NOTES, BOOK 1. 7. 23.
+$s Iti Xdc ir roincuu. 7. I.
&isto& returns to the thesis with which he commenced;
‘From these considerations, too, i.e. from the natural and per-
manent difference of freemen and slaves, our old doctrine (i. 1.
$ 2) that the rule of a master differs from that of a king or
statesman, the art of governing a family from the art of governing
freemen,’ is clearly proven.
cbt; ydp kcpa i7ipoW IC.7.h. 7. 3.
‘ Slaves have various duties, higher and lower, and therefore the
science which treats of them will have many branches ; and there
is a corresponding science of using slaves, which is the science of
the master; yet neither is implied in the terms master or slave;
who are so called not because they have science, but because they
are of a certain character.’ Yet the two propositions are not
inconsistent: Plato would have said that the master must have
science, and not have denied that he must be of a certain character.
8oiAoc ~pb do;Xov, Bcm6qr rrp6 Gcur~irov. 7.3.
Aristotle clearly uses the word rp’pd in the sense of precedence as
supra c. 4. $ 2, +yawow rpd dpyivow. Such a hierarchy among
servants as well as masters is not unknown in modern society.
But compare iv. 6. $ 6, where he says that the rich having to 7.5.
take care of their property have no leisure for politics.
rj 82 K~TL~ &+a dp+mipov rohwv, ofov 4 Srraia, sohrpc~j rrs o&a 4 7. 5.&PP....li.
The passage is obscurely expressed. The writer means to say
that the art of acquiring slaves is not to be identified either with
the art of the slave or of the master: it is a kind of war (vii.
- $ 2 I) or hunting. The words ofov 4 Bixaia imply that Aristotle
is not disposed to justify every mode of acquiring slaves from
inferior races : (compare below c. 8.8 I 2, 4 y;lp &I~WTLIC~ &ms airijs
[SC. +E mu;js], 5 dti XpiuBar spds rc rh hpia Kd r~w siwBphow 8uoc
r+vr&rr dpxcuaor pi &“ovuiu, hs $~imc Bixamw T-OY &a r&v diepew).
The awkward manner of their introduction leads to the suspicion
that they are a gloss, suggested by the passage just cited. The
Sen* of ofow is explanatory and so corrective; not, as &mays,