nised as unnatural. Where capital and labour face each other menacingly, there can be no stability where wealth is evenly distributed there will be no cause of quarrel, no desire to upset existing institutions.[1] Aristotle's preventive, it will be noticed, is much the same as that of the modern Socialist, whose theory is simply built upon this instinct for proportion; but there is a difference both in the object and in the method. Aristotle's object is to preserve the State and its constitution, while that of the Socialist (in spite of his name) is to make the individual more comfortable. With the one the State is the chief end, with the other it is only a means. And again, Aristotle, always true to the facts of life, not forcing them by indulging in ideals, recommends a reasonable and practicable policy which was within the reach of any Greek statesman; while Socialistic writers, exaggerating both the evil and its remedy, are often apt to forget that what can be done must be done by statesmen, and that no statesman will ever be found to risk his reputation on an ideal.[2]
The other chief remedy which Aristotle suggests is Education; this he considered so important that he devoted a whole book to it, of which, unfortunately, only a portion has come down to us.[3] From this fragment, however, as well as from what he says elsewhere, we can see that his idea of education differed essentially from ours; and it is
