If Aristotle, content with a more limited field of in vestigation, had not extended his inquiries over the whole range of intellectual research, he might unques tionably have gained a firmer footing, and held his ac quisitions by a surer tenure. But aiming at a larger empire than any finite powers can master, his conquests were neither so ample nor so stable as if he had been less ambitious and less desultory in his enterprises. If the vigour, which was in a great measure wasted by being so widely diffused, had been concentrated, his dynasty might have been more formidable, because more solidly established ; and to this hour the supereminence of his name might have been undisputed.
How far he was indebted to the labours of more an cient philosophers, it is impossible to ascertain. The assertion of some credulous writers, that he was instruct ed in the sciences of Egypt by a learned Jew, with whom' he held many conferences, rests on no authority. Still less are we to rely on those who say, that he himself was of Jewish descent, and acquired great part of his knowledge from the writings of Solomon. It must he admitted, that in his Organon, many things are included which he cannot claim as his own invention ; and in particular the doctrine of the categories, which lord Monboddo traces, with some appearance of probability, to the Egyptian priests ; and which, being borrowed by the Pythagoreans, was first published by Archytas of Tarentum. The use which was made of this classifi cation by the Italic school, however, had no connection with the art of syllogism, which Aristotle affirms was his own original invention.. Before his time, he says, the art of disputation was taught by example only. The scholars were furnished by their preceptors with a col lection of orations, which were capable of being adapt ed to various occasions ; a mode of teaching, (he says,) not less absurd than if a man, who undertook to instruct others in the craft of making shoes, were to supply them with a number of pairs ready made ; telling them, that by the careful study of the specimens thus submitted to their examination, they might become thoroughly versed in the art. He owns that many rules had been delivered by antiquity, which might be of service to those who had no higher aim than rhetorical declamation ; but in the dialectical art, strictly so called, and in the construc tion of syllogism in particular, he insists that nothing had been clone before his time. On this ground he lays claim to the indulgence • of his readers. If it be true
that the schools of Babylon and Egypt were conversant in this art, and that from time immemorial, the Gymno sophists and Brachmans of India have held disputes concerning syllogism, similar to those which were agi tated among the Greeks, we shall be disposed to accuse Aristotle of the most dishonest plagiarism. But if the syllogism had been known long before his days, would he have ventured to assume the whole merit of the in vention, when the imposition could have been so easily exposed ; or can we believe that Zeno, and others, who wrote on logic soon after the time of Aristotle, would have forborne to overthrow his false pretensions ? We cannot admit that, in this instance, he challenged more than his due share of commendation ; and, instead of subscribing to the opinion of Bacon, that, like the Otto man princes, he " could bear no brother near his throne," we have no hesitation in affirming, that the caution which he observed in admitting the opinions of others, however respectable their names might be, ought rather to be esteemed an indication of a truly philosophical spirit, than denounced as a symptom of presumption, or a disposition to villify his rivals and exalt himself. Un less we impeach him of the basest hypocrisy, we must surely revere the mind which dictated the admired sentiment, sados fAEV 14AAX " The name of Socrates is clear to me ; but Truth is dearer than all other names." Some of Aristotle's writings are so concisely express ed, that we can scarcely conceive them to have been intended to serve any other purpose than text-books, or rather, perhaps, memorandum-books. This extreme condensation has been the cause of great obscurity. Some of his most valuable treatises are also much less systematic than might have been expected. Lord Ba con is surprised, that, in his numerous books on ethics, he should have omitted to take notice of the affections and passions as an essential branch of our moral consti tution ; whereas, in his disquisitions concerning rheto ric, he has treated of them with great acuteness and judg ment, although these principles of our nature are only in a secondary view subservient to the purposes of the orator. He has not, indeed, introduced a formal disser tation concerning the affections into any of his ethical writings ; but many valuable observations on the subject are interspersed throughout that part of his works ; pith, however, it must be confessed, are by no means very methodical.