far as he is aware of them, do not move him emotionally; he holds them, intellectually, to be an
evil, but there is no evidence that they cause him unhappiness except when the sufferers happen to
be his friends.
More generally, there is an emotional poverty in the Ethics, which is not found in the earlier
philosophers. There is something unduly smug and comfortable about Aristotle's speculations on
human affairs; everything that makes men feel a passionate interest in each other seems to be
forgotten. Even his account of friendship is tepid. He shows no sign of having had any of those
experiences which make it difficult to preserve sanity; all the more profound aspects of the moral
life are apparently unknown to him. He leaves out, one may say, the whole sphere of human
experience with which religion is concerned. What he has to say is what will be useful to
comfortable men of weak passions; but he has nothing to say to those who are possessed by a god
or a devil, or whom outward misfortune drives to despair. For these reasons, in my judgement, his
Ethics, in spite of its fame, is lacking in intrinsic importance.
CHAPTER XXI Aristotle's PoliticsARISTOTLE'S Politics is both interesting and important-teresting, as showing the common
prejudices of educated Greeks in his time, and important as a source of many principles which
remained influential until the end of the Middle Ages. I do not think there is much in it that could
be of any practical use to a statesman of the present day, but there is a great deal that throws light
on the conflicts of parties in different parts of the Hellenic world. There is not very much
awareness of methods of government in non-Hellenic States. There are, it is true, allusions to
Egypt, Babylon, Persia, and Carthage, but except in the case of Carthage they are somewhat
perfunctory. There is no mention of Alexander, and