ideal state seems far away, and we find a dispassionate survey of
imperfect states, the best ways of preserving them, and an analysis of
the causes of their instability. It is as though Aristotle were
saying: "I have shown you the proper and normal type of constitution,
but if you will not have it and insist on living under a perverted
form, you may as well know how to make the best of it." In this way
the Politics, though it defines the state in the light of its ideal,
discusses states and institutions as they are. Ostensibly it is merely
a continuation of the Ethics, but it comes to treat political
questions from a purely political standpoint.

This combination of idealism and respect for the teachings of
experience constitutes in some ways the strength and value of the
Politics, but it also makes it harder to follow. The large nation
states to which we are accustomed make it difficult for us to think
that the state could be constructed and modelled to express the good
life. We can appreciate Aristotle's critical analysis of
constitutions, but find it hard to take seriously his advice to the
legislator. Moreover, the idealism and the empiricism of the Politics
are never really reconciled by Aristotle himself.

It may help to an understanding of the Politics if something is said
on those two points.

We are accustomed since the growth of the historical method to the
belief that states are "not made but grow," and are apt to be
impatient with the belief which Aristotle and Plato show in the powers
of the lawgiver. But however true the maxim may be of the modern
nation state, it was not true of the much smaller and more
self-conscious Greek city. When Aristotle talks of the legislator, he