But it is not difficult to perceive
that those who maintain the contrary opinion have
some reason on their side; for a man may become a
slave two different ways; for he may be so by law also,
and this law is a certain compact, by which whatsoever
is taken in battle is adjudged to be the property
of the conquerors: but many persons who are conversant
in law call in question this pretended right, and say
that it would be hard that a man should be compelled
by violence to be the slave and subject of another
who had the power to compel him, and was his superior
in strength; and upon this subject, even of those who
are wise, some think one way and some another; but
the cause of this doubt and variety of opinions arises
from hence, that great abilities, when accompanied
with proper means, are generally able to succeed by
force: for victory is always owing to a superiority
in some advantageous circumstances; so that it seems
that force never prevails but in consequence of great
abilities. But still the dispute concerning the
justice of it remains; for some persons think, that
justice consists in benevolence, others think it just
that the powerful should govern: in the midst
of these contrary opinions, there are no reasons sufficient
to convince us, that the right of being master and
governor ought not to be placed with those who have
the greatest abilities. Some persons, entirely
resting upon the right which the law gives (for that
which is legal is in some respects just), insist upon
it that slavery occasioned by war is just, not that
they say it is wholly so, for it may happen that the
principle upon which the wars were commenced is unjust;
moreover no one will say that a man who is unworthily
in slavery is therefore a slave; for if so, men of
the noblest families might happen to be slaves, and
the descendants of slaves, if they should chance to
be taken prisoners in war and sold: to avoid
this difficulty they say that such persons should
not be called slaves, but barbarians only should; but
when they say this, they do nothing more than inquire
who is a slave by nature, which was what we at first
said; for we must acknowledge that there are some
persons who, wherever they are, must necessarily be
slaves, but others in no situation; thus also it is
with those of noble descent: it is not only in
their own country that they are Esteemed as such,
but everywhere, but the barbarians are respected on
this account at home only; as if nobility and freedom
were of two sorts, the one universal, the other not
so. Thus says the Helen of Theodectes:
“Who dares reproach me with
the name of slave? When from the immortal gods,
on either side, I draw my lineage.”
Those who express sentiments like
these, shew only that they distinguish the slave and
the freeman, the noble and the ignoble from each other
by their virtues and their [1255b] vices; for they
think it reasonable, that as a man begets a man, and
a beast a beast, so from a good man, a good man should
be descended; and this is what nature desires to do,
but frequently cannot accomplish it. It is evident
then that this doubt has some reason in it, and that
these persons are not slaves, and those freemen, by
the appointment of nature; and also that in some instances
it is sufficiently clear, that it is advantageous to
both parties for this man to be a slave, and that to
be a master, and that it is right and just, that some
should be governed, and others govern, in the manner
that nature intended; of which sort of government
is that which a master exercises over a slave.
But to govern ill is disadvantageous to both; for
the same thing is useful to the part and to the whole,
to the body and to the soul; but the slave is as it
were a part of the master, as if he were an animated
part of his body, though separate. For which
reason a mutual utility and friendship may subsist
between the master and the slave, I mean when they
are placed by nature in that relation to each other,
for the contrary takes place amongst those who are
reduced to slavery by the law, or by conquest.