are by nature political, I should think it not improbable that we derived from the fame fource the gift of speech.

CHA P. II.

Divifion of Animals into Solitary and Gregarious, Political and not Political.-Man to be ranked in neither of thofe Divifions, but in the Middle of each of them.—Other Animals of the fame amphibious Kind.

.

A

LL animals, fays Ariftotle, are gregarious, folitary, or betwixt the two; that is, participating of the nature of both, and able to live, either in folitude, or® in company, as occafion requires. Again, of the gregarious kind, fome are political; that is, carry on together one common work; others have no fuch bond of union, and live together without any joint ftock, or common good of any kind *. kind *. The que→

*The paffage is in the first chapter of the first book of Ariftotle's Hiftory of Animals. The words are, Ta uss

ftion, is what place we are to affign to man in these two divifions? And with respect to the first divifion, Aristotle has decided, that he is by nature neither

γαρ αύτων (ζωων) εστιν αγέλαια τα δε μοναδικα, και πίζα, και πλήνα, και πλείας τα δε επαμφοτερίζει. Και των αγελαίων και των μοναδίκων τα μεν πολίικα, τα δε σποραδικα εστ Αγελαία μεν ουν, οἷον εν τοις πληνοις το των περιστερων γενος, και γερανός, και κυκνος· γαμψωνυχων δε ούδεν αγελαιον και των πλοίων πολλά γένη των ιχθύων, οἷον οὓς καλοῦσι δρομα δας, θυννοί, πηλαμίδες, αμίαν ο δε ανθρωπος επαμφοτερίζει. Πολίτικα δε εστι, ὧν ἐν τι και κοινον γινεται παίων το έργον όπερ ου πάντα ποιεί τα αΓελαια. Εστι δε τοιούτον, ανθρωπος, μελιτία, (φηξ, μυρμηξ, γερανος.

Upon this paffage there are several obfervations to be made. In the firft place, I hold, that an error has crept either into the MS. or the printed editions, where it is faid, that των αγελαίων και των μοναδικων τα μεν πολίτικα, &c. For it is impoffible to conceive that any of the folitary animals, that is, fuch as by nature live in folitude, and in folitude only, fhould be political. It is therefore plain, that the divifion only relates to the gregarious: So that the text fhould run thus, των δε αγελαίων τα μεν εστι πολιτικά, τα δε (ποραδικα, where we may obferve the great propriety of the word (ποραδικα, which denotes, fcattered like feed that is fown upon the ground; and therefore very fitly expreffes the condition of these animals living together in flocks or herds, but having no common bond of union,

2dly, In this passage Ariftotle calls man a political animal, and claffes him with the bee and ant; from which

it

may be inferred that Ariftotle understood man to be by nature political, not by inftitution only. But with

gregarious nor folitary, but participates of both And, I think, rightly.

:

For

man is allowed by all phyfiologists to be of more various mixture and compofition

refpect to his applying to him the word wroxlixos, it is to be observed that thofe adjectives in whether derived from verbs or nouns, fignify the capacity of doing, without diftinction whether the thing to which they are applied have the actual poffeffion of the capacity, or the power only of acquiring it. Thus it may be faid of man, at the time of his birth, that he is (wov JewpnTixov, as well as when he is grown up, and in poffeffion of the faculty. And in the Peripatetic definition of man, he is faid to be woy oyxov; by which is certainly not meant, that he is rational at the time of his birth, but only has the capacity of becoming fo: And Ariftotle himself, in his Categories, has used the words dequinos and wuxlixos to denote him that has no more than a natural aptitude for excelling in those exercises, without having acquired the habit. See Ammonius in Categor. p. 135. It is true, the Greek language is very rich in words, and is plainly the work, not of grammarians only, but of philofophers; yet it has not made all those accurate distinctions and divifions of things which philofophy makes: And accordingly, though it has diftinguished betwixt energy and power; yet it has not diftinguished betwixt that kind of power which I call capability, and actual capacity, or faculty; fo that Aristotle, as we have seen, was obliged to use the fame word (durauis) to exprefs both, though he - very accurately made the distinction. I hold, therefore, that we orixov in this paffage denotes only an animal capable of being political. And as to his claffing man with ants and bees, it must be allowed, to be fomewhat

than any other animal known, as we have already feen. He is rational and irrational; he has intellect, and he has not intellect; he is a biped, and he is not a biped; he is

inaccurate, that he did not there make the distinction betwixt being actually political by nature, and only capable of becoming fo: But I think it is almost impoffible to believe he thought man naturally political in the fame fenfe that a bee is, when he reckons him not even of the gregarious kind, but fomething betwixt them and the folitary.

Laftly, We may obferve upon this paffage how properly Theodorus Gaza, the tranflator of this part of Ariftotle's works, has paraphrased the word saμPOTERICEI, vitam aliae (animantes) ancipitem degunt, ut eaedem modo focietate, modo folitudine, gaudeant. This Theodorus Gaza was one of those learned Greeks who fled from the barbarians, after the taking of Conftantinople, into Italy, and was employed by the Pope of thofe times to tranflate the Greek learning into Latin. For this purpose it was neceffary that he and the reft of his countrymen who were fo employed, fhould first learn the Latin tongue, the knowledge of which was as totally loft in the Eaft, as that of the Greek was in the Weft. We may judge, therefore, how much we are obliged to the labours of thofe learned Greeks, who, if they had not submitted to the drudgery of learning Latin, as our boys do at fchool, (a moft ungracious task for men that knew a language fo much better, and in which all arts and sciences are to be found in greater perfection than in Latin), could never have taught us Greek. Some of them, as it appears, thought themfelves very ill paid for their labours; and it was either this Theodorus, or his country

a land-animal, and he is a water-animal; and, among other varieties, he is focial, and he is not focial. In fhort, he appears to be placed on the confines betwixt different kinds of beings; and as the Zoöphyte is in the middle betwixt the vegetable and animal, fo man appears to occupy the space betwixt the feveral claffes of animals.

But in what sense does man participate both of the gregarious and folitary kind? Aristotle has not explained this: But it is obvious, that, in one sense at least, he is akin to both; for, as he can live in society, so he can live without it. For not only fafo vages can procure for themselves the means of fubfiftence in a folitary life, but even men that had been brought up in focieties, fuch as thofe of Europe, and confequently were in that ftate of indigence and dependence which is neceffarily produced by fuch an education, have been able, when forced to it, to live by themselves. But further, as by no ne

man-Georgius Trapezuntius, I have forgot which, that having got a purfe of gold from one of the popes, which he thought too fmall a reward for the trouble it had coft him to translate fome Greek author, threw it into the river Tiber, with this faying, Periere labores; pereat et eorum ingrata merces. Vid. Bruckeri Hift. Philofoph.