POLITICS

Part I

Every tate is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good; for mankind always act inorder to obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is thehighest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.

Some people think that the qualifications of a statesman, king, householder, and master are the same, and that they differ, not inkind, but only in the number of their subjects. For example, the ruler over a few is called a master; over more, the manager of ahousehold; over a still larger number, a statesman or king, as if there were no difference between a great household and a smallstate. The distinction which is made between the king and the statesman is as follows: When the government is personal, the ruler isa king; when, according to the rules of the political science, the citizens rule and are ruled in turn, then he is called a statesman.

But all this is a mistake; for governments differ in kind, as will be evident to any one who considers the matter according to themethod which has hitherto guided us. As in other departments of science, so in politics, the compound should always be resolvedinto the simple elements or least parts of the whole. We must therefore look at the elements of which the state is composed, in orderthat we may see in what the different kinds of rule differ from one another, and whether any scientific result can be attained abouteach one of them.

Part II

He who thus considers things in their first growth and origin, whether a state or anything else, will obtain the clearest view of them. Inthe first place there must be a union of those who cannot exist without each other; namely, of male and female, that the race maycontinue (and this is a union which is formed, not of deliberate purpose, but because, in common with other animals and with plants,mankind have a natural desire to leave behind them an image of themselves), and of natural ruler and subject, that both may bepreserved. For that which can foresee by the exercise of mind is by nature intended to be lord and master, and that which can with itsbody give effect to such foresight is a subject, and by nature a slave; hence master and slave have the same interest. Now naturehas distinguished between the female and the slave. For she is not niggardly, like the smith who fashions the Delphian knife for manyuses; she makes each thing for a single use, and every instrument is best made when intended for one and not for many uses. Butamong barbarians no distinction is made between women and slaves, because there is no natural ruler among them: they are acommunity of slaves, male and female. Wherefore the poets say,

"It is meet that Hellenes should rule over barbarians; "

as if they thought that the barbarian and the slave were by nature one.

Out of these two relationships between man and woman, master and slave, the first thing to arise is the family, and Hesiod is rightwhen he says,

"First house and wife and an ox for the plough, "

for the ox is the poor man's slave. The family is the association established by nature for the supply of men's everyday wants, and themembers of it are called by Charondas 'companions of the cupboard,' and by Epimenides the Cretan, 'companions of the manger.'But when several families are united, and the association aims at something more than the supply of daily needs, the first society tobe formed is the village. And the most natural form of the village appears to be that of a colony from the family, composed of thechildren and grandchildren, who are said to be suckled 'with the same milk.' And this is the reason why Hellenic states were originallygoverned by kings; because the Hellenes were under royal rule before they came together, as the barbarians still are. Every family isruled by the eldest, and therefore in the colonies of the family the kingly form of government prevailed because they were of the sameblood. As Homer says:

"Each one gives law to his children and to his wives. "

For they lived dispersedly, as was the manner in ancient times. Wherefore men say that the Gods have a king, because theythemselves either are or were in ancient times under the rule of a king. For they imagine, not only the forms of the Gods, but theirways of life to be like their own.

When several villages are united in a single complete community, large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comesinto existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life. And therefore, if the earlierforms of society are natural, so is the state, for it is the end of them, and the nature of a thing is its end. For what each thing is whenfully developed, we call its nature, whether we are speaking of a man, a horse, or a family. Besides, the final cause and end of athing is the best, and to be self-sufficing is the end and the best.

Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not bymere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above humanity; he is like the

"Tribeless, lawless, hearthless one, "

whom Homer denounces- the natural outcast is forthwith a lover of war; he may be compared to an isolated piece at draughts.

Now, that man is more of a political animal than bees or any other gregarious animals is evident. Nature, as we often say, makesnothing in vain, and man is the only animal whom she has endowed with the gift of speech. And whereas mere voice is but anindication of pleasure or pain, and is therefore found in other animals (for their nature attains to the perception of pleasure and painand the intimation of them to one another, and no further), the power of speech is intended to set forth the expedient and inexpedient,and therefore likewise the just and the unjust. And it is a characteristic of man that he alone has any sense of good and evil, of justand unjust, and the like, and the association of living beings who have this sense makes a family and a state.

Further, the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part; forexample, if the whole body be destroyed, there will be no foot or hand, except in an equivocal sense, as we might speak of a stonehand; for when destroyed the hand will be no better than that. But things are defined by their working and power; and we ought not tosay that they are the same when they no longer have their proper quality, but only that they have the same name. The proof that thestate is a creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore he is likea part in relation to the whole. But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must beeither a beast or a god: he is no part of a state. A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature, and yet he who first founded thestate was the greatest of benefactors. For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, heis the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used byintelligence and virtue, which he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if he have not virtue, he is the most unholy and the mostsavage of animals, and the most full of lust and gluttony. But justice is the bond of men in states, for the administration of justice,which is the determination of what is just, is the principle of order in political society.

Part III

Seeing then that the state is made up of households, before speaking of the state we must speak of the management of thehousehold. The parts of household management correspond to the persons who compose the household, and a complete householdconsists of slaves and freemen. Now we should begin by examining everything in its fewest possible elements; and the first andfewest possible parts of a family are master and slave, husband and wife, father and children. We have therefore to consider whateach of these three relations is and ought to be: I mean the relation of master and servant, the marriage relation (the conjunction ofman and wife has no name of its own), and thirdly, the procreative relation (this also has no proper name). And there is anotherelement of a household, the so-called art of getting wealth, which, according to some, is identical with household management,according to others, a principal part of it; the nature of this art will also have to be considered by us.

Let us first speak of master and slave, looking to the needs of practical life and also seeking to attain some better theory of theirrelation than exists at present. For some are of opinion that the rule of a master is a science, and that the management of ahousehold, and the mastership of slaves, and the political and royal rule, as I was saying at the outset, are all the same. Others affirmthat the rule of a master over slaves is contrary to nature, and that the distinction between slave and freeman exists by law only, andnot by nature; and being an interference with nature is therefore unjust.

Part IV

Property is a part of the household, and the art of acquiring property is a part of the art of managing the household; for no man canlive well, or indeed live at all, unless he be provided with necessaries. And as in the arts which have a definite sphere the workersmust have their own proper instruments for the accomplishment of their work, so it is in the management of a household. Nowinstruments are of various sorts; some are living, others lifeless; in the rudder, the pilot of a ship has a lifeless, in the look-out man, aliving instrument; for in the arts the servant is a kind of instrument. Thus, too, a possession is an instrument for maintaining life. Andso, in the arrangement of the family, a slave is a living possession, and property a number of such instruments; and the servant ishimself an instrument which takes precedence of all other instruments. For if every instrument could accomplish its own work,obeying or anticipating the will of others, like the statues of Daedalus, or the tripods of Hephaestus, which, says the poet,

"of their own accord entered the assembly of the Gods; "

if, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would notwant servants, nor masters slaves. Here, however, another distinction must be drawn; the instruments commonly so called areinstruments of production, whilst a possession is an instrument of action. The shuttle, for example, is not only of use; but somethingelse is made by it, whereas of a garment or of a bed there is only the use. Further, as production and action are different in kind, andboth require instruments, the instruments which they employ must likewise differ in kind. But life is action and not production, andtherefore the slave is the minister of action. Again, a possession is spoken of as a part is spoken of; for the part is not only a part ofsomething else, but wholly belongs to it; and this is also true of a possession. The master is only the master of the slave; he does notbelong to him, whereas the slave is not only the slave of his master, but wholly belongs to him. Hence we see what is the nature andoffice of a slave; he who is by nature not his own but another's man, is by nature a slave; and he may be said to be another's manwho, being a human being, is also a possession. And a possession may be defined as an instrument of action, separable from thepossessor.

Part V

But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not allslavery a violation of nature?

There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruledis a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.

And there are many kinds both of rulers and subjects (and that rule is the better which is exercised over better subjects- for example,to rule over men is better than to rule over wild beasts; for the work is better which is executed by better workmen, and where oneman rules and another is ruled, they may be said to have a work); for in all things which form a composite whole and which are madeup of parts, whether continuous or discrete, a distinction between the ruling and the subject element comes to fight. Such a dualityexists in living creatures, but not in them only; it originates in the constitution of the universe; even in things which have no life there isa ruling principle, as in a musical mode. But we are wandering from the subject. We will therefore restrict ourselves to the livingcreature, which, in the first place, consists of soul and body: and of these two, the one is by nature the ruler, and the other the subject.But then we must look for the intentions of nature in things which retain their nature, and not in things which are corrupted. Andtherefore we must study the man who is in the most perfect state both of body and soul, for in him we shall see the true relation of thetwo; although in bad or corrupted natures the body will often appear to rule over the soul, because they are in an evil and unnaturalcondition. At all events we may firstly observe in living creatures both a despotical and a constitutional rule; for the soul rules the bodywith a despotical rule, whereas the intellect rules the appetites with a constitutional and royal rule. And it is clear that the rule of thesoul over the body, and of the mind and the rational element over the passionate, is natural and expedient; whereas the equality ofthe two or the rule of the inferior is always hurtful. The same holds good of animals in relation to men; for tame animals have a betternature than wild, and all tame animals are better off when they are ruled by man; for then they are preserved. Again, the male is bynature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind.

Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whosebusiness is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for allinferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another's and he who participates inrational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature. Whereas the lower animals cannoteven apprehend a principle; they obey their instincts. And indeed the use made of slaves and of tame animals is not very different;for both with their bodies minister to the needs of life. Nature would like to distinguish between the bodies of freemen and slaves,making the one strong for servile labor, the other upright, and although useless for such services, useful for political life in the artsboth of war and peace. But the opposite often happens- that some have the souls and others have the bodies of freemen. Anddoubtless if men differed from one another in the mere forms of their bodies as much as the statues of the Gods do from men, allwould acknowledge that the inferior class should be slaves of the superior. And if this is true of the body, how much more just that asimilar distinction should exist in the soul? but the beauty of the body is seen, whereas the beauty of the soul is not seen. It is clear,then, that some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right.

Part VI

But that those who take the opposite view have in a certain way right on their side, may be easily seen. For the words slavery andslave are used in two senses. There is a slave or slavery by law as well as by nature. The law of which I speak is a sort of convention-the law by which whatever is taken in war is supposed to belong to the victors. But this right many jurists impeach, as they would anorator who brought forward an unconstitutional measure: they detest the notion that, because one man has the power of doingviolence and is superior in brute strength, another shall be his slave and subject. Even among philosophers there is a difference ofopinion. The origin of the dispute, and what makes the views invade each other's territory, is as follows: in some sense virtue, whenfurnished with means, has actually the greatest power of exercising force; and as superior power is only found where there issuperior excellence of some kind, power seems to imply virtue, and the dispute to be simply one about justice (for it is due to oneparty identifying justice with goodwill while the other identifies it with the mere rule of the stronger). If these views are thus set outseparately, the other views have no force or plausibility against the view that the superior in virtue ought to rule, or be master. Others,clinging, as they think, simply to a principle of justice (for law and custom are a sort of justice), assume that slavery in accordancewith the custom of war is justified by law, but at the same moment they deny this. For what if the cause of the war be unjust? Andagain, no one would ever say he is a slave who is unworthy to be a slave. Were this the case, men of the highest rank would beslaves and the children of slaves if they or their parents chance to have been taken captive and sold. Wherefore Hellenes do not liketo call Hellenes slaves, but confine the term to barbarians. Yet, in using this language, they really mean the natural slave of whom wespoke at first; for it must be admitted that some are slaves everywhere, others nowhere. The same principle applies to nobility.Hellenes regard themselves as noble everywhere, and not only in their own country, but they deem the barbarians noble only when athome, thereby implying that there are two sorts of nobility and freedom, the one absolute, the other relative. The Helen of Theodectessays:

"Who would presume to call me servant who am on both sides sprung from the stem of the Gods? "

What does this mean but that they distinguish freedom and slavery, noble and humble birth, by the two principles of good and evil?They think that as men and animals beget men and animals, so from good men a good man springs. But this is what nature, thoughshe may intend it, cannot always accomplish.

We see then that there is some foundation for this difference of opinion, and that all are not either slaves by nature or freemen bynature, and also that there is in some cases a marked distinction between the two classes, rendering it expedient and right for theone to be slaves and the others to be masters: the one practicing obedience, the others exercising the authority and lordship whichnature intended them to have. The abuse of this authority is injurious to both; for the interests of part and whole, of body and soul, arethe same, and the slave is a part of the master, a living but separated part of his bodily frame. Hence, where the relation of masterand slave between them is natural they are friends and have a common interest, but where it rests merely on law and force thereverse is true.

Part VII

The previous remarks are quite enough to show that the rule of a master is not a constitutional rule, and that all the different kinds ofrule are not, as some affirm, the same with each other. For there is one rule exercised over subjects who are by nature free, anotherover subjects who are by nature slaves. The rule of a household is a monarchy, for every house is under one head: whereasconstitutional rule is a government of freemen and equals. The master is not called a master because he has science, but becausehe is of a certain character, and the same remark applies to the slave and the freeman. Still there may be a science for the masterand science for the slave. The science of the slave would be such as the man of Syracuse taught, who made money by instructingslaves in their ordinary duties. And such a knowledge may be carried further, so as to include cookery and similar menial arts. Forsome duties are of the more necessary, others of the more honorable sort; as the proverb says, 'slave before slave, master beforemaster.' But all such branches of knowledge are servile. There is likewise a science of the master, which teaches the use of slaves;for the master as such is concerned, not with the acquisition, but with the use of them. Yet this so-called science is not anything greator wonderful; for the master need only know how to order that which the slave must know how to execute. Hence those who are in aposition which places them above toil have stewards who attend to their households while they occupy themselves with philosophy orwith politics. But the art of acquiring slaves, I mean of justly acquiring them, differs both from the art of the master and the art of theslave, being a species of hunting or war. Enough of the distinction between master and slave.

Part VIII

Let us now inquire into property generally, and into the art of getting wealth, in accordance with our usual method, for a slave hasbeen shown to be a part of property. The first question is whether the art of getting wealth is the same with the art of managing ahousehold or a part of it, or instrumental to it; and if the last, whether in the way that the art of making shuttles is instrumental to the artof weaving, or in the way that the casting of bronze is instrumental to the art of the statuary, for they are not instrumental in the sameway, but the one provides tools and the other material; and by material I mean the substratum out of which any work is made; thuswool is the material of the weaver, bronze of the statuary. Now it is easy to see that the art of household management is not identicalwith the art of getting wealth, for the one uses the material which the other provides. For the art which uses household stores can beno other than the art of household management. There is, however, a doubt whether the art of getting wealth is a part of householdmanagement or a distinct art. If the getter of wealth has to consider whence wealth and property can be procured, but there are manysorts of property and riches, then are husbandry, and the care and provision of food in general, parts of the wealth-getting art ordistinct arts? Again, there are many sorts of food, and therefore there are many kinds of lives both of animals and men; they must allhave food, and the differences in their food have made differences in their ways of life. For of beasts, some are gregarious, othersare solitary; they live in the way which is best adapted to sustain them, accordingly as they are carnivorous or herbivorous oromnivorous: and their habits are determined for them by nature in such a manner that they may obtain with greater facility the food oftheir choice. But, as different species have different tastes, the same things are not naturally pleasant to all of them; and therefore thelives of carnivorous or herbivorous animals further differ among themselves. In the lives of men too there is a great difference. Thelaziest are shepherds, who lead an idle life, and get their subsistence without trouble from tame animals; their flocks having towander from place to place in search of pasture, they are compelled to follow them, cultivating a sort of living farm. Others supportthemselves by hunting, which is of different kinds. Some, for example, are brigands, others, who dwell near lakes or marshes orrivers or a sea in which there are fish, are fishermen, and others live by the pursuit of birds or wild beasts. The greater number obtaina living from the cultivated fruits of the soil. Such are the modes of subsistence which prevail among those whose industry springs upof itself, and whose food is not acquired by exchange and retail trade- there is the shepherd, the husbandman, the brigand, thefisherman, the hunter. Some gain a comfortable maintenance out of two employments, eking out the deficiencies of one of them byanother: thus the life of a shepherd may be combined with that of a brigand, the life of a farmer with that of a hunter. Other modes oflife are similarly combined in any way which the needs of men may require. Property, in the sense of a bare livelihood, seems to begiven by nature herself to all, both when they are first born, and when they are grown up. For some animals bring forth, together withtheir offspring, so much food as will last until they are able to supply themselves; of this the vermiparous or oviparous animals are aninstance; and the viviparous animals have up to a certain time a supply of food for their young in themselves, which is called milk. Inlike manner we may infer that, after the birth of animals, plants exist for their sake, and that the other animals exist for the sake ofman, the tame for use and food, the wild, if not all at least the greater part of them, for food, and for the provision of clothing andvarious instruments. Now if nature makes nothing incomplete, and nothing in vain, the inference must be that she has made allanimals for the sake of man. And so, in one point of view, the art of war is a natural art of acquisition, for the art of acquisitionincludes hunting, an art which we ought to practice against wild beasts, and against men who, though intended by nature to begoverned, will not submit; for war of such a kind is naturally just.

Of the art of acquisition then there is one kind which by nature is a part of the management of a household, in so far as the art ofhousehold management must either find ready to hand, or itself provide, such things necessary to life, and useful for the communityof the family or state, as can be stored. They are the elements of true riches; for the amount of property which is needed for a goodlife is not unlimited, although Solon in one of his poems says that

"No bound to riches has been fixed for man. "

But there is a boundary fixed, just as there is in the other arts; for the instruments of any art are never unlimited, either in number orsize, and riches may be defined as a number of instruments to be used in a household or in a state. And so we see that there is anatural art of acquisition which is practiced by managers of households and by statesmen, and what is the reason of this.

Part IX

There is another variety of the art of acquisition which is commonly and rightly called an art of wealth-getting, and has in factsuggested the notion that riches and property have no limit. Being nearly connected with the preceding, it is often identified with it.But though they are not very different, neither are they the same. The kind already described is given by nature, the other is gained byexperience and art.

Let us begin our discussion of the question with the following considerations:

Of everything which we possess there are two uses: both belong to the thing as such, but not in the same manner, for one is theproper, and the other the improper or secondary use of it. For example, a shoe is used for wear, and is used for exchange; both areuses of the shoe. He who gives a shoe in exchange for money or food to him who wants one, does indeed use the shoe as a shoe,but this is not its proper or primary purpose, for a shoe is not made to be an object of barter. The same may be said of allpossessions, for the art of exchange extends to all of them, and it arises at first from what is natural, from the circumstance that somehave too little, others too much. Hence we may infer that retail trade is not a natural part of the art of getting wealth; had it been so,men would have ceased to exchange when they had enough. In the first community, indeed, which is the family, this art is obviously ofno use, but it begins to be useful when the society increases. For the members of the family originally had all things in common; later,when the family divided into parts, the parts shared in many things, and different parts in different things, which they had to give inexchange for what they wanted, a kind of barter which is still practiced among barbarous nations who exchange with one another thenecessaries of life and nothing more; giving and receiving wine, for example, in exchange for coin, and the like. This sort of barter isnot part of the wealth-getting art and is not contrary to nature, but is needed for the satisfaction of men's natural wants. The other ormore complex form of exchange grew, as might have been inferred, out of the simpler. When the inhabitants of one country becamemore dependent on those of another, and they imported what they needed, and exported what they had too much of, moneynecessarily came into use. For the various necessaries of life are not easily carried about, and hence men agreed to employ in theirdealings with each other something which was intrinsically useful and easily applicable to the purposes of life, for example, iron,silver, and the like. Of this the value was at first measured simply by size and weight, but in process of time they put a stamp upon it,to save the trouble of weighing and to mark the value.

When the use of coin had once been discovered, out of the barter of necessary articles arose the other art of wealth getting, namely,retail trade; which was at first probably a simple matter, but became more complicated as soon as men learned by experiencewhence and by what exchanges the greatest profit might be made. Originating in the use of coin, the art of getting wealth is generallythought to be chiefly concerned with it, and to be the art which produces riches and wealth; having to consider how they may beaccumulated. Indeed, riches is assumed by many to be only a quantity of coin, because the arts of getting wealth and retail trade areconcerned with coin. Others maintain that coined money is a mere sham, a thing not natural, but conventional only, because, if theusers substitute another commodity for it, it is worthless, and because it is not useful as a means to any of the necessities of life,and, indeed, he who is rich in coin may often be in want of necessary food. But how can that be wealth of which a man may have agreat abundance and yet perish with hunger, like Midas in the fable, whose insatiable prayer turned everything that was set beforehim into gold?

Hence men seek after a better notion of riches and of the art of getting wealth than the mere acquisition of coin, and they are right.For natural riches and the natural art of wealth-getting are a different thing; in their true form they are part of the management of ahousehold; whereas retail trade is the art of producing wealth, not in every way, but by exchange. And it is thought to be concernedwith coin; for coin is the unit of exchange and the measure or limit of it. And there is no bound to the riches which spring from this artof wealth getting. As in the art of medicine there is no limit to the pursuit of health, and as in the other arts there is no limit to thepursuit of their several ends, for they aim at accomplishing their ends to the uttermost (but of the means there is a limit, for the end isalways the limit), so, too, in this art of wealth-getting there is no limit of the end, which is riches of the spurious kind, and theacquisition of wealth. But the art of wealth-getting which consists in household management, on the other hand, has a limit; theunlimited acquisition of wealth is not its business. And, therefore, in one point of view, all riches must have a limit; nevertheless, as amatter of fact, we find the opposite to be the case; for all getters of wealth increase their hoard of coin without limit. The source of theconfusion is the near connection between the two kinds of wealth-getting; in either, the instrument is the same, although the use isdifferent, and so they pass into one another; for each is a use of the same property, but with a difference: accumulation is the end inthe one case, but there is a further end in the other. Hence some persons are led to believe that getting wealth is the object ofhousehold management, and the whole idea of their lives is that they ought either to increase their money without limit, or at any ratenot to lose it. The origin of this disposition in men is that they are intent upon living only, and not upon living well; and, as their desiresare unlimited they also desire that the means of gratifying them should be without limit. Those who do aim at a good life seek themeans of obtaining bodily pleasures; and, since the enjoyment of these appears to depend on property, they are absorbed in gettingwealth: and so there arises the second species of wealth-getting. For, as their enjoyment is in excess, they seek an art whichproduces the excess of enjoyment; and, if they are not able to supply their pleasures by the art of getting wealth, they try other arts,using in turn every faculty in a manner contrary to nature. The quality of courage, for example, is not intended to make wealth, but toinspire confidence; neither is this the aim of the general's or of the physician's art; but the one aims at victory and the other at health.Nevertheless, some men turn every quality or art into a means of getting wealth; this they conceive to be the end, and to thepromotion of the end they think all things must contribute.

Thus, then, we have considered the art of wealth-getting which is unnecessary, and why men want it; and also the necessary art ofwealth-getting, which we have seen to be different from the other, and to be a natural part of the art of managing a household,concerned with the provision of food, not, however, like the former kind, unlimited, but having a limit.

Part X

And we have found the answer to our original question, Whether the art of getting wealth is the business of the manager of ahousehold and of the statesman or not their business? viz., that wealth is presupposed by them. For as political science does notmake men, but takes them from nature and uses them, so too nature provides them with earth or sea or the like as a source of food.At this stage begins the duty of the manager of a household, who has to order the things which nature supplies; he may be comparedto the weaver who has not to make but to use wool, and to know, too, what sort of wool is good and serviceable or bad andunserviceable. Were this otherwise, it would be difficult to see why the art of getting wealth is a part of the management of ahousehold and the art of medicine not; for surely the members of a household must have health just as they must have life or anyother necessary. The answer is that as from one point of view the master of the house and the ruler of the state have to considerabout health, from another point of view not they but the physician; so in one way the art of household management, in another waythe subordinate art, has to consider about wealth. But, strictly speaking, as I have already said, the means of life must be providedbeforehand by nature; for the business of nature is to furnish food to that which is born, and the food of the offspring is always whatremains over of that from which it is produced. Wherefore the art of getting wealth out of fruits and animals is always natural.

There are two sorts of wealth-getting, as I have said; one is a part of household management, the other is retail trade: the formernecessary and honorable, while that which consists in exchange is justly censured; for it is unnatural, and a mode by which men gainfrom one another. The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not fromthe natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, whichmeans the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Whereforeof an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

Part XI

Enough has been said about the theory of wealth-getting; we will now proceed to the practical part. The discussion of such matters isnot unworthy of philosophy, but to be engaged in them practically is illiberal and irksome. The useful parts of wealth-getting are, first,the knowledge of livestock- which are most profitable, and where, and how- as, for example, what sort of horses or sheep or oxen orany other animals are most likely to give a return. A man ought to know which of these pay better than others, and which pay best inparticular places, for some do better in one place and some in another. Secondly, husbandry, which may be either tillage or planting,and the keeping of bees and of fish, or fowl, or of any animals which may be useful to man. These are the divisions of the true orproper art of wealth-getting and come first. Of the other, which consists in exchange, the first and most important division iscommerce (of which there are three kinds- the provision of a ship, the conveyance of goods, exposure for sale- these again differingas they are safer or more profitable), the second is usury, the third, service for hire- of this, one kind is employed in the mechanicalarts, the other in unskilled and bodily labor. There is still a third sort of wealth getting intermediate between this and the first or naturalmode which is partly natural, but is also concerned with exchange, viz., the industries that make their profit from the earth, and fromthings growing from the earth which, although they bear no fruit, are nevertheless profitable; for example, the cutting of timber and allmining. The art of mining, by which minerals are obtained, itself has many branches, for there are various kinds of things dug out ofthe earth. Of the several divisions of wealth-getting I now speak generally; a minute consideration of them might be useful in practice,but it would be tiresome to dwell upon them at greater length now.

Those occupations are most truly arts in which there is the least element of chance; they are the meanest in which the body is mostdeteriorated, the most servile in which there is the greatest use of the body, and the most illiberal in which there is the least need ofexcellence.

Works have been written upon these subjects by various persons; for example, by Chares the Parian, and Apollodorus the Lemnian,who have treated of Tillage and Planting, while others have treated of other branches; any one who cares for such matters may referto their writings. It would be well also to collect the scattered stories of the ways in which individuals have succeeded in amassing afortune; for all this is useful to persons who value the art of getting wealth. There is the anecdote of Thales the Milesian and hisfinancial device, which involves a principle of universal application, but is attributed to him on account of his reputation for wisdom.He was reproached for his poverty, which was supposed to show that philosophy was of no use. According to the story, he knew byhis skill in the stars while it was yet winter that there would be a great harvest of olives in the coming year; so, having a little money,he gave deposits for the use of all the olive-presses in Chios and Miletus, which he hired at a low price because no one bid againsthim. When the harvest-time came, and many were wanted all at once and of a sudden, he let them out at any rate which he pleased,and made a quantity of money. Thus he showed the world that philosophers can easily be rich if they like, but that their ambition is ofanother sort. He is supposed to have given a striking proof of his wisdom, but, as I was saying, his device for getting wealth is ofuniversal application, and is nothing but the creation of a monopoly. It is an art often practiced by cities when they are want of money;they make a monopoly of provisions.

There was a man of Sicily, who, having money deposited with him, bought up an the iron from the iron mines; afterwards, when themerchants from their various markets came to buy, he was the only seller, and without much increasing the price he gained 200 percent. Which when Dionysius heard, he told him that he might take away his money, but that he must not remain at Syracuse, for hethought that the man had discovered a way of making money which was injurious to his own interests. He made the same discoveryas Thales; they both contrived to create a monopoly for themselves. And statesmen as well ought to know these things; for a state isoften as much in want of money and of such devices for obtaining it as a household, or even more so; hence some public mendevote themselves entirely to finance.

Part XII

Of household management we have seen that there are three parts- one is the rule of a master over slaves, which has beendiscussed already, another of a father, and the third of a husband. A husband and father, we saw, rules over wife and children, bothfree, but the rule differs, the rule over his children being a royal, over his wife a constitutional rule. For although there may beexceptions to the order of nature, the male is by nature fitter for command than the female, just as the elder and full-grown is superiorto the younger and more immature. But in most constitutional states the citizens rule and are ruled by turns, for the idea of aconstitutional state implies that the natures of the citizens are equal, and do not differ at all. Nevertheless, when one rules and theother is ruled we endeavor to create a difference of outward forms and names and titles of respect, which may be illustrated by thesaying of Amasis about his foot-pan. The relation of the male to the female is of this kind, but there the inequality is permanent. Therule of a father over his children is royal, for he rules by virtue both of love and of the respect due to age, exercising a kind of royalpower. And therefore Homer has appropriately called Zeus 'father of Gods and men,' because he is the king of them all. For a king isthe natural superior of his subjects, but he should be of the same kin or kind with them, and such is the relation of elder and younger,of father and son.

Part XIII

Thus it is clear that household management attends more to men than to the acquisition of inanimate things, and to humanexcellence more than to the excellence of property which we call wealth, and to the virtue of freemen more than to the virtue of slaves.A question may indeed be raised, whether there is any excellence at all in a slave beyond and higher than merely instrumental andministerial qualities- whether he can have the virtues of temperance, courage, justice, and the like; or whether slaves possess onlybodily and ministerial qualities. And, whichever way we answer the question, a difficulty arises; for, if they have virtue, in what will theydiffer from freemen? On the other hand, since they are men and share in rational principle, it seems absurd to say that they have novirtue. A similar question may be raised about women and children, whether they too have virtues: ought a woman to be temperateand brave and just, and is a child to be called temperate, and intemperate, or note So in general we may ask about the natural ruler,and the natural subject, whether they have the same or different virtues. For if a noble nature is equally required in both, why shouldone of them always rule, and the other always be ruled? Nor can we say that this is a question of degree, for the difference betweenruler and subject is a difference of kind, which the difference of more and less never is. Yet how strange is the supposition that theone ought, and that the other ought not, to have virtue! For if the ruler is intemperate and unjust, how can he rule well? If the subject,how can he obey well? If he be licentious and cowardly, he will certainly not do his duty. It is evident, therefore, that both of them musthave a share of virtue, but varying as natural subjects also vary among themselves. Here the very constitution of the soul has shownus the way; in it one part naturally rules, and the other is subject, and the virtue of the ruler we in maintain to be different from that ofthe subject; the one being the virtue of the rational, and the other of the irrational part. Now, it is obvious that the same principleapplies generally, and therefore almost all things rule and are ruled according to nature. But the kind of rule differs; the freeman rulesover the slave after another manner from that in which the male rules over the female, or the man over the child; although the parts ofthe soul are present in an of them, they are present in different degrees. For the slave has no deliberative faculty at all; the womanhas, but it is without authority, and the child has, but it is immature. So it must necessarily be supposed to be with the moral virtuesalso; all should partake of them, but only in such manner and degree as is required by each for the fulfillment of his duty. Hence theruler ought to have moral virtue in perfection, for his function, taken absolutely, demands a master artificer, and rational principle issuch an artificer; the subjects, oil the other hand, require only that measure of virtue which is proper to each of them. Clearly, then,moral virtue belongs to all of them; but the temperance of a man and of a woman, or the courage and justice of a man and of awoman, are not, as Socrates maintained, the same; the courage of a man is shown in commanding, of a woman in obeying. And thisholds of all other virtues, as will be more clearly seen if we look at them in detail, for those who say generally that virtue consists in agood disposition of the soul, or in doing rightly, or the like, only deceive themselves. Far better than such definitions is their mode ofspeaking, who, like Gorgias, enumerate the virtues. All classes must be deemed to have their special attributes; as the poet says ofwomen,

"Silence is a woman's glory, "

but this is not equally the glory of man. The child is imperfect, and therefore obviously his virtue is not relative to himself alone, but tothe perfect man and to his teacher, and in like manner the virtue of the slave is relative to a master. Now we determined that a slaveis useful for the wants of life, and therefore he will obviously require only so much virtue as will prevent him from failing in his dutythrough cowardice or lack of self-control. Some one will ask whether, if what we are saying is true, virtue will not be required also inthe artisans, for they often fail in their work through the lack of self control? But is there not a great difference in the two cases? Forthe slave shares in his master's life; the artisan is less closely connected with him, and only attains excellence in proportion as hebecomes a slave. The meaner sort of mechanic has a special and separate slavery; and whereas the slave exists by nature, not sothe shoemaker or other artisan. It is manifest, then, that the master ought to be the source of such excellence in the slave, and not amere possessor of the art of mastership which trains the slave in his duties. Wherefore they are mistaken who forbid us to conversewith slaves and say that we should employ command only, for slaves stand even more in need of admonition than children.

So much for this subject; the relations of husband and wife, parent and child, their several virtues, what in their intercourse with oneanother is good, and what is evil, and how we may pursue the good and good and escape the evil, will have to be discussed whenwe speak of the different forms of government. For, inasmuch as every family is a part of a state, and these relationships are theparts of a family, and the virtue of the part must have regard to the virtue of the whole, women and children must be trained byeducation with an eye to the constitution, if the virtues of either of them are supposed to make any difference in the virtues of thestate. And they must make a difference: for the children grow up to be citizens, and half the free persons in a state are women.

Of these matters, enough has been said; of what remains, let us speak at another time. Regarding, then, our present inquiry ascomplete, we will make a new beginning. And, first, let us examine the various theories of a perfect state.