The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c15.5

c15.5

Now, to modern historians of political science, single phrases, even single words of Plato and Aristotle loom unduly large. This extravagance of interpretation is not without its justification. Every age interprets its past in the light of its own experience and conscience. Classical Hellas has thus been reborn in the modern West, since Aquinas (1225—1274)² raised his theological superstructure on Aristotelian foundations, almost as many times as there have been Machiavellis, Bodins, Montesquieus, Francks, Janets and Barkers³ to consult the ancient encyclopedias of culture. The values of every political thinker and theory in Europe have in this cumulative way been fixed definitely and in relation to one another. And the momentum is being accelerated with the sundry new experiences of recent times from Hegel and Austin to Liebknecht and Duguit,¹ the two poles of the theory of sovereignty. The political futurists of today are indeed awaiting the issue of Bolshevik versions not only of the *Plato-Samhitâ* but even of the *Aristotle-nîti* to meet the demands of the new *Novum Organum* of the current régime of the “discredited state.”