gillies insists, that Aristotle was not ignorant of the facts which demonstrate the gravity of the atmosphere, because he happened to observe that a bladder filled with air is somewhat heavier than when it is empty. The same enthusiastic admirer of antiquity remarks with triumph, that in the treatise De Anima, there is a shrewd conjecture, connected with the discovery of the nerves and their functions. The expression which
is supposed to imply so much, is, that the flesh is the intermedium (To Kerate,) through which the perceptions of touch are communicated; but the author is so far from hinting any suspicion approaching to a knowledge of the nervous system, that he employs the word W' Togo in the same sense as when he says, the air is the me dium through which sound and light are transmitted to the organs of hearing and vision.
Were we even to grant that approximations to some modern discoveries are discernable in the works of Aris totle, we could not hence derive a test of the value of his philosophy. This can be estimated only by considering how far it was capable of leading men to the important branches of knowledge of which he treats. It is of little consequence to inquire how much he knew, or how in geniously he guessed. The merit of his philosophy must be determined by its utility. Judging by what it has effected, some will be disposed to conclude, that it rather retarded than accelerated the progress of the mind ; and instead of facilitating the investigations of future inquirers, multiplied the difficulties which they had to encounter. This, however, was not the fault of the great philosopher himself, but of those who, with out venturing to emulate his industry, were content with retracing his steps.
NI? man ever surpassed Aristotle in versatility of ge nius. His great success in treating of poetry, rhetoric, morals, and politics, and the wonderful acuteness and grasp of mind displayed in his Dialectics, may have led to the adoration paid him as a metaphysician and a natu ral philosopher. It may justly be doubted, whether a man's great acquirements in one branch of knowledge afford a probability that in others lie will be equally successful. Without a considerable proficiency in gene ral knowledge, indeed, we cannot expect to arrive at great eminence in any scientific pursuit. But there is always some danger of being misled by the peculiarities con tracted in the study to which we have first applied; es pecially, if, following unfounded analogies, we endeavour to adapt the systematic views suggested by our favourite subject, to others in which they arc inadmissible. The effect of professional habits, and the bias derived from education, in giving an erroneous bent to the mind, has oftcn been observed ; and has been ranged, by lord Ba con, under what he calls the idola specus, a very copi ous source of false judgments. He ascribes the inutility of Aristotle's Natural Philosophy to his predilection in favour of that disputatious logic, which, being his own invention, and the subject to which lie had long habi tuated his mind, gave an unfortunate taint to all his sub sequent studies.