THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY ACCORDING TO ARISTOTLE AND ST. THOMAS A Dissertation t'·**' Submitted to the Committee on Graduate Study of the University of Notre Dame in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy BY Winston Ashley, m.a. Notre Dame, Indiana 1941 üâSMMâiiaMi PREFACE 1 Thls dissertation aims at untangling certain of the difficulties in the treatment of the question of slavery to be found in the political writings of Aris­ totle and St. Thomas. It is strange that a political theory whose general tendency is toward a limitation of all human dominions by the natural law, and toward an emphasis on the moral character of the common good, and the dignity of the person, should in this particular in­ stance seem to defend an Institution which is symbolic for us of tyranny, arbitrary rule, and the degradation of human nature. The intention of this dissertation is not to pass judgment on an institution already historically judged, but to attempt to understand the principles on which Aristotle and St. Thomas were each able to accept certain forms of that institution, and to see how these principles Colored their precious theory of the kinds of rule. It is best considered as a minor part of some more comprehensive study of the kinds of human rule and their relation to the common and private good. j J I wish to thank all those who have assisted me In the preparation of this work. I am especially grate­ ful to Dr. Valdemar Gurlan for his kind and learned di­ rection of my work and correction of the manuscript. Since for weighty reasons he takes a less favorable view of Aristotle's theory of slavery, than I have done in this thesis, I hope that he will not be held responsible for any of my personal opinions. Special thanks are also d.ue to Dr. Yv.es Simon for extremely useful sugges­ tions and corrections, and to my colleague Leo Shields for suggestions .and criticisms. I am especially in­ debted also to the Rev. P.' S. Moore, C.S.C. for his generous assistance in my graduate studies, and to Dr. Mortimer J. Adler for introducing me to the study of the political philosophy of St. Thomas. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. Introduction: Page Servitude and Freedom ... .... χ II. Slavery in the Time of Aristotle ........... Q III. Servitude in the Time of St. Thomas .... ... 19 TV. The General Theory of Dominion........... 35 V. The Function of the Natural Slave ........... 50 VI. The Existence and Character of the Slave .... 6j VII. The Expediency of Natural Slavery.......... 75 VIII. Aristotle and Conventional Slavery ......... 91 IX. X. XI. XII. St. Thomas and Slavery as the Consequence of Sin ............... 102 St. Thomas and the Rights of the "Slave" .... 114 The Dominion of Servitude and Tyranny.... . 129 Conclusion........... 140 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.... ............ 14? BIBLIOGRAPHY· .................................. 149 vil ' «>4 Chapter I INTRODUCTION: SERVITUDE AND FREEDOM The ■III-— I I Ititanic rebirth _ ___ _. _in . -■these . . . . 7-· times■ ■ of -- doctrines __ ■ ■ w&lch divide the human race into tyrant races and slave races, tyrant classes"ândslave classes, tyrant leaders and slave foliôwërs7~has mâdë~~frëëdom~the mosFTôpïcal problem in political thought. We begin to realize that the growth of tyranny draws its nourishment from the dis­ order in society produced by a false notion of freedom, liberalism. We see that what now seems criminal egoism in .the totalitarian leaders is simply what liberalism had hoped to multiply in society by granting self-expres­ sion to every Individual. Catholic philosophers in particular find new meaning now In the Idea of lawful authority and of the common good.1 They insist that the true freedom which we have sought too blindly is not the freedom to do what we please, but rather a terminal freedom, the freedom which a man comes to possess when he lives according to law not because he is constrained by outside forces, but because that law has become the principle of a just order ^n his very soul.* 2 Catholic i culture, with a profound optimism, aims at building the political order on an authority whose alm Is the common good conceived in moral and spiritual terms, convinced that as the members of the state become more Interiorly just, the character of the external political rule will depend less and less upon coercion and restraint, and f ! i î j [ j i- 1. The Encyclical of Leo HU on "Hinnan Liberty" (Libertas Praestantissimum, 1888) explains the opposition of the Catholic Church to Liberalism as an ethical system. The Church's insistence on the unity of the human race is re-emphasized in Pius XII's "Summi Pontificatus," 1939· 2. See J. Maritale, Freedom in the Modern World, 39-^0 and Scholasticlsm and Politics, Chapters IV and V. Also Yves Simon, Nature and Functions of Authority, b2-h8. 2 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY more and more upon the free and deliberate will of the citizens to order themselves to the common good. Never- : theless, with an equally profound insight into human weakness, Catholic thought recognizes that this goal can­ not be attained perfectly and permanently until the end ; of time. Here and now it has to face the fact that on · the one hand liberalism, while permitting human liber­ ties, both true and false, at the same time prepared : tyranny, and on the other hand that the new tyrannies mask the essentially materialistic character of their ! aims by talk about "authority," and "discipline, " "self­ sacrifice," and "the common good." The way between ...these deceitful errors is narrow. Even Catholic think- I ers may be found sometimes praising "democracy" as if the freedom to print lies in newspapers was a God-given right, and at another time praising authoritarian govern-. ment as if implicit submission to a master crook in the j commission of his crimes was an act of Christian obedi- , ence. ■ j The philosophical solution of these tense prob? lems demands of us a precision which political thought > has never before attained. The Aristotelian politics 1 based .itself upon a correct understanding of human na: ture and of practical science. Thorn!st thought took" | tlïèSe~tJruths and "deepened them by the Christian underi standing of the essential dignity of the human person. * The Aristotelico-Thomistic politics is thus a practical science^^of__the_..cpmnion good, a common good which~is not merely a material or technical .weil-being ’but' a moral perfection, the supreme natural life of virtue._The life ôf thë“âlHgle man attains to its perfection in the state} the perfection of the state is a due order in the life which courses through its members. Mode.rn^thought, Jiowever, has not yet very.well„.understood what this means, has not yet purlfleditself from the twin taints of liberalism~ahd collectivism. ~ ..........— That we have not understood very well is proved by the embarrassment which Thomists sometimes feel over two points in Aristotelico-Thomistic texts. One of these is to be found in St. Thomas’ very evident prefer­ ence for monarchic government, and Aristotle's equally evidenft^diailike__o_f democracy. The other is Aristotle's INTRODUCTION: SERVITUDE AND FREEDOM£ notorious "theory of natural slavery" in which, it has beenTrefTaT^Strr^HUffia's^cquiesces . Some have branded boîETas flat errors to be readily explained by the his­ torical limitations to which even great minds are sub­ ject.To others, however, this is a troubling solu­ tion, 5 since they are haunted by the realization that Aristotle and St. Thomas, whatever their historical lim­ itations, worked with principles of an eternal charac­ ter, so that even their errors are often useful guides to truth.6 As things stand, the fact that we cannot as­ sure ourselves how much truth and how much error these "authoritarian" views contain, convicts us of not having yet developed a wholly satisfactory theory of authority and the relation of the person and the state. Until we have a satisfactory understanding of the "common good" we cannot solve these problems nor can we give a decisive answer to the political heresies of our day. J. For references to some European scholars who have held that St. Thomas revived the Aristotleian justification of slavery see S. Talamo, Il Concetto della Schiavitu de Aristotele ai Dottori scolastici, 162f. and George O'Brien, An Essay on Medieval Eco­ nomic Teaching, Chapter 2, sec. 3> 88ff. O’Brien seems to agree with the authors he quotes. 1». Thus recently M. J. Adler has attempted to prove that the views of Aristotle and St. Thomas on both these pointe is self-contra­ dictory. He believes that their fundamental principles do in > fact lead to the conclusion that Democracy is the only truly good form of government, "The Demonstration of Democracy," The Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, 25 (I939), 122-165· Many of the difficulties regarding regal rule have, however, been cleared up by M. Demongeot, Le meilleur régime politique selon S· Thomas. Dr. Adler is mistaken in be­ lieving that Demongeot's work is based on the disputed parts of De Regimine, see Le meilleur regime, lUf., and "The Demonstra­ tion of Democracy," lh6. 5- Thus Jacques Maritain who is a determined opponent of every de­ gradation of human dignity and repudiates the Aristotelian theo­ ry, sees a wisdom in St. Thomas' view that servitude has an his­ torical necessity, Scholasticism and Politics, 139f> also 177f. Yves Simon, The Nature and Functions of Authority, 3δ-39 while condemning slavery, points out seme real difficulties in the ■ problem. 6. The most obvious examples are theological; Aristotle's theory of God as the Final Cause of the Universe, and St. Thomas’views on sH THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY Λ The following pages are an attempt to treat one of the symptomatic problems which has been mentioned, the question of natural slavery. The problem here Is not to pass judgment on the .wisdom of slavery as an In­ stitution of antiquity, nor the record of the Christian Church and medieval civilization in tolerating slavery and serfdom while removing Its basis.7 Nor is the prob­ lem to pass a practical judgment on the relevance of the theory to contemporary social and economic problems. Fi­ nally the problem cannot even be to reach a definitive judgment on the essential justice of any of the forms of servitude, since this depends on the relation of the private person to the common good which Is still under discussion.θ The question Is rather to state In detail the Aristotelian Theory In order to remove some of the inisîûïaerHtanaiiigs~bCnceTntng-drt7^M’~!üb~^ëë^ow^mûch of, It^BF.··Thomas thought £^slAVer^ha§^he advantage11 11. H. S. Milne, Ancient law, l$Bf. "The simple wish to use the hodily powers of another person as a means of ministering to one's own ease or pleasure is doubtless the foundation of slavery r as old as human nature." 12. G. R. Morrow, Plato's Lav of Slavery' in Its Relation to Greek K law, 25. 13. Sent. IV, d.lA, q_.l., a.3. c. 1U. H. J. Nieboer, Slavery as an industrial system, 8-9, argues that the correct sociological definition is simply the owner­ ship of one man by another. Belloc points out that there may be no "legal ownership" and still an essentially servile sta­ tus. · 6 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY of not passing moral judgement on slavery as a reduction of man to property or as being exploitative. This defi­ nition can serve as a general description of what St. Thomas and Aristotle meant by servitude. The precisions ■which they respectively gave the term will be developed In detail in the course of the analysis. Both recognize several forms of servitudfe, and both consider some just and some unjust. The ambiguity of the central term is a warning that it is dangerous to approach such a political theory without first ascertaining the concrete institutions which St. Thomas and Aristotle had in mind. These will be briefly discussed in Chapters II and III of this es­ say. The Aristotelian theory has a double aspect to be explored. On the one hand it is a theory belonging most properly not to Politics at all, but to ''Economics” in the ancient sense, the practical science of the nat­ ural society of the household. On the other hand the slave state is discussed not only as a part of Economics in Book I of Aristotle’s Politics, but it appears again and again in the rest of that work and"in the Ethics. Here the slave and the rule over slaves assumes a gener­ al systematic importance as an illuminating contrast to other types of men and other forms of rule. In order to study both of these aspects most conveniently, Chapter IV will be devoted to discussing the systematic position of the dominion of servitude In the whole hierarchy of dominions which Aristotle and St. Thomas discuss; but the special systematic problem of the comparison between the dominion of servitude and other forms of absolute dominion will be reserved to Chapter XI, after the de­ tailed examination of the characteristics of servitude. Chapters V to VII contain the analysis of servi­ tude as a domestic or "economic" dominion according to Aristotle, but with free use made of Thomlstlc texts to illuminate those of the Philosopher. Chapter IX dis­ cusses Aristotle’s views about conventional slavery and the concrete means of realizing his ideal "natural slavery." St. Thomas in adopting in general the Aristotellian Ethics and Politics was confronted with special problems. In the practical sciences the principle is INTRODUCTION: SERVITUDE AND FREEDOM 7 the end, and the end of life for a Christian is not the same as for a pagan. This difference cast a special light on the humblest members of human society. What to Aristotle was a dull and brutish man, to St. Thomas was a person who had been invited to a contemplation of the Good far superior to that of the philosopher. In Chapter IX and X an attempt is made to discover to what extent St. Thomas accepted the views of Aristotle and what developments he made in them. Chapter XI, as has been mentioned, returns to compare the dominion of servitude, as thus analyzed in detail, to other dominions, especially those of an ab­ solute character. In the Conclusion, Chapter XII, the results of the whole analysis are summarized. ι'ΐ Ό4 41. * -- Chapter II SLAVERY IN THE TIME OF ARISTOTLE ...la Grèce du iv® siècle traverse une crise economique provoquée par un excès de population dans un petit paya agricole, aggravée dans certaines régions par la distribution trop inégale des terres, compliquée dans les États mercantiles d’une crise morale et politique. Il faut des réformes. La problème de la population, 1Organization agraire, la question du commerce s'imposent à la réflexionΛ | | | 1 | I I I l I Aristophanes In The Clouds, Xenophon in his charming Economics, and Aristotle in the cold pages of the Politics, each in his turn lamented the sorry defeat of the old Greek virtues hy the commercial greed, the fratricidal wars and the sophistic thought that became the chief attributes of the culture of the Fourth Cen­ tury. The love of "Virtue" was replaced by the unnatu­ ral love of money. Athens had become a commercial de­ mocracy whose chief rule, as Aristotle says, "is for a man to live as he likes; inasmuch as to live not as one likes is the life of a man that is a slave. Under the Impulse of this commercial spirit and the necessity of war the Athenians had sold or deserted their hereditary estates and come to the City. Here many lived on fees which they voted as payment for the performance of their civil duties. How they could give full rein to their Attic passion for litigation, debate and all public affairs. Life became a round of assem­ blies, public meals, and religious ceremonies, inter­ spersed with military undertakings, too often disastrous. The spiritual backwash of this gregarious life was the 1. M. Defourny, Aristote; Études sur la "Politique.'* 101. 2. Politics, VI, 1, 1317b. For a brilliant description of this life see T. H. Glover, Pericles to Phillip, IX. 8 j SLAVERY IN THE TIME OF ARISTOTLE 2 scepticism, individualism, emotionalism to which Euripi­ des first gave expression. The Attic citizen, once a farmer who fastened his rustic locks with gold pins shaped like grasshoppers, now led a life wholly separat­ ed from productive activity. Some have said that this citizen was Idle because he feared to class himself with slaves by sharing their occupations, but the growing contempt for servile work had deeper roots than this.5 It was the logical result of the cult of physical beauty and of Intellectualism which the Fifth Century perfected and the Fourth Century deepened and rationalized. Plato and Aristotle despised | manual labor not merely because it was the work of slaves, but also because they believed It to be an In- I I surmountable obstacle to the liberal life of military, political, and contemplative activity. The ordinary Greek was touched by this same fear, and yet, sadly enough, when he gave up the life of the farmer, he came not to seek the life of contemplation but the life of a commercial city. Since the citizen could not be a true citizen and yet engage in industry, and the Fourth Century Greek was bent on the profits of industry and commerce, a sub­ stitute had to be found Λ The Greeks were thus com­ pelled to invite to their cities a vast number of resi­ dent aliens, whom they called mettes, selected for their skill in all the crafts, and for their trade connections. These foreigners could neither become citizens nor have legitimate children by citizens. They could not own land, and could be reduced to slavery for failure to pay taxes or for attempting to claim citizenship. Their }. For the theory that slavery was the cause of the contempt for servile work see H. Mitchell, The Economics of Ancient Greece, 14; for an account of the development of thia attitude see P. N. Ubre, The Origin of Tyranny, IJff. Xenophon expresses the older admiration of the farmer’s life In his Economics, IF, 2-34. An excellent account of the economic situation at this period is contained in Defourny, Aristote; Études sur la "Politique,'’ Chap­ ter II. 10 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY residence had a temporary character and their separation from the citizenry was absolute. And yet they were the very heart of Athenian productive life. It was they who did most of the work on the beautiful tenples of the Acropolis.5 They owned many slaves themselves and I i | i trained the slaves of others. Their life had its advan­ tages since they were free of all political duties ex­ cept the payment of taxes. While the Athenian cooled his heels in the Assembly, the metics made money. This class was probably from a third to a half as large as the citizenry in Attica.6 The harboring of metics, however, was\not a com­ plete solution to the productive problem. Sinbe. they could not own land, they could not be the farmers.'Since they were at once alien and free they could hardly be trusted with domestic service or compelled to perform tasks of the more degraded sort. Moreover, as Defournyf points out,7 money exchange was still too feebly de1 veloped to make possible a large market for wage-paid \ labor. Although there was a class of free Athenian ar- \ tisans they were the exception, often paid only in pro-J duce, and more miserable, Aristotle implies, than the slaves themselves.° Thus the slave class, which in Attica was about as numerous as the citizenry,9 was absolutely necessary to work those farms· the masters of which had sold out or risen above servile labor, and to carry on the life of the household. The well-to-do family had 3 or 4 of them, the rich a great many.5 1011 Where did these lowly people * 8 7 6 come__frpm?—The—Greeks.Jbeïïëïî&ST^ancCpërhBpszrfghtly that the-first -slaves-Trere^the ^conquered iiatives subdued when the Hellenic race first invaded the Mediterranean area,11 but successive enfranchisements and wars had 5. See the various lists of workman given in the monograph of Oscar Jacob, lea esclaves publica à Athènes, passim, and W. L. Westermann, Pauly-Wlasova, Supplement Band. VI, 912f. 6. G. Morrow, Plato's Law of Slavery, 23, note. 7. M. Defoumy, Aristote : Études aur la^olltlquef 66. 8. Politica, I, v, 1260b. ÿ. G. Morrow, op. cit., 23. 10. H. Michell, op. cit., $0. 11. H. Wallon, Histoire de l'esclavage dane Antiquité, I, 6Uf. SLAVERY IN THE TIME OF ARISTOTLE 11 long ago wiped out most of this aboriginal group. En­ slavement in war however remained a permanent feature of Greek life and the traditional source of slaves. The fear of enslavement which furnishes one of the common shadows of Greek Tragedy was the chief Incentive to he­ roic deeds, and slavery itself the proper, blend of mercy with justice for the weak or cowardly. Another mode of enslavement was as a punishment, especially for theft. Of a similar character was the ancient enslavement as an act of propitiation for some dreadul crime, for example the servitude of Heracles, but this was obsolete in the Fourth Century. Enslavement for debt was common, but the famous law of Solon abolished it. in Attica. U Still more barbarous, yet a very important source was kidnapping.lj* As the works of Aristotle themselves shôW15~~ piracy and brigandage were recognized businesses, and the "huntingmen" "a‘'prô'fït’âblé means of obtaining slaves. In theory at least it was a means to be used only against barbarians, as enslavement in just war; but by the Fourth Century this was only a theory Besides these violent methods, the most common way of all was to obtain slaves by purchase, and every Greek city had its slave mart. In some places the par­ ents"aven "sold their children, but this was forbidden to Attic citizens. Exposure of infants however was common enough, and anyone who found such an unfortunate might raise it as a slave.1? Finally, of course, there were the children of slaves. Attic law seems usually to have given the child the same status as its mother, although it sometimes followed the milder policy of the melior condicio. ·*-θ By the Fourth Century however the cost of >12. 1J. 14. 15. '•'16. H. Wallon, op. cit., ?0. Aristotle, Atheniensium Respublica, vi. Westexnann, op. cit., col. 929· Politics, I, 11, 1255b and, lit, 1256b. W. Newman, The Politics of Aristotle, I, 154f. 17. The Romans were much more humane in this respect and considered every foundling as free, R. W. and A. J. Carlyle, A History of Medieval Political Theory In the West, II, 1J0, quoting Digest Xi, 8. 18. G. Morrow, op. cit., Chapter VI, especially 90f. i E js i Ui|î! !5:a:|çÎ - i. η I· ' yi THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY 12 raising a slave had become so great for the urban dwellers that it was very bad business to keep slave children, · when useful adults could be much more cheaply acquired.1^ ? Thus the main .sources of slavery were sale, kidnapping, and war, with birth and penal enslavement as secondary | sources. | These private slaves were used for every sort of domestic, industrial, artistic, and agricultural purpose, as well as for mere luxury, but the chief use remained domestic.2θ In the Laws Plato speaks of slaves as the | . | I physicians of other slaves, as personal and domestic servants, as actors, pedagogues, teachers, and farmers.21 In Sparta the Helots constituted a state-controlled mass of serfs attached to the land, and other Greek states had similar serf classes, notably .Crete.22 Attica had no such serf class, since there the citizens had engaged In agriculture until such a late date, but Athens had many public slaves.25 Some of these performed the same functions as private slaves, but some of them correspond­ ed to the modern civil servants of the lower ranks. They were executioners and prison-keepers, participants in public ceremonies, overseers, and pay-masters, keepers of the treasury and of the public weights and measures. They were even policemen, and an important part of the home militia was the famous Scythian archers. These slaves were acquired by the state in the ordinary ways, but also by the confiscation of private slaves, and by the enslavement of troublesome mettes. Thus Greele-üfe from—the—kitchen—to—the—Aei*onol-ls—used—the slave as an indispensable Instrument. What was the life of these "animate human in­ struments ?" The fragments of Menander's comedies and the plays of his Roman imitators show us what the 19· Ibid., 24. 20. As will be seen later Aristotle had no sympathy with systems that called for large classes of slaves separated from close contact with the household or some equivalent unit. 21. G. Morrow, op. cit., 28f. 22. H. Wallon, op. cit., I, Chapter IH. 2J. 0. Jacob, op. cit., passim. SLAVERY IN THE TIME OF ARISTOTLE 13 disapproving words of the conservatives, including Aris­ totle, confirm, that the domestic slaves were often high­ ly involved in the personal affairs of their masters. The slaves in the mines were worked so brutally that the I most reckless attempts at revolt took place among them.21*'’ The fear of revolt along with a certain cultural modera­ tion led the Greeks, howeygr.^->to_.treat_.their slaves with considerable—humanity-.—TheinJ-aws,,yerg„ne,V.erZa's31iberalndr^fhelr..,.writers-as. outspoken in the interests of the siaVS^as were the laws and the philosophers of Rome, but the abnormal brutality and sensual cruelty which was characteristic of the luxurious Romans of the Empire was probably never common among the Greeks.25 Morrow, in his discussion of the law of Greek slavery,26 has shown very vividly how theslave's legal, position had a double,, aspect. he was both prnp^£y~~»nd. ^person..^.These two aspects were inextricably interwoven in Greek law, as they are in the thought of Plato and Aristotle. As property the slave could be sold or freed by his master ■oruseH* for any~purpose as the master saw ~fl~t~ Ordinarily thelaw allowed no' investigation or in- terference in the master's management. Yet the slave himself was also a person since he was Individually sub.’Ject'ItoZt.he law and responsible to lt~for~hls own of- . fenses. It is possible that he was even allowed in some instances to be a witness at law. To murder a slave was legally punishable. Most important of all, his master could be punished for mistreating him in ways which the Greeks considered to be the sign of impious insolence (hybrls), for intemperate violence or unseemliness. This fact is proof that a strong public opinion against irrational cruelty tempered the slave's lot. Yet it must be emphasized that ordinarily the slave's whole fate depended on his master's character. 24·. H. Wallon, op. cit., I, 371f. and P. ÏÏ. Utre, The Origin of Tyranny, 4-5· 25. W. R. Brownlow, Lectures on Slavery and. Serfdom in Europe, Lecture I. 26. G. Morrow, op. cit., 25. ■■tttfâibiitttliiiM 14 Μ THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY The laws of Gortyna show that the marriages of slaves had a certain legal character, and might even be made without the consent of the masters. Moreover the slave could accumulate some personal property.2? The slave could be freed by a regular legal process, manumission, either through his master’s gen­ erosity, through payment of his own price by careful saving, or as reward for some heroic act or special service to the state. This hard won freedom however, although it seems to have been a strong incentive to good behavior, did not raise the slave to a citizen’s estate, but left him in semi-dependence. Unlike the Romans,2θ the Greeks manumitted few slaves and there was never an important class of freedmen in the Hellenic states. The sharp division of citizens, metics, and slaves grew more and more exclusive in Aristotle’s time, though the break down of the division of Greek and Bar­ barian was under way.29 The Philosopher thus had before him, besides such special cases as the serfdoms of Crete and Sparta, a great and universal institution of domestic slavery, not altogether inhumane yet wearying to the spirit, of the greatest economic importance, and firmly rooted in the Athenian ideal of the liberal citizen. —JThe—haat-of. -the .citizens, says Aristotle, left their slaves to ^stewards "in order that they might'engage '1njpolitics ^and philosophy. n3O ~ " 4 4 i THE VIEWS OH SLAVERY KNOWN TO ARISTOTLE Internal History Qf Grnnlr thought suggest only a few sources for ^ristotle’s 27. R. Schlaifer, "Greek Bieorles of Slavery from Homer to Aris­ totle," Harvard. Studies in Classical Philology, 47, (1936), 183. Attic slaves were not so well treated. 28. The economic causes of the Roman manumissions is discussed at length in the standard work by a Marxist, E. Cicotti, te Déclin de l’esclavage Antique. 29. W. Newnan, The Politics of Aristotle, I, 154 and R. Schlaifer, op, cit., I65-I7I· 30. Politics, I, ii, 1235b» SLAVERY IN THE TIME OF ARISTOTLE thought on slavery.31 15 His general at.tl.t.nda-t.nvard πβτ·- .vile .I! ! I work, ! .—Μ*.,..—»·, his contempt of the lowest classes, his assumpt ionJ;hat„.s layery21^^jMiiyfiEaal^uid^i^tlc9j.ly ne cess ary .institutton,,^and, hla_helie£..that^,the.. Barbarians i were naturally 3erv.ile,.and.-incapable.^of-being-free...citlz^H§^Tseems to have been the cpfflmon-_jtlew_Qf._the__well-borir / Greek It is sufficient to note them and to discuss f them in detail in connection with the particular aspects ( of Aristotle's theory which they influenced. tudes, ^jiree Influences are most certain. The first and least important of these was the.„CQntemporary wisdom .Strtrtrt>--the--manag:emen'tr~o~f''househo ld affairs. Hesiod had made the life of the farmer a standard literary theme. In the generation before Aristotle, Aristophanes made such questions as the management of one’s wife, one's children, and one’s servants, and the conflict between domestic and public affairs, the popular topics of com­ edy. Greek thought on the life of the household is summed up in the refreshing Economics of Xenophon, a de­ lightful work which argues that the best life for the Greek is one which combines the healthful work of manag­ ing a farm with a noble degree of leisure. It is pretty certain that Aristotle had these thinkers and this type of speculation in mind when in the Politics he took such care to prove that managing~a.-.householdsls-‘nat"h.^Very important or noble business.._ Thts.-is_One.·. of-the - main themes of JBook,X»of.that’work. The second source of opinion on which Aristotle drew was that which he is bent on refuting in his ex­ plicit justification of slavery in Book I of the Poli­ tics. Newman believes that the thinkers referred to were either Sophists or Cynics.32 ye do not ]£n0W any of the details of their arguments, but it is not hard to guess the spirit of the debate. It is the same we see reflected in Euripides, a troubled, half cynical 31. Two good, accounts of the pre-Aristotelian speculation on the subject are in W. Newman, The Politics of Aristotle, 139-142 and. H. Schlaifer, "Greek Theories of Slavery from Homer to ( Aristotle," Harvard. Studies in Classical Philology, 4-7, (1936) 165-204. 32. W. L. Newman, op. cit., 139f. ! I 16 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY questioning about previously unquestioned matters, whose | cynicism is rooted in a frustrated hunger for true moral-| ity. Aristotle attempts to refute, or rather correct, I several quite contradictory views, but all of them have I this feature in common that they have been brought into I relief by questionings about things as they are. One | vie w... 1 s that, slav.ery.^lSL^iiwt»because^there^lsguiotl^iusteica hut^forjie^-. and slavery comes__ab.out...by„..£orc&. Opposed to this are a number of views that hold slavery is not justified if it is justified by force alone. ^The ones. c.leanly_4n41nai^d—by—toiatxitls^are^firfljidiherthgoT^that the justification of slavery is alegal.or—traditional— one, and second that slavery is simply unjust. u. may sipjofdTTiate the~good to the bad. As Schlaifer points out5"Aristotle concedes something to all three, since each had many facts to support it. The Greeks had seen the sad spectacle of enslaved Greeks of noble birth and great virtue. It was clear that slavery had a deep tra­ ditional support which would have made its abolition catastrophic^," Finally, asAristotZë~dâÿs,"”forlcfiLhas something tQ_ha..sa1 d_ for it since in general—.the-virtugus man is strong^ it is pretty evident from the scat­ tered quotations of opposition to slavery to be found in the poets, that none of this feeling against slavery rose much further than the feeling that after all men are much alike, ajid^that-slavery—is-a-disaster-to—which w®. ^.θ J-lable . unie s s it. ia.,done-away_witfa,.—But there seem tojhave to abolish th^institution.-There is no evidence either in Aristotle's work or Plato's that the question of the in­ trinsic justice or injustice of holding a man as chattel had been discussed. It is for this reason that Aris­ totle's theory—seems-phscure. Wg_expect—him—to-answer the objection- that-the siave-has -been deprived of his "natural,jrights-,-"-but-Aristotle .touches thia only obliquely»---The final and most important influence was of course Plato. Dr. Glen Morrow’has recently given"us an exhaasttVS^study of Plato's views and legal arrangements concerning slavery,and has reached the conclusion 33. R. Schlaifer, loc. clt., Appendix, 202-204. 34. Glenn Morrow, Plato'a Law of Slavery, 16. &■ | j I ' SLAVERY IN THE TIME OF ARISTOTLE 17 that Aristotle agrees with Plato In almost every respect. This seems to me certainly to be the case. However it must also be recognized that one of Aristotle's chief concerns in discussing slavery is to refute the notion, which he apparently ascribes to Plato, that the rule over the house and especially over the slave is not dif­ ferent in kind from the rule over the state. It is Aristotle's Insistence on the natural, necessary, and irreducible character of the household which particular­ ly distinguishes the Polities from the Republic and even from the Laws. ^Plato, in a sense, originated the problem of slavery when he xaid_ao wn~E£s~f ormula ''^rie^inan"'ane -tasKT*55 The political^proWem^husJbpcomesJhë discov^ ery “of the ~ t asks^ whlcKlajee^equir ed .by„the_ state and the kind of men which are required by the tasks. This producës-the.famous. -three-fold division of the state ac­ cording to the three kinds of arts which it requires and the three kinds of souls which are fitted to possess them. It is impossible here to enter into the classical problem of the relation between this view and that of Aristotle, but it is certain that in discussing slavery he has before him a familiar problem. What are-.the-fimctions of the household, and of the state? These include the funct 1 ons whose arts are servile. What type of man is especially fitted for such arts? Whoever he be, that is our natural "slave.” In the Republic Plato says so little about slav­ ery that some have concluded he forbade it in the ideal state. Newman and Morrow^ô are certainly right in hold­ ing that this Is not the case. Plato's chief interest in the Republic is to determine the objective rule by which the guardians are to govern, that is Justice. For this reason he says little not only about slavery but about all the conditions of the lower classes. All we can be sure of is that the third class which is made up of those who supply the state with its necessities, be­ cause they have only particular arts instead of the art 35· Republic, II, J70B. 36· W. L. Newman, op, cit., I, lUj, n. 3 and. G. Morrow, op. cit., I30 note. of* the whole, are not slaves.37 The slaves are still lower and have only the power of manual unskilled work.$ In the Laws however there are plenty of details. Some men are naturally inferior in virtue to others but able to do servile work. These ought to be slaves.39 These inferior men are not Greeks but Barbarians.^0 They should be given the ordinary rights guaranteed by Greek law, which have already been discussed.^-1· Care should be taken not to treat them too familiarly, or to allow them to form conspiracies against their masters.^2 They should not be allowed to intermarry with Greeks.^3 | Plato is Insistent that the master should, be especially just to them since they are his absolute inferiors, but | | he is equally insistent that they should be entirely under the master's control as to the enforcement of | I their rights. The master is the cause of such virtue | in the slaves as is possible to them, chiefly fortitude I and temperance. 5 Finally Plato approved of the general I situation in Attica in contrast to the serfdom of Sparta; he wanted few publicislaves, while the domestics slaves were not to be\çrgpéat as to be a threat of rebellion.^ The one lmportant~aisagreement with Aristotle would seem to be Plato's advice to use commands rather than admonitions to slaves,^7 tut here as Morrow shows^S Aristotle | I | I 1 I typically distorts Plato's point. I Aristotle's theory thus has little claim to orig- ' t ί Î inality in either its principle or its details, but the Politics has the merit of attacking the question direct­ ly in an attempt to solve all the known difficulties. 37 Republic, II, J71E. Ibid., n, 590c. 39. Ibid.., IX, 390C; laws, HI, 966B; IV, 72OA-C. 40. laws, VI, 777C; Republic, V, 469C. 41. 42. Ibid., VI, 777C-778A. 43. laws, VIII, 840ff. 44. Ibid., VI, 777C; Til, 6803 45. Ibid., VI, 777C-778A. 46. G. Morrow, op. cit., 35f. 48. G. Morrow, op. cit., 44 rί Chapter III SERVITUDE IH THE TIME OF ST. THOMAS The rich variety of feudal institutions makes it much more difficult to form a clear picture of medi­ eval servitude than of its classical form. To Judge it is even more difficult since we are uncertain whether to attribute its evils to the system or to the fact that the system was never systematically realized. Classical slavery had the air of an eternal Institution little criticized until it was in decline,*6ut serfdom 'was always somehow a compromise between the Christian emphasis on human equality and the military aristocracy which was bringing some order out of the dlsentegration of the ancient world. It had in essence therefore a kind of transitional aspect. Some Catholic apologists have pictured it as a part of an ideal hierarchical so­ ciety destroyed by the Reformation. Marxists have ex­ plained its decay by the very economic advances of which it was the cause,1 Painstaking but anti-clerical scholars like Coulton have shown it to have been in fact a complex of misery and disorder in a rickety so­ ciety.2 «wulton argues that since both Church and State attempted to stabilize serfdom and enforced it by cruel exactions and reactionary repression, its aboli­ tion can be explained only by the actions of the serfs themselves anxious for liberty, economic, political, and religious. zHe fails to realize that the very cul­ tural growth that prepared the peasant-serf for inde­ pendent life was the product of the order which Church and State had striven to establish.5 It is extremely hü ! i I v 1. 2. g. E. Cicottl, le Déclin-de l'esclavage antique. 2. G. G. Coulton, The Medieval Village, passim. Also see F. Pljper, "The Christian Church and Slavery In the Middle Ages," The Amerlcan Historical Review, XIV, (1909), 675-695· 3· Ihe paradoxical character of the culture of the Middle Agee has never been better explained than in the first chapters of J. Maritain's "True Humanism,*1 where it Is shown how and why the Middle Ages fell short of the fullness of Christianity. 19 ■■ ■ ■ tifc fl 20 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY Important In understanding the medieval attitude toward, serfdom to observe that its passing was on the whole very gradual. Manumission of the serfs occurred not all at once nor by a spreading movement, but sporadi- ■ cally wherever economic and cultural life were especial­ ly favorable. It was not the product of any great new idea, or event, or discovery, or technical improvement, but was rather the fruit of a ripening culture. There was never, during its existence, any or­ ganized opposition either practical or theoretical to serfdom.^ The theologians universally saw in it some­ i thing contrary to the primary Intention of God, but ! none proposed its abolition.5 It was removed by count- 1 less complaints and minor revolts, political bargains, economic transactions, and pious emancipations. The I peasants in seeking liberty in particular cases pointed 1 to their rights and dignity as Christians, yet there I was no general contention that serfdom was un-Chrlstian. Vhen the great ide ological change of the Reformation came about, serfdom was already declining.6 The, silent character of this transition, and the witness it bears to the nature of the institution, is brought out by a comparison with the way in which serfdom replaced clas­ sical slavery. Roman slavery declined with Roman civ­ ilization but its very roots were removed by the revo­ lutionary Introduction of Christianity. It was abol­ ished slowly but for a revolutionary reason. Every Christian Father explains that absolute slavery is not the work of God, and that the absolute or proud master is purchasing for himself damnation.7 They did not preach physical revolution, but they did preach a spir­ itual one. Serfdom however did not fall from a splrlt- U. Bede Jarret 0. P., Medieval Socialism, 96. 5· See Paul Allard "Le philosophes scolastiques et l'esclavage," Revue des Questions Historiques, 87, Uï6ff. Professor Allard 1s sometimes too concerned to mitigate the fact that serfdom was allowed by the Church. 6. For certain qualifications see G. G. Coulton, op. cit. 371, 7. On the effect of Christianity on Roman slavery see Paul Allard, Les esclaves Chrétiens, passim. On the teaching of the Fathers concerning slavery see 3. Talamo. H Concetto Della Schiavltu da Aristotele al Dottori Scholastici, Chapter IV-V. SERVITUDE IN THE TIME OF ST. THOMAS 21 ual revolution, as did. slavery of the classical sort, but from the blooming of a plant already rooted in that revolution. The doctrines of individualism which makei us look with horror at serfdom, did not come into ex- V 1 istence until it was dead in most of Europe. Feudalism and its servitude were thus in a spe­ cial sense transitional institutions, but to those who lived under them, they seemed eternal. At the top was i a double class of men living a predominantly liberal life, and under them a vast range of persons engaged in servile tasks and subjected to various legal and eco­ nomic limitations. This double class was composed of nobles and clerics, the former living a military life, the latter either an active life of intellectual and pastoral work, or a life of contemplation.θ The polit­ ical function was divided in a complex way between the two classes which were Internally hierarchized so that in theory only Pope and Emperor remained unsubordinated to any man. By the times of St. Thomas, along with these two classes, there existed commercial and indus­ trial cities which in Italy had overthrown their lords and become Independent oligarchies with certain demo- , cratic features.9 Though there were different social r [ [ ' t i s * classes within these cities the majority of the inhabi­ tants did not differ in status as to freedom, but, as will be seen later, there was a small class of real slaves. Guild organizations produced an hierarchy of mutual duties and the lowest grades of apprenticeship approached a condition of servitude, but only as a tem­ porary state. Thus the entirely free members of the society included the nobles, the clergy, and the citizens of the free towns. To these we should add a class of freemen* * engaged in farming. They ordinarily could not own land and were thus distinguished from clergy and nobles, but they obtained its use for a fixed rent and without courvée, that is personal service, and in this way they were distinct from the serfs. 10 · 8. A. Luchaire, Social France at the Time of Phillip Augustus, 382. "General sentiment knew only the theory of the three castes: those who prayed, those who fought, those who nourished the other two." 9. See the Introduction to M. J. Clark’s The Medieval City State. 10. Ross W. Collinsr A History of Medieval Civilization in Europe, 2h8f. 22 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY The classes who were In servitude, properly speaking, were principally two.11 First was the genu­ ine slave who was a regular article of commerce, and the second the villein and serf who were attached to the soil. These latter were the descendants of the Roman colonus or slave attached to the soil under a master called a patronus.11 12* 16 Serf and villein were distin15 guished mainly by the harder life and fewer privileges of the former.1? t | I I I It is one of the most striking features of the servitude of the Middle Ages that the serf and villein were not in any sense aliens or barbarians, as were most of the subjugated of the classical period. The medieval "barbarian" was the Jew, or Saracen, or per­ haps the Tartar. These were seldom if ever put in serfdom. The slave on the other hand was almost cer­ tain to be a non-Christian. 121 This fact indicates that the serf was a true part of the state in a way in which the slave was never a part of the classical Polis. The serf and villein were the lowest rung of the medieval social hierarchy, but they were a part of its essential pattern.1? They, like other men, had mutual rights and duties in relation to their superior, but they had no inferiors, just as the Pope and Emperor had no superi­ ors. 1^ Th© position of serf and Emperor and Pope are understandable only as special cases of the general feudal system of subordinations with reciprocal rights and duties. The slaves however were in a much more anamolous position. Their main function was domestic and industrial; consequently they were found only in the cities or in the houses of great nobles. The sources of these two groups of men in ser­ vitude is evident from their respective natures. The •serfs were a hereditary class which could receive new 2 ί 11. For a table of different sorts of serfs see H. D. Traill, So­ cial England, I, 125· 12. W. H. Brownlow, op. clt., U8f· · 15. C. Selgnobos, The Feudal Regime, 15ff. 11». G. G. Coulton, op. clt.. 1*91. 15. Funck-Brentano, The Middle Ages, 15f· 16. For a discussion of the pattern of medieval organization see E. Barker, Church, State and Study, Chapter II, UUf. SERVITUDE IN THE TIME OF ST. THOMAS 23 recruitments only hy hirth, occasionally by war, and by poverty so dire as to force freemen to give themselves . to a lord. Though belonging to the land, they could sometimes be sold separately from it, a fact often ig­ nored. 17 It is likely however that this sale did not change their status as serfs, they were simply attached to a new property. The slaves on the other hand could be obtained by all the classical methods, primarily by war, sale, and as punishment3.1θ The Jews were consid­ ered to be slaves of the Princes because of their infi­ delity. 1/Very early however the Church strictly forbade the sale of Christians into slavery!9 so that the sourc­ es of slavery were very limited through the Middle Ages. The status of servitude was inherited in general accordto Roman law, the child followed the condition of its mother, hut there were exceptions. The actual conditions of both slave and serf during this period are now difficult to determine be­ cause the legal system of the Middle Ages depended so much for its actual operation on local custom.2° Sever­ al facts however are clear about both groups. First it is certain that all the evils which usually arise when arbitrary lords can enforce their will on weak subjects, seem to have taken place. The life of the serf was of­ ten one of, bitterly hard work, of ignorance, and of low culture. 'It is common knowledge that Christianity in some regions did little more than color the paganism of the people, who were prevented by social conditions from rising to a more orthodox religious level. •'Secondly it is certain that the Church for directly religious rea­ sons and in the face of every sort of custom and abuse insisted on certain rights for both slaves and serfs.21 17. G. G. Coulton, op. clt., 1J. 18. G. G. Coulton, op. clt., 491. 19. R. W. and A. J. Carlyle, op. clt., I, 134. On the position of the Jews see St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, H-II, q.10, a. 10 c. 20. On the evils of the system see F. Pijper, op. clt., 684. 21. R. W. and. A. J. Carlyle, op. clt., U7f. give an impartial and. scholarly account of the legal measures taken by the Church to protect the slave's position. In general they were based, on the best of the Roman laws concerning slavery, but modified in a religious sense, particularly in the matter of marriage. 24 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY They could not be murdered or outraged; they could not | be prevented from marriage; they could not be prevented | from fulfilling their religious obligations. She vas | especially Insistent on the observance of the Sunday | rest for all workingmen. Besides this She allowed the | ordination of serfs and slaves if their master consent- | ed, or If She could purchase their freedom. SThese I rights upon which She insisted against great odds, are | sufficient evidence that the Church maintained the per- 1 sonal character of the Christian serf. Roman law even I when most humane never gave the slave a true marriage. On the other hand the non-Christian slave being beyond the Church’s direct control was in a more ambiguous po­ sition. Yet She forbade that he be forcibly baptized.2^ The Church continued to emphasize the religious equality ' of all men, and many of the clearest denunciations against abuse of the serfs is to be found in medieval sermons.23 Besides these elementary rights She was also insistent that families should not be separated by sale, that Immoral acts should not be committed against the serf’s person, and that the whole scheme of rights and duties should be strictly enforced. Against this grant of fundamental protections evidencing the personal character of the slave, stood the extremely aristocratic outlook of the whole Middle Ages,2” so that in medieval literature the laboring classes are commonly depicted as brutish and vicious or are totally ignored. That this was in some degree the case is evident from the complaints of church moralists themselves. There were even noblemen who argued that the human race was divided into two species, those from Adam and those from Caln, the gentlemen and the serfs.2? This popular attitude was strengthened in practice by the fact that although the system of rights and duties was elaborate there was no arbiter'.to enforce the mutual laws governing the master and the serf.2? | The very 22. St. Thcnae attitude to this right le dlecueaed poet Chapter X. 23. G. G. Coulton, op. clt. passim gathers his most damaging mate­ rial free Bernons. 24. A. Luchaire, op. clt., ?84f. 25. G. G. Coulton, op. clt., 232. . χ 26. C. Selgnobos, op. clt., 34· SERVITUDE IN THE TIME OF ST. THOMAS 25 essence of the feudal system was the almost independent governance of his estate by the lord. The economic and . political supremacy were so completely united that the serf was like a minor child of the lord, without anyone to appeal to. The result was often great abuse by the master who commonly led a life of military agressiveness which inclined him to greed and pressing demands for supplies from his inferiors. $ it Mi Uprisings among the peasants were quite common but not usually successful, yet the. very fact that the system was finally ended by Independent movements among the serfs shows that considerable resistance was possi­ ble. An Independent attitude was encouraged by the fact that the serf owed all allegiance to one lord alone, to others he was free. Moreover he was free be­ fore the law.27 The famous fortieth article of the Magna Charta guarantees justice even to the serfs.2^ Although the courts were usually wholly controlled by his lord, yet he knew how to plead before them as a man with rights, and as Jarrett says the chief political right to the mind of the Middle Ages was not liberty but justice.29 The power of resistance was Increased by the fact that the population was in some places quite mobile, the serfs escaping either into towns or some other estate.The lords usually solved the latter problem by settling the accounts among themselves through some exchange. There were laws however, en­ forced also by the Church, for the return of fugitives, although she gave them a right of refuge until their status could be properly determined. It is not necessary for our purposes to study the various duties which the serf owed his master. They can be summarized as follows:5^- First he owed his mas­ ter a wide variety of taxes from his various products. Secondly he had personally (along with his family) to perform certain specified amounts or periods of work i I L i I 1 Paul Vlaogradogf» Cambridge Medieval History, III, Chapter 18 *75. g28. Bede Jarrett, op. clt., 109. 29. Ibid., 9*. 30. A. liichaire, op. cit., *0*. 31. Boae Collina, A History of Medieval Civilization, 251. Γ. 4 26 TBP. THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY_______ _____ for the lord. Thirdly he had to make use of the lord's mill, press, oven, etc,, and make a certain payment s from the product in return for their use. Besides this he could not leave the land without manumission, and if he died without leaving a family to continue his work all his property reverted to the lord. Besides the personal rights guaranteed by the Church, in effect he was assured of all the means necessary for making a living. Under ordinary circumstances he had a permani ent tenure of the land during his life and that of his heirs; he had the right to use the mill and such other primitive machinery as was necessary, and. he could use certain common property along with the other serfs, forests and pasture lands for example. Finally the lord was supposed to protect him from marauders and In war-time and administer justice to him.52 The slave on the other hand had no rights beyond those personal ones guaranteed by the Church or by Roman law.53 Both serf and slave could be freed by recognized legal procedures, although this manumission did not raise them to.the same status as the free man. A social stigma attached to their birth and they were often threatened with return to servitude. The Church however was resolutely opposed to this return except as a pun­ ishment for crime.5^ The extent and causes of manumission are much disputed -among scholars, and It is not necessary here to know who is right. What «Is clear Is that serfdom was finally abolished by gradual manumission and that· this was taking place on a fairly large scale In the 13th Century,55 for example the mass manumissions In France under Phillip Augustus and 8t. Louis.36 Some of^ the Italian towns emancipated the outlying serfs -tn a body, for example Bologna (1256), Treviso (1260), and Florence (1288).57 Most manumissions seem to have been 32- X. M. Bulae, The Middle Agss, 576f. ! 33. T. -Pijper, "Bie Christian Church and Slavery in the Middle Ages,** The American Historical Reriev, HV, (1929) 269-281. 3fc. B. W. and A. J. Carlyle, op. cit.. 130f. 33· G· G. Coulton, op. cit.. 161. 36..Marx? Bloch. Rols et Serfs, passim. 37· J. X. Ihgnftaiii, A History of Slavery and Serfdm, 107. / SERVITUDE IN THE TIME OF ST. THOMAS 27 In return for payments by the serfs themselves, but the practice of manumission at the death of a master, (which was not uncommon in classical times), was Increased by the Church’ s approval of it as an almsdeed for the soul of the deceased.•''The Church however provided by Canon Law that her serfs could not be manumitted, in order to protect the permanent property rights of the religious orders and bishoprics from the imprudent generosity of some temporary incumbent. This seems contradictory in view of her pleas, for manumission by the lay lords.59 Churchmen like Bernard of Clairvaux and some of the lat­ er mendicants had serious doubts about the wisdom of this policy,1*0 and enemies of the Church have often cit­ ed it against her. Allard and others have argued that these canons were modified in practice by other provis ions J*1, while Coulton among others has attempted to refute this argument. tzThe provision of Canon Law how- ) ever does illustrate a widespread belief among ecclesi-1 astlcs that serfdom was an important part of the stable I social organization which they were building and that J it had best be removed only when the lay lords were willing to do it and the serfs able to maintain them­ selves against the lords. For the Church to take the first step, they seemed to feel, was to weaken her often precarious position as against the nobles. The general moral position of the whole society was that serfdom was not a social evil, but it was a personal misfortune, consequently liberation was an act of charity. Bishops however ought not to perform almsdeeds or charities out of the Church’s possessions which would make the work of the Church difficult. Without serfs to work her farms, her schools, hospitals, and all her great social insti­ tutions would have become difficult. To understand this phase In Church sociology it is necessary to under­ stand the whole tragedy of medieval Christendom. ^It is 38. B. W. and. A. J. Carlyle, op. cit., IjH. 39· 0. &. Coulton, op. cit., Chapter XIV states this view very strongly, hut not impartially. HO. B. Cave and. H. Coulson, A Source Book for Medieval Economic History, JOO. Hl. See Allard’s article "Esclavage," Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Fol Catholique, I, col. 1H57-1522. 28 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY probably a mistake, therefore, to conclude from the works of apologists like Allard, that the medieval Church set about to destroy serfdom. She desired earnestly to mold it into conformity with Christian life, and in general her own serfs were in a favored condition. t ■ The general tendency of the whole development of serfdom was thus not toward an abolition of all subjec­ tion, but rather toward the formalization of mutual rights and duties. The lord had great powers and could use them arbitrarily, but the spirit was always more and more to put down every duty In a specified formula, not always good ones, but nevertheless objective. The clas­ sical slave lived under the whim of his master, tempered by public opinion. The serf lived under a lord limited by the laws of religion and by an objective rule of mu­ tual obligations. The rise of commerce turned these ob­ ligations Into rents, and the serf either into a peasant or a wage-laborer. THE VIEWS ON SLAVERY KNOWN TO ST. THOMAS The sources on which St. Thomas had to draw for his views on slavery were very rich. Besides Aristotle there were three main written bodies of doctrine with which he was very familiar. The first and of course most revered was Sacred Scripture, the writings of the Fathers, and Canon Law, the specifically Christian light on the matter. Sacred Scripture Itself supplied him with four great and yet puzzling views on slavery. First It taught him t-.bafr. slavery wae unknown in man's primitive state of blessed­ ness and was Introduced as a punishment for sin.^2 Sec­ ondly It provided him with a model code for the treat­ ment of slaves, since the Law of Moses treats slavery as a divinely appointed and regulated Institution. This Mosaic code of servitude summarized the best regulations of all ancient nations, and presents a fair picture of the actual institution of classical slavery at its best. 1»2. Genesis, lx. SERVITUDE IN THE TIME OF ST. THOMAS ' 29 A comparison between this Jewish law and the Roman law for example shows that in general the legal Institutions were much the same, ^5 but the Jewish law had further and higher aims. It prevented Jews from becoming subject to pagan lords, or from becoming corrupted themselves by­ pagan slaves. The methods of obtaining and exchanging slaves, and the legal disabilities and punishments as­ signed to them were almost the same as under Roman law, but the Old Law insisted that slavery should be a means of adding proselytes to Judaism and of enforcing a pure morality among .these proselytes. The sexual morality and personal dignity of the slave were carefully pro; tected from his master, especially by a provision that an outraged slave should go free. The life of the slave was protected by penalties. Most remarkable of all however was the fact that while Hebrews could be enslaved to Hebrews, this enslavement could not last beyond the sabbatical cancellation of debts nor beyond jubilee years. The non-Jewish slave was not freed in this manner, but he too was treated as a person and in­ corporated in the nation in a religious sense by circum­ cision and participation in the Passover. Besides the Mosaic Code itself the historical parts of the Bible provided for St. Thomas some in­ sights on the actual operation of the institution, while the wisdom literature provided aphorisms about the jus­ tice of slavery and the proper treatment of the slave. One such aphorism is the one quoted by St. Thomas in his Commentary on the Politics of Aristotle,"The foolish man will be a servant to the wise."^5 St. Thomas thus had before him what was at once a religious testimony that slavery cannot be essentially and always evil since it had once been legalized by God Himself, and a model code for regulating slavery.^6 A third and most mysterious view of slavery ap­ pears in the great text of St. Paul which summarizes the hj. For an illuminating account of the Jewish law on this matter see R. Salomon, L* esclavage en droit compare Juif et Remain. W. I, Lectio J. Proverbs, 11,29. W. St. Thomas’ discussion of the Old law is to be found in S.Th., i-n, «.98-105. JO THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY whole New Dispensation: "exinanivit semetipsum, formam servi accipiens, in similitudinem homo factus, et habitu inventus ut homo,"^7 lfHe emptied himself taking the form I of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and In I habit found as a man. " That God Himself had become a ' man in the form of a servant, and that all men are freed only by becoming one with Him in this humilltion, is an idea which makes slavery sacred. To this is added the continual plea of the whole New Testament that men rec­ ognize at last their common origin, their common desti­ ny, their common redemption and Redeemer. Greek, Jew, and Barbarian are to be united in one Mystical Body.™ The fourth scriptural attitude is that provided by St. Paul in several places, but most clearly ip his Epistle to Philemon, concerning a run-away slave whom he is returning. Here St. Paul teaches that the natural order of superior and inferior has now been made insig­ nificant by the new supernatural order in which the foolish and lowly may be far wiser and more powerful than the intelligent and rich. _ Grace has given the-EsaX ^a better prudence than the strong; Îhus to the eye of faith the orders of this world become not a sign of worth or happiness, but as it were destined positions to be accepted as duties and penances. To be either proud or discontented is to show a mistaken evaluation of worldly things. He therefore advises the men of his times, masters and slaves to accept their positions with deep humility and to make them the occasions of a more perfect charity. The master must realize his position is no proof that he is better than the slave, but rather if anything more unfortunate, and the slave must accept his own humiliation as a chance for special sanctity. The Fathers of the Church on the basis of these texts adopted the practical attitude of St. Paul. They believed that slavery was a consequence of the Fall, that it was not essentially sinful, that therefore it was Imprudent to attempt to abolish anything so immemo­ rial, but that it was an act of true mercy to emancipate slaves privately, and that finally it must be made a 1»7- Phillipians, 2,7· MJ. Tbr an analysis of the views of the New Testament see B. Talano, H Concetto della Schiavitu, Chapter IV· SERVITUDE IN THE TIME OF ST. THOMAS JI kind of friendship in which the virtues and dignity of master and slave were scrupulously guarded.^9 The main content of the Canon Law on slavery has already been discussed earlier in this chapter. The second great source, apart from Aristotle and indirect borrowings from Plato, was the moral writ­ ings of the Stoics. St. Thomas quotes Seneca’s De Bene ficiis5O in this connection and he must have been well acquainted with the opinions contained in Seneca’s other works and those of Cicero. The Middle Ages drank deeply of the moral ideas of the Stoics. The Epicurean and Stole attitude had marked a great stage in the develop­ ment of thought on slavery. 51 Both held with the soph­ ists of Aristotle’s day that slavery was conventional arid a product of force, but they went on to argue that since slavery was thus only the result of chance or vio­ lence it could not be a hindrance to the life of happi­ ness. The Epicureans had some difficulty in maintaining this apparently paradoxical theory, but the Stoics found it the natural consequence of their ethical theory.52 Since the only happy man is the virtuous man, and virtue releases man from all dependence on pleasure and all subjection to pain, the slave can be as happy in slavery as any man. The only true slavery is slavery to one’s lower self. The parallel between these views and that of Judaism and Christianity is striking and there was perhaps an intellectual interchange.53 The following quotation from Seneca illustrates the Stoic viewpoint: He errs who thinks that servitude descends into the whole man; his better part is excepted; bodies are vile and be^9. The meaning of these Patristic views for St. Thomas will be discussed post Chapter IX. See S. Talamo, op. cit., Chapter V and VI. Also J. Dutilleul, Dictionnaire Theologique Catho­ lique, V pt.l, col. 457-520. 50. S.Th., II-H, q.106, a.J, 4m. 51. Paul Allard, "Esclavage," Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Foi Catholique, I, col. 1457-1522. Also Wallon, Histoire de l’esclavage, III, Chapter 1. 52. E. Zeller, The Stoic, Epicureans, and Sceptics, 329f. 53. Philo’s views on slavery seem to coincide in many respects with those of the Stoics. H. Wallon, op. cit, HI, 31· 32 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY long to masters, the mind, indeed, is sui Juris... .And. it is the body which fortune hands over to a master; this he buys, this he sells; that interior part cannot be given in slavery.51* It is important not to overestimate this Stoic view. It adds little to the view of those Greeks who opposed slavery, as far as explaining the origin and legal basis of slavery, and It certainly presents no soclal solution. To urge the ordlnary slave to "become a The Christian was able to philosopher was ridiculous, say honestly that the slave might be happy in the super­ natural virtue of hope; the Stoic could only say with some hypocrisy that slaves should acquire a wholly nat­ ural imperturbability based on philosophy. Moreover the Stoic and Epicurean moral systems were in their very basis anti-political.55 Both schools were convinced that the great body of mankind was hopelessly debased, and that only the few could be happy. Social reform had no burning interest for them. Their real answer to the slave was the one which in the end they took for them­ selves, suicide when life became unbearable. It is doubtful, therefore, if they added much to the actual thought which Christianity and Judaism could contribute to the ethical problem of slavery, but they wrote many noble and beautiful descriptions of the possible dignity of the lowly. Most important of all, their doctrine that the wise man is not a Greek or a Roman, but a "cit­ izen of the world," helped to destroy that provincialism which was so important a part of the Greek justification of slavery.56 The third source for St. Thomas was the body of Roman law both in its original form and as it was incor­ porated in the works of the medieval legists. Much of this law had been written under Stoic influences so that it does not differ much in theory from the Stoic views, but it put these in a concrete form. The main outline 54. De Beneficiis, 111,20; quoted by St. Thanas in part, S.Th.. Il­ li, q. 106, a.3, ad Um. 55. ï. Zeller, op. clt., Jllff. 56. B. Zeller, op. clt., 326ff. SERVITUDE IN THE TIME OF ST. THOMAS _22 of the Homan law of slavery was much the same as that of Greek law, but it differed in at least three very impor­ tant respects. 57 It multiplied the rights of the slaves manyfold, it was very favorable to manumission, and it was particularly interested in clearly defining the slave’s legal position. All these elements are, as has been seen, incorporated in the tendencies of the mediev­ al system. They were encouraged by Roman international­ ism, the Stoic humanism, and the economic changes which made slavery increasingly unprofitable under the Empire. Nevertheless the use of slaves in gladitorial combat was not abolished until the triumph of Christianity, and perhaps the blackest era of brutality and utter indif­ ference to the personality of the slaves came at the height of the Empire.Pliny called the slaves the desperati, the hopeless ones. These extreme conditions were especially met with among the innumerable slaves used for mere luxury. A single year of servitude caused an enormous depreciation in the value of a domestic slave, an indication both of the brutal treatment to which he was subjected and to the purely luxurious and fashionable character of the market. The increase of emancipation however caused the lawyers to enshrine the theory that slavery is an institution of the positive law, or according to the more subtle position of Ulpian, of the jus gentium. All agreed that it was in some way opposed to the natural law itself, and had been brought about by human will. This theory, satisfying enough for the lawyer, is a serious puzzle to the philosopher. Dorn Lottln has shown^0 that this theory along with a similar explanation of the right of private property led to a dialectic among the Schoolmen which was only terminated by St. Thomas’ great theory of law. It will be seen later what this solution was, but it is evident that the view of the lawyers was a challenge. If it is true that slavery has come about against the intentions of nature and is nevertheless universally recognized to 57· H. Wallon, op. clt.. Ill, Chapter 2 and H. Maine, Ancient LaW; 160f. 58. W. R. Brownlow, Slavery and. Serfdom In Europe, 1-41. 59. R. W. and A. J. Carlyle, A History of Medieval Political Theory, Π, 34, and Bom Odon Lottln, Le Droit Naturel chez Saint Thomas d’Aguin et ses prédécesseurs, 8. 60. 0. Lottln, op. clt., passim. a 34 THE THEORY" OP NATURAL SLAVERY be legal and is enshrined in the very heart of the law, either slavery is wrong, or the law is not law at all, or law can be unjust. The outcry of the sophists which Aristotle had tried to silence is heard, again. How is it that the most civilized states have consented to an unjust and unnatural institution? This is the whole mystery of slavery, and the lawyers brought it into clear relief by combining the legal fact of slavery with a rejection of every natural apology for it. This , Roman dilemma was made the common property of the theol­ ogians by St. Isidore of Seville in his writings on the kinds of law.61 St. Thomas was thus faced with the problem of reconciling, (since his method was to reconcile opinions if possible), the Aristotelian theory which he found in the Politics, with the view of a Christendom whose legal theories were fed on Roman and Stoic sources Nothing could summarize this Roman Christian view better than a famous passage by Gregory the Great, which St. Thomas refers to^2 ; Since our Redeemer, the Author of Life, deigned, to take human flesh, that "by the power of His Godhead., the chains by which we are held, in bondage being broken, He might restore us to our first state of liberty, it is most fitting that men by the concession of manumission should, restore to the freedom in which they were born those whom nature sent free into the world, but who have been condemned to the yoke of slavery by the law of na­ tione. 63 61. Ibid,., 9f. St. Ihomae quotes leidore on the point, S.Ih, q.57, a.3, an et "eed. contra." 62. 8ent.II, d.44, a.l, a.3, bn. 63. Bplet.vi.lg. Chapter (V THE GENERAL THEORY OF DOMINION St. Thomas never develops the problem of slavery at length. Having Interpreted Aristotle’s view in his Commentary on the Politics, he was content to borrow from the Philosopher’s exposition whenever he had need in his theological- researches.1 It Is best therefore to follow Aristotle's argument in the Politics consecutive­ ly, making use not only of St. Thomas’ Commentary, but also of his many scattered remarks on slavery to in wni - nate difficult points. In the First Book of the Politics Aristotle seems to ralseând~drôp~~the question of slavery and then return to it again Ina confusing and inconclusive man­ ner. St. Thomas clarifies the order by showing that the book Is divided into two parts, a proemlum (c.l, 1252a1253b) explaining the nature of Political Science, and a second part in which Aristotle proceeds to set forth the science itself by beginning the discussion of the parts of the state. In the Proemlum his concern la to show that the.object of the science, the Polist is essentially distinct from other human communities, and includes them all. He wants to disprove the view of those who say 1. 3. Talamo in his work II Concetto della Schlavitù da Aristotele ai Dottori Scolastici, c.vi and Paul Allard in an article "Les Philosophes Scolastiques et l’Esclavage," Revue des Questions Historiques, 8? (1920), l>78ff., argue that St. Thomas disagreed radically with Aristotle on this question. Of course his Com­ mentary cannot be used to prove his agreement with Aristotle since he is uniformly non-cammital on. the value of the text which he explains. However when we see that he continually uses the conclusions of that text in his other works without critical disagreement, the inference is obvious. In Chapters IX and X be­ low I will discuss in detail the problem of St. Thomas' modifi­ cation of the Aristotelian theory; that it bears a very differ­ ent aspect as he uses it in his theology cannot be questioned. 35 36 THE THEORY OP NATURAL SLAVERY that every community and every rule is essentially the same. In order to do this he begins with the uncom­ pounded elements, the simplest communities out of which all others are made and shows chronologically how these higher communities household, village, and state came . into being each with its own end and proper kind of rule. Slavery is here introduced (1252a,4—1252b,6) as a sim­ ple community of two persons, a combination of a strong but stupid man, and a man of lnfëïlïgëncë~for the sake of" security, and it is proved^that"the~relation of male and female is distinct frpmTthis. î^ËKa order of de­ velopment ...it seems to be second, that-pf male and female After thia Introduction which sets before us in a summary way the component parts of the state, Aris­ totle proceeds to analyse the first part of the state which is directly a part, since the other relations are only mediately parts, namely the household. He demon­ strates that the perfect household must have a master, a wife, children, and property. Then he shows that this property must contain slaves.· There are objections to this however so that Aristotle devotes especial effort to clearing up two controversies, first the view of those who say that managing slaves is the;same science as managing any subjects, and secondly'those who say that it is an unnatural rule.He defines the slave in__ such a way that it is clear that a distinct rule is reqüïrédtorhim and that such à rule is profitable for suchabeingL~~~Next~he~^tries~to show that such~a~being exlstsoy showing that throughout nature wherever there is a whole, ruling and subjected parts are to be found, and secondly that certain physical and mental signs make evident that some men are fitted to this special subjec­ tion. Finally he again explains the expediency of this relation. But he is forced to make certain concessions to those who maintain that much actual'slavery is only conventional. Having discussed the slave, he next treats of the non-human possessions of the household at some length, (1256a-1259b) and only toward the end of the 2. On thia see Newnan, Politica of Aristotle, p. 145· THE GENERAL THEORY &F DOMINION 37 book returns to the rule over wife and children. The point of view changes from expediency to that of virtue^ since he is again speaking of a rule over rational or human subjects. And here the slave is again treated. This is of the greatesVT^ortance in understanding the theory of slavery. The slave is as it were the borderllne of human rule. He is first discussed going down­ ward, so to speak, when Ar£s€6tle~ls bent on showing tlïat political rule"is~~^rÿ~dITfërëïrt~~frôm what we would [M» now call "economic relationships,n that is the rule over property. BÛtat~thê^ënd~ô'f“Bôok~T"he'‘iB'’'üiscussed âs tli§~bSginnlng of the upward series as Aristotle wants to show the rule over progressively better human subjects. Here he shows what virtues the slave Is capable of and contrasts him with the artisan, and then he shows how the children and wife are capable of still higher vir­ tues. And he concludes: It is clear then that household management takes more in­ terest in the human members of the household than in- its inanimate property, and in the excellence of these than in that of Its property, which we style riches, and. more in that of its free members than in that of its slaves.5 It is thus important to keep in mind the different view­ point from which slavery is discussed in each of these three loci in Book I. It is first introduced in a mere­ ly summary fashion in an argument to show the supreme and essentially distinct position of the Polis. Ip the segpndjthe question is whether slavery is expedient and necessary for the household and for the master and the slave. In the third locus the problem is the virtues ap-· propriate to each member of the household, and to the slave as the least of these It Is evident that this entire discussion is of interest to Aristotle not so much for its own sake as in relation to: his discussion of the true rule of the state As the least human rule over human beings it Is of great value as a contrast to the highest rule Λ Before 5- Politics, I, v, 1259b. H. This will be discussed, in detail post, Chapter XI. 8 / THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY discussing It in detail, therefore, Lt is necessary to have in view the general analysis of rule/or dominion which is developed hy Aristotle and magnificently expand­ ed by St. Thomas, Aristotle himself Introduces this gen­ eral question in discussing the slave.5 DOMINION IN GENERAL Authority and. subordination are conditions not only inevitable but also expedient; in some cases things are marked out from the moment of birth to rule or to be ruled. And there are many varieties, both of rulers and of subjects (and the higher the type of the subjects, the loftier is the nature of the authority exercised over them, for example to control a human being is a higher thing than to tame a wild beast; for the higher the type of the parties to the performance of a function, the high­ er is the function, and when one part rules and another is ruled, there is a function performed between them)— because in every composite thing, where a plurality of parts, whether continuous or discrete, is combined to make a single common whole, there is always found a rul­ ing and a subject factor, and thischaracteristic of liv­ ing things is.present_in them as an outcome of the whole of nature, since even in thlhgg—that-do'iwt^partake of life there is a ruJHng^in^.pîê, as injthg^case of the musical scale.......... It is in â~Hvïng creature, as we say, that it is first possible to discern the mle both of mas­ ter and of statesman; the soul rules the body with the sway of a master, the intelligence rules the appetites with that-of a statesman or a king; and in these examples it is manifest that it is natural and expedient for the body to be governed by the soul.6 St. Thomas in the Summa Contra Gentiles applies this same principle to the entire universe in all its magnificent multiplicity; speaking of man he says: 5. Politics, I, it, 1254b. 6. Politics, I, 11, 1254a-b. See also Meta. lambda, 9 and 10, 1075a in which Aristotle discusses the order of the universe and shows its order is an order to the Prime Mover, as the or­ der of an army is to its leader. THE GENERAL THEORY OF DOMINION 39 Among those things that are wholly bereft of knowl­ edge, one thing is placed, before another according as one is more capable of action than another. For they have no share in the disposition of providence, but only in the execution. And since man hae both intelligence, and sense, and bodily powers, these things are dependent on one an­ other, according to the disposition of divine providence, in likeness to the order to be observed in the universe. For bodily power is subject to the powers of sense and in­ tellect, as carrying out their commands; and the sensitive power is subject to the Intellective, and is controlled by its rule. In the same way we find order among men. For those who excel in intelligence, are naturally rulers; whereas those who are less intelligent, but strong in body, seem made by nature for service, as Aristotle says in his Politics. (I,11.) The statement of Solomon (Prov. xi, 29) is in agreement with this: The fool shall serve the wise; as also the words of Exodus (xvli,21,22): Provide out of all the people wise men such as fear God... .who may judge the people at all times.7 Thia ia the universal pattern of nature, and yet because of the contingency of created things It may fall: And just as in the works of one man there is dis­ order through the intellect being obsequious to the sen­ sual faculty; while the sensual faculty through indisposi­ tion of the body, is drawn to the movement of the body, as instanced in those who limp: so too, in human govern­ ment disorder results from a man being set in authority, not on account of his excelling in intelligence, but be­ cause he has usurped the government by bodily force, or has been appointed to rule through motives of sensual af­ fection........ Nor is the natural order wholly perverted by such a disorder: for the government of fools is weak, un­ less it be strengthened by the counsels of the wise.® 7. Contra Gentiles, 111,81. See also IU, 78-80 and S.Th. I,q.96, a.l; H-H, q.lOh, a.l and Sent. II, d.hh,q.l,a.5· This order is to be found not only in natural but also in supernatural things, Sent. TV, d.2h,q.l,a.5· 8. This immediately follows the passage just quoted. The esme idea is frequent in Aristotle, e.g., Politics, 1,11, 125Ub, "since those that are bad or ■ In a bad condition might be thought to : 40 \ THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY Aristotle and. St. Thomas thus see the entire universe as a series of dominions of a superior mover over an inferior. What is the necessity of these domin- | ions? As St. Thomas hay "Gubernare autem est movere I aliquos in debltem finem; sicut gubernat navem, ducendo ■ eam ad portum.""^The purpose of dominion is to guide the thing ruled to a~ due end, because it cannot attain that end itself, or at least not rightly and easily. It must be moved by one who has the power of reaching that end.·1·0 Thus dominion implies a relation between a su­ perior and an inferior, a power of directing in the su­ perior, the action of directing, and an end to which the thing is directed.11 Or we may look at dominion as hav­ ing an efficient principle, the superior (and more ex­ actly the power by which he is the superior and an agent); a formal principle, the order of the action; a " material principle, the inferior who is .the subject of the motion; and a final principle, the goal to which this subject is moved. /' In every whole, whether it be a substance as the human being, or an accidental whole like the universe \ and society there must be such a dominion. Dominion · produces a unity of action in the parts of the whole and gives this unified action its proper direction. This is possible to the ruling parts even in inanimate things, but Aristotle Is careful to point out In the passage quoted that it is only in living things and most properl; (Footnote continued) have the body rule the soul because of Its vicious and unnatural condition." It io also evident in his dis­ cussion of tyranny which we shall treat in some detail in Chap­ ter XI below. 9· S.Th., II-II, q,102,a.2-c. For an exhaustive discussion of the Thamistlc terms with special application to property see C. Spicq. "Dominium, Possessio, Proprietas" and "la notion ana­ logique de Dcmlnlum, ” in Revue des Sciences Philosophique et Theologique, 18 (1929), 269-281 and 20 (1931), 52-76 respective-1* 1 ’ j 10. De regimine, IU, c.l, "Non est dominium ubi non est potentia sive virtus." 11. On dominion as a relation and. power see De pot, q.7, a.10 ad 4; S.Th., I,q. 13, 7 ad 1 et ad 6, and a.8 ad 1. For the action of dMdnion see S.Th. H-II,q.l04, a.l,c. and q.14, a.5. THE GENERAL THEORY OF DOMINION 41 in rational things that we can speak of true dominion.12 This is because it is only a rational creature which can foresee the end. to which he is to guide his subject, and every other "dominion" is reducible to an intelligent dominion.Therefore the only beings in the universe—, who can have dominion in the proper sense are. God, an- \ gels, and men.12*· But everything whatsoever except the i 6 Prime Mover is a subject of dominion since every other thing has an end which it cannot know or attain by it­ self. Men and angels are able to guide themselves only by faculties which must be themselves guided in their operations by God. The angels guide men, and within ranks of the angels the higher guides the inferior. Here the principle is essential inequality. Among men the more intelligent and virtuous guide the less intelligent , and virtuous. Here -the principle of inequality is acci­ dental. If somehow this relation is reversed, so that the inferior is placed over the superior, and the power of ruling is not in the agent, or if the power of ruling which he has is not that by which he is superior to the thing he tries to move, then the dominion must be per­ verted and unnatural. If the gorilla rules the man, or the statesman rules the Church, then the dominion is an unnatural one. __ _ Ordinarily the agent is able to move his subject only with the aid of instrumental causes. Thus the teacher is able to direct his pupil only with the aid of Ji praise and blame; the political leader requires the art · of rhetoric; the king requires rewards and punishments, ■·. ;» etc. The power of dominion has as an essential property the ability to induce or coerce movement in the subject m -J against its own inertia or perversity.t ·, - ------------ ■-------------------------- '— ... 12. The rule of the soul is the first example of a rule which is that of ”a master and. a statesman." 1J. This is shown by St. Thomas in his famous teleological proof of the existence of God., S.Th., I, q.2, a.3· Also see II-II, T.h7, a.12. 14. Aristotle has the intelligences that move the spheres, instead of the Angels, Meta. Lambda, 107Ja. 15. St. Biomas quotes the pseudo-Dionysius who says that Dominion Implies an "inflexible and rigid" rule, S.Th., I, q.108, a.5 ad 2. See also J. Gredt, Elementa Philosophiae Aristoteli coIhamisticae, 2, no. 984, 39I. 14- , t ’ | l· p r l | | I' f. i | |.-i t 42 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY The formal principle of dominion is an order of action communicated by the ruler to the ruled. The agent must be intelligent in order to know this rule, and he must have the power of choice as well in order to / will the end to which he moves his subject. Dominion I indeed is most formally in the will of the ruler.This will is expressed in its most perfect form by law, which! is an ordinance of reason having as its end the good of / the things ruled. This is given to rational beings I whose own will is bound by it and Who cooperate freely ! in carrying it out.17 It may have a less binding char­ acter and thus be a counsel,1θ or it may have as its end not the good of the person ruled but the good of some artificial work and thus be only a rule of art. In each case the formal principle or order must take its charac­ ter from the end. It must be emphasized that this order can be considered both as a motion of the thing to its end, as when a man moves himself, or it can be considered as a principle of unity which the ruler communicates to a multitude. The most difficult problems however concern the final principle in dominion. |ln God dominion is realized to the most perfect degree because, though his good is independent of the good of his creatures, nevertheless in moving them to their own good he only glorifies himself, since he is the good of every creatureAlthough Aristotle had an imperfect notion of the Divine rule, he expresses this idea forcefully by comparing the universe to an army whose captain is the Prime Mover. "Its good is found both in its order and in its leader and more in the latter; for hé does not depend on the order but it depends on him."19 In all lesser dominions however this simple Identity of the good of the ruler and the good of thdij thing ruled is not to be found. The angels guide men 16. Sumina Contra Gentiles, H, c.l. tatl subduntur, demi namur. " 17. S.Th., I-II, q.90, a.4 c. IB. Ibid., U-II, q.124, e.J ad 1. 19. Metaphysics, Lambda, 10, 1075a. "Super ea quae nostrae volun- ' ! * % Xfc THE GENERAL THEORY OF DOMINION 4? yet the end to which they lead them is not the angels' \ good as such. This is because every rational being has I a kind of equality in being capable of seeking the Uni- / versai Good. All intellectual beings are ordered imi mediately to God, their good cannot be another created being.2θ If we· turn to human dominion it is necessary to i consider especially three things which are closely rei lated: (1) The inequality between the ruler and the '·Γ\0 ruled, (2) the end to which the subject is moved, this ( N obviously depends both on the nature of the subject and the power in the ruler, and (?) the mode of rule which is again an expression of the kind of inequality between the terms of the dominion. The rule which is over a subject least equal to the human ruler is man's dominion over all sub-rational things. Some, the Buddhist for instance who will not kill an- insect, have held that this dominion is really unjust since it sacrifices the. good of one thing to an­ other. We must distinguish however between the intrin­ sic good of a thing which is simply the realization of its own nature, and its extrinsic good, which is some na­ ture better than its own to which it is naturally di­ rected.* 22 All sub-rational things have intrinsic ends 21 which are proper to them, for the flower it is to be a beautiful flower, etc., but their extrinsic ends are ultimately some human good. For this reason man's domin­ ion over sub-rational things has as its end'his own good and its mode is absolute. He is said to have a perfect right over these things, since he can consume them 2β. I have not found, this idea in Aristotle though it is obviously crucial to our discussion. It is often expressed, in St. Them»a. "Nature autem rationalis, inquantum cognoscit universalem boni / et. entis rationem, habet immediatum ordinem ad universale essendi principium" (Π-Il), q.2,a.J, o.) Also "Creatura rationalls Inquantum est de se non ordinatur ad finem ut homo ad hominem. Unus homo natura sua non ordinatur ad alterum sicut finem." Sent. IV, d.44. q.l, a.5, c.et ad 1. 21. ihis is true of every dominion but is especially important for Îthe complex classification of human dominions. 22. Politics, I, ill, 1256b and Contra Gentiles, HI, c.H2, and - S-Th. I, q.-96> a.l c et a.2 c. α 44 utterly.25 sassssSSBSS^UaiS^^^^f THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY The only limitation on his lordship is one which comes from his own nature, he must not use them unreasonably in such a way that his own actions are in­ ordinate, e.g., he cannot kill animals for the sake of a cruel pleasure. As Aristotle points out this rule over things may serve their intrinsic as well as their ex­ trinsic good; tame animals are more secure and better fed than wild ones.24 4 i ; Man also has a rule over himself, he is able to direct the lower parts of his nature by the higher, and the highest parts, his will and his reason, by a mutual free motion.25 This self-direction has a three-fold X mode; he directs his body absolutely, his passions po­ * litically, i.e., with a certain "give and take," and his own will freely in an absolute sense. The natural power ^z^of self-direction which he has is perfected by the intel- S* lectual virtues which enlighten his knowledge of his end, -** and the moral virtues which render his appetites obedi­ Λ K ent to the intellect and firm in their attachment to his end, and above all by prudence which brings both intel-, lectual and moral virtues into motion toward that end.2° Nevertheless this self-dominion is not absolute. Not only is man subject to law in achieving his end, but in particular he may not destroy or consume himself. He is limited in his dominion by his own nature which he may not rightfully transgress.27 The end which he seeks is i one truly ultimate, in the natural order the life according to virtue culminating in the natural contemplation of God, in the supernatural order the life of charity culminating in the Vision of God.28 2J. See J. Greit, Elementa Philosophiae, II. #988-992. 24 Politics, I,il, 1154b. "Tame animals are superior in their na­ ture to will animals....It is advantageous to be ruled by man, since this gives them security." 25. Ibid., 11, 1254b; S.Th., I-H, q,17,a.7 c, and q.56, a.4. 26. Cf. Books VI and VU of the Ethics and the corresponding parts of the S.Th., H-H. 27. St. Thomae gives three reasons against suicide,natural inclina­ tion, God’s prior rights over man, and the injury done to the common good. S.Th. H-II,q..64, a.5 c. The second comes from Plato’s Phaedo, the third from Aristotle, Ethics, V,1138a. 28. Aristotle of course only discusses the natural end of man, see especially Ethics, X. St. Thomae views are to be found in S.Th I-II,qq.l-5 and Contra Gentiles, HI, cc. 25-37. , ^"V\ r\jAj^AA"VAJU (Ρ*-^ Q^J&ê ΟIaAJ-W^i'/ ijïj f zk t THE GENERAL THEORY QF DOMINION 45 This is all very clear, but great difficulty arises when it is asked: Can man rule over man? If every human being is capable of directing himself and if his end is his own virtuous Ltfe—anri find, why should he be subordinated to another? /The anarchist has always upheld this view vigorously.^ The answer of St. Thomas and of Aristotle before him is quite clear. It is indi­ cated in the passage from the Politics quoted at the be­ ginning of this chapter. Wherever there is an inequal­ ity in intelligence or virtue between men, then the in­ ferior will attain his goal more certainly if guided by the superior. The child requires to be guided by the adults, and the fool by the wise man. The inequality is •7Γ only accidental but it is nevertheless real. ,_ --— ! , This is not the only reason however that rule of man over man is necessary. Man is a political animal; he is able to attain to the virtuous life which is his end only in the society of other men. Since this society is made of a multitude of individuals it requires a princi­ ple to direct it to its end, the virtuous social life. It cannot attain this end without a dominion any more than a man without an Intelligence. This dominion can­ not simply proceed from the unanimous will of the mem­ bers of the society, for even among good men there is seldom agreement on how to act in particular circum­ stances. Such decisions depend on prudential judgments and not on demonstrable conclusions.29 What is the relation between the good of the mem­ bers of the society and the good of the society itself? This problem of the relation of the private good and the common good is much too difficult and controverted for settlement here, but two things are clear: (1) there is V*· a harmony between the two, since a common good of a mul­ titude is impossible unless the members partake of it, and (2) the common good is better than the private good as the whole is better than the part.?0 The virtuous 29. For a detailed discussion of this problem see Yves· Simon, The Nature and Functions of Authority. JO. For proof that St. Thomas did not disagree with Aristotle on this point as some have asserted see Individuum und GemeinI schaft helm Bl. Thomas von Aquin by P. Edelbert Kurz, O.F.M. ^and Eberhard Welty, O.P., Gemeinschaft und Einzelmensch. The specifically Christian questions are treated by J. Marltain, Scholasticism and Politics, Chapter IH. 46 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY social life must be lived by men who are each virtuous, but the virtuous life of the city cannot be sacrificed to the good of one of its parts. The Christian view that the person is not only a part of the temporal state, but also has a supernatural end above the state, adds a further complication. But if we remain at the natural level it is Important to grasp something of the nature of the common good. It is a kind of life lived by free men possessed of virtues by which they are able to live not merely to themselves but in the whole and for the whole, as the rational soul functions in every part of the body. This includes that justice which directs all things to the common good, that prudence which discovers in each case the proper means to that good, and finally the contemplative wisdom whose activity is the highest good which the society produces.51 Inside this society, however, are many lesser dominions of man over man. The craftsman who guides his assistant, and the teacher and his pupil are related by dominion, but these are dominions only in one respect and for the sake of the particular good produced. There is however another dominion which like the state is a rule over life Itself. This is the household which has as its end the virtuous daily life.52 The members of the family each contribute something to the good of the whole and receive in turn what they lack in themselves. It should now be clear that in every dominion of man over man, there is some common good at which they alm. If it be a dominion of master craftsman and as­ sistant this "common good" is the work to be m^de. If it be a dominion over life itself then a common life is sought. In God's dominion over man there is naturally no dependence of the ruler on the ruled; in man's domin­ ion over things there is no common good because the low­ er thing cannot participate in the proper good of man; but in the dominions of man over man there is both a mutual dependence and a capacity to share in some truly common good.52 31. Ethica, VI, 8,9, 1141b-1142a and. V, 10, H3Ub-1135a· Politica, discussion of good, citizen, HI, passim. S.Th., H-II, a.U7, a.10 c; a.11 c; a. 12;^.50 totum; on the kinds of life see Ethics, X, and S.Th., Π-ΙΙ, 179-182. 32. This will he discussed in detail later. THE GENERAL THEORY OF DOMINION 47 Nevertheless there can be great inequality be­ tween men and. for this reason the mode of rule which is required may be of various sorts. The father rules the child in a very different way than he rules his wife.55 The teacher adopts different methods with the stupid pu--/ pil and the brilliant one. Aristotle says: 1 ....the higher the type of the subjects, the lof- / I tier is the nature of the authority exercised, over them.. /. I for the higher the type of the parties to the performance! II of a function, the higher is the function.5*1* ·- II i Thus God's rule over men is eminently noble, and the I mode of the rule is a free one. While man's rule over ' "wild beasts," as Aristotle says, must be one of force. With‘these facts in mind it becomes possible to. draw up attable of the kinds of human rule over human ' beings according to the nature of the inequality between ruler and ruled, and this diagram (Table I on following \ page) makes It possible to locate the slave dominion. Since a human state can be made of many different quali­ ties of subjects and of rulers, these different forms of government are possible, Indeed they are necessary and good. But all are alike in aiming at the good of socie­ ty. When this is not the case, the dominion goes con­ trary to the purpose for which it came into existence, and is unnatural.55 ! The general analysis of dominion and this dia­ gram make evident the very special character of the dominion of servitude. The slave Is a human being and^- ! hence should be capable of a human share in the common 55. Politics, I, v, 1260a. Ibid.., I, 11, 1254a. 35· Politics, III, iv, 1279a. "....in cases where the one or the few or the many govern with an eye to the common interest, these constitutions must necessarily be right ones, while those administered, with an eye to the private Interest of either one or the few or the multitude are deviations." See De Regimine, I, c.lli. For a brilliant discussion of the AristotelicoThamlstic theory of the forms of government, concerning which many erroneous notions are current, see M. Demongeot, Le meil­ leur regime politique selon saint Thomas. 2, Radical (different radical powers of prudence) a. difference chiefly in the’body: man and wife domesticum b. difference chiefly in the soul: master and slave despoticum c. difference in both: father and child paternum J. Radical equality but differences in active power of prudence. regale 4. Equality in power of prudence but difference in habits. politicum in the broadeat sense, including monarchy and aristoc­ racy. 5· Habitual equality but difference in actual exercise. politicum in the strict­ est sense, including aristocracy and polity. Note: Monarchy also called regale occurs in two places and is taken in two senses, absolute monarchy and constitutional monarchy. Aristocracy comes under insofar as the rulers are habitually superior to their subjects, but under insofar as they are habitually equal to one another. Co cp co P < p CD g P- /S P P g ci P d B E £ o b o P £0 Chapter V THE FUNCTION OF THE NATURAL SLAVE In developing his theory of natural slavery Aristotle first attempts to show that the very nature of the household requires a certain instrument, and that this instrument is the slave. Then he proves that na­ ture actually provides men fitted to be such instrumenta Finally he shows how these instruments, since they are human, must be made virtuous according to their capaci­ ties. The first of these problems must be understood in relation to Aristotle's account of the kind of life which the household makes possible. In the most famous text of the Politics he says: ...man is by nature a political animal; and so even when men have no need, of assistance from each other they none the less desire to live together. At the same time they are also brought together by common interest, bo far as each achieves a share of the good life. The good life then is the chief end of society, both collec­ tively for all its members and sindividually, but they also come together and maintain the political partner/ ship for the sake of life merely, for doubtless there is / some element of value contained even in the mere state of / being alive, provided that there is not too great an ex- / ■ cess on the side of the hardships of life, and it 1b / clear that the great mass of mankind cling to life at I the cost of enduring much suffering, which shows that | life contains some measure of well-being and of sweet- J ness in its essential natureΛ Here Aristotle speaks of two reasons for society, the natural tendency of men to be with men, and the common advantage which they gain by mutual help. This advan­ tage he subdivides into a minimum and a maximum good; 1. PoliticB, IH, iv, 1278b. 50 THE FUNCTION OF THE NATURAL SLAVE the minimum is a kind of secure subsistence, the maximum is the good life, the life of perfect human virtue in society. He implies that even the ml nimin of a secure subsistence is difficult for the isolated man. The life of the household is in some way a mean between these two extremes, it is a good life in being one of virtue but it is not the perfect life, it is the good daily life.2 In order to show, therefore, that slavery is necessary it must be proved that it is required for the good daily life. ' Aristotle first mentions the relation of master and slave as necessary for mutual security.5 Just as the sexual union is necessary for the preservation of the species, so the despotic relation is necessary to give this first union security. Here Aristotle seems to mean little more than that the master profits by the additional physical strength at his_cowarxd71njth§rslave, as the slave^prdfltb^Tiy^belng^guided by one who can cleverly foresee possible dangers. When the master can­ not secure a slave he can substitute an ox. But just as the union of the sexes is the instinctive basis of a higher and truly rational institution, so the natural combination of the stupid strong man and the intelli­ gent man gives rise to a more deliberate relationship. When he comes to the analysis of the household, Aris­ totle takes great pains to explain the slave's function in this elaborated family society. The smallest parts of the household are the mas­ ter and the slave, husband and wife, father and chil­ dren.^ But besides these human parts there must be property, the various material goods required for daily life. Aristotle attempts to show that each, of these parts are necessary. The head of the household is nec­ essary in order to give a unity of action to the parts, 2. Ibid.., I, i, 1252b. The village is in turn a sort of mean be­ tween this daily life and. the perfect life of the state, but while the dally life of the f,a®j.ly .cannot in any way be substi­ tuted for, the village life ijs; oçîyf air duftierfpct substitute for the good life of the state................................ ir~~τ—-roaMSggMBiiiigMâSE ΤΑ-ΐΜΑΧ., 52 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY and because he is the one possessed of the necessary prudence to know what is good and expedient for the 78 6 5 9 daily life. Moreover, as shall be seen later, the house­ hold can be said to exist for his sake, since it is he who directly is a partner in the perfect life of the state which the household serves. This ruler Is natural­ ly the husband since men are capable of greater prudence than women.5 Since a man's life is limited, however, the household is not complete or "self-sufficient"^ un­ less it has the means of continuing itself. Therefore the wife is necessary for the generation and raising of the children, and since this too must be supervised by the father, the paternal dominion arises. These rela­ tions therefore are essential to the family as to its very being, they create and direct it as such.7 On the other hand this life is impossible with­ out the requisite material goods. These are not part of the household in the most proper sense, but belong to it as its necessary conditions.8 Aristotle spends the central portion of Book I proving that this is the case and that hence unlimited accumulation of property does not belong to good household management, but only the securing of a limited amount.9 Though a limited production is required for the household, its daily life is rather one of consumption than production. It is 5. Politics, I, v, 1260a and De Generatione Animalium,H, σ·3· Also see St.Thomae, S.Th.II-IIiq.S?·».1»·. 6. Aristotle remarks that in a sense "self-sufficiency is an end, Λ a chief good" of every society. Politics, I, i, 1255a. ' 7. In this analysis, following hints in St. Thomas’ commentary on the passage 1253b-1253a of Book I of the Politics, lectio ii, I have somewhat expanded Aristotle’s terse argument. 8. Politics, I,ii, 1253b. Aristotle speaks of the relationships of dominion, the individual persons, and the property as all "parts" of the household, hut it is clear he regards the relat­ ed persons as most truly parts, and these are either free or slave. 9. Politics, I, ill·, -lg56a to:iv; 1259a· Aristotle is especially concerned to réfuté; thiee'wlio '-hkve -held that the proper func­ tion of the householder, is to make a fortune rather than direct virtuous life. :-■■■■ THE FUNCTION OF THE NATURAL SLAVE 53 business of the head of the household to know just what material goods are necessary for human needs and how they ought to he used. These goods are the tools of the householder in the process of living. Tools however can be not only inanimate hut also living and even human, κ for in all the arts not only inanimate and Irrational / beings may he made use of, but also human beings can act as assistants for the master craftsman. The helms­ man requires both a rudder and a lookout man, the archi­ tect both bricks and bricklayers, the writer both pen and paper and a secretary. Moreover human instruments are much more useful than Inhuman ones because they have foresight and thus can perform the work of many tools, for if every tool could perform its own work when ordered^X. or by seeing what to do in advance, like the statues of Daedalus in the story, or the tripods of Hephaestus which the poet says "enter self-moved the company divine," 'if thus shuttles wove and quills played harps of themselves, master-craftsmen would have no need of assistants and mas­ ters no need of slaves. ' It must be carefully noted just what this passage is in­ tended to prove. Aristotle is not speaking here of slaves as such, but simply of the contrast between hu­ man and inanimate instruments in general. Human instru-Ί ments are necessary because between the decision to ac­ complish some exterior work and the actual execution there lies a gap which cannot be bridged-without a hu­ man mind able to judge concerning contingents, capable of seeing what to do in advance.^1 The actual execution of any task requires innumerable adaptations of the plan of action to uncalculated contingencies. No matter how elaborate the machine, there must still be a human being to supervise Its operation. This is particularly true* 11 10. Politics, I, 11, 125Jb. St. Thomas, Contra Gentiles III, c.79. and Sent.IV., d.U,q.l.,a.1,Solutio c. 11. For an analysis of the intellectual requirements of manual work see Yves Simon, "Work and the Workman," The Beview of Politics, 2 (January, 19^), 63-86, especially the section "The Work of the Mind" 68ff. Similar ideas are developed In J. Maritaln, Scholasticism and Politics, Γϊ^-ΐγβ. .54___________ THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY______ . of household tasks where mechanical reproduction Is not^ the problem. Thus Aristotle has a strong argument when he holds that there must be knowing instruments as well as inanimate ones. But need this living instrument be human? The ox can substitute for the slave, and animals have a quasi'-prudence.12 The Intelligent horse is able to adapt the commands of his master to circumstances to a considerable degree. Aristotle, however, makes clear that the animal can only be a substitute for the human instrument capable of real arts; the perfect household has slaves as well as domestic animals. So far it has only been proved that the household requires reasonable instruments. Why are not these the man, his wife, and his children, as they commonly are with us? Aristotle has already supplied the answer by proving that the do­ minion over the wife is different in kind from the do­ minion of servitude.I? The perfect arrangement in the household art as in any art is to have a division of labor by which the execution and direction are separated and carried on by persons of different abilities. He Intends this principle to apply to every servile work, not only that of the slave. If Aristotle went no fur­ ther we should probably agree that it is most convenient when a household has servants to carry on its various tasks, just as a business office requires a staff to run its typewriters and calculators. Aristotle however does not intend to say that the slave is simply a human minister in the sense that the assistant of a craftsman is a minister. After the pas-y sage quoted he continues: / New the tools mentioned, are instruments of pro/ duotion, whereas an article of property is an instrument 1 of action; for from a shuttle we get something else beI side the mere use of the shuttle as there is a difference \ in kind between production and action and both need tools, ' 12. "...we say that same even of the lower animai a have practical wisdom” phronesis or prudence "viz. those which are found to have a power of foresight with regard to their own life." Ethics, VI, 7, llkla. Also Meta. I a prine. De Veritate,q.2b, a.2.,7 c. and S.Th., I-H, q.2h.a.5 ad b. IJ. "...one thing for one purpose." Politics, 1,1, 1252b. THE FUNCTION OF THE NATURAL SLAVE 55 it follows that those tools also must possess the same dif­ ference. But life is doing things not making things; hence the slave is an assistant in the class of instruments of - action.> This distinction is perhaps the most puzzling and the most Important in the wholp Aristotelian treatment of slavery, ■'■δ it is rather a commonplace to refer today to this whole passage, and especially the part about shut­ tles that weave of themselves, and then to remark that today we have such shuttles that weave of themselves, and that hence slavery is no longer necessary according, to Aristotle's own words.__ But' Aristotle's viewpoint is very different. Although he regards, the slave as prop­ erty, as an instrument7~~~although hë assïgns~'"to Kim the tasks^frTh^~aftlbaîr“ând'''tïîë"'farmenr- neverth'êïess~ïh defining the sTâvë^ë~^aïïa“ him' 'aii 'Instruffib®t"hoΓôf productlbnr’'bht~'‘‘0f"'livin'gi'*“*lt* Ls^worth^WîiXëT^q^tê^St .' Thomas23^osïïTôn~oïr^H§~LaEer part~of~thls^assage: * ■ i |. ... [Aristotle] makes a second division of InëÎ'ruments [the first was between animate and inanimate instru­ ments]. For the instruments of the arts are called factive instruments; but property which is the instrument of the household is an active Instrument. And he proves this division by two reasons : First because factive instru­ ments are said to be those from which results something more than mere use of the Instrument. And we see this in the proper instruments of art, as for example from the shuttle which textile workers use something more than mere use results, namely cloth. But from property which is the instrument of the household, nothing else results except the use of the possession itself, as from clothing and bed nothing results except the use of them. Therefore, those instruments are not factive, as are the instruments of the arts. He gives the second reason: ...which is as follows: the Instruments of diverse things are diverse; but action and making are different in kind, for making is an operatian by which something is wrought upon external matter, as to cut and to burn; but action Is an operation remaining U. Politics, I, 1, 1251**. 15. It is quite neglected in the important work of S. Talamo, II Concetto della Schiavitu. K THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY v? V - -Γ —. V) $ in the agent, and. belonging to his life, as it is said in the ninth book of the Metaphysics. Now both these ac­ tivities need, instruments. Therefore these instruments will differ in kind. But life, that is to say the domestic life (conversatio domestica), is not making (factio); there­ fore, the slave is the helper and the instrument of those things which pertain to action, but not of those things which pertain to making (ad factionem).-1-^ (St. Albert the Great in. his Commentary on the Politics He argues that j gives a somewhat similar explanation. 1 properly speaking action (immanent action) requires no I instruments, but faction does; the slave therefore is : in hlmself an instrument of faction since his work is I of a transitive or productive character but considered ias a part of his master this work is really action, and can thus be called an instrument of action. In this they (slave and other property) differ, since the possession is a factive instrument, hut the slave or min­ ister is an active instrument subserving and ministering to making that which is made.·'·? , It would be wholly to miss Aristotle's argument, there-1 fore to believe that he considered slaves as universally necessary merely as productive tools, He emphasizes \ The slave Is \ rather their necessity for consumption, required to carry out all those tasks of using property) which are necessary parts of domestic life. Our. own [ economic notions makes this difficult to grasp. We J would say that if the slave is a cook he contributes tio the production of if food food, or if * he is a gardner that he( "produces" it. .Aristotle however confines production \ to the process of increasing the wealth of the family by adding new property or to the strictly manufacturing arts. If we regard cooking not in Its technical aspec ; but as an execution of a prudential decision of the master then we see It as active rather than factive. \ This becomes clear if we consider for a moment Aristotle's Idea of the master. He Is not a directing craftsman whose artistic orders are executed by inferior craftsmen, 16. In IV Politicorum, I, Lectio 2. 17. Albertus Magnus, In Polit. I, c.2, h. THE FUNCTION OF THE NATURAL SLAVE because he does not know what is required by art. The slave's sciences then are all the various branches of domestic work; the master's science is the science of employing slaves.... The master must know how to direct the tasks which the slave must know how to ex­ ecute.1819 One form of authority is that of a master; by this we mean the exercise of authority in regard to the neces­ sary work of the house, which it is not necessary for the master to know how to execute, but rather how to utilize; the other capacity, I mean the ability actually to serve in these menial tasks, is indeed a slave’s quality What the master knows is not an art of making at all, but of living. He understands what the good li.£a-l·»· domestic.20 He' does not know cooking but he knows that the members of his household require a temperate sufficency of pleasant and healthful food rather than expen­ sive luxuries. This is a prudential and ethical prob­ lem not a technical one, but he must have ministers to _ bring about the technical requirements of his decisions., The slave therefore may be quite autonomous in his fart.Ί He Ts~dlrected not with respect to the productive ordefT* Out in the prudential, ethical or active order. A fail­ ure to emphasize this distinction naturally leads us to wonder.-how Aristotle could have believed the slave so stupid as to require constant direction by another and yet attribute to him the household arts.21 It is especially important to understand the way in which the slave acts as an instrument. "The slave is a part of the master—he is, as it were, a part of the body, alive but yet separated from it."22 "The Politics, I, 11, 1255b. Ibid., Ill, 11, 1277b. S.Th., II-H, q.5O,a.5 c. Also see Ethics, VI, viii, llt2a. On prudence and art see Ethics, VI,ii,llkOa. It can be summed up for our purposes In St. Thomas words "Prudentia quae est circa actiones, differunt ab arte quae est circa factiones." 22. Politics, I, 11, 1255b· Eudemian Ethics, VII,ix,12Ulb. 18. 19. 20. 21. 1 Γ ί· ’ K'7 tittle» THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY slave is a partner in his master's life, but the artisan is more remote. ,,23 The inanimate active instrument like i the chair or bed is used in action but it does not itself act. The irrational'animate active instrument cooperates in the action but without comprehension, hence it cannot be said properly to share in the action. The rational factive instrument, the artisan, shares in the factive process, he knowingly cooperates. In the directions re­ ceived from the master craftsman. But when the direction of the ruler is a prudential one this cooperation takes on a special character. Prudential activity dif­ fers from technical activity in being internal (intransi­ tive )~in its effects. In the case of technical activity the action passes from the master through the artisan and terminates In the thing made. In the case of the prudential dominion the action ends in the master and in the slave Insofar as he is the master's cooperative instrument, a "partner in the master’s life." The mastep'a hnfly stares in the same life as the soul which di­ rects it, but not the clnthea_he wears, nor the article of furniture which he has made. The slave is like a dart of the body not like clothes. This is much more fully developed by St. Thomas as follows: A slave is moved by his master, and a subject by his ruler, by command, but otherwise than as irrational and inanimate beings are set in motion by their movers. For irrational and inanimate things are moved by others and do not put themselves in motion, since they have no freewill whereby to be masters of their own actions, I wherefore the rectitude of their government is not in 1 their power in the power of their movers. On the other I hand, men who are slaves or subjects in any sense, are moved by the commands of others in such a way that they move themselves by their freewill; wherefore some kind of rectitude of government is required in them, so that they may direct themselves in obeying their superiors; and to this belongs that species of prudence which Is called political.21*· i 23. Ibld.I, v, 1260a. 2h. 3.Th. II-H, a.?0, a.2 c. This Is not In contradiction with ths passage in the Ethics X, vi, 1177a where slaves do not have "free-choice" Aristotle only means that they are not free to conduct their own lives independently. THE FUNCTION OF THE NATURAL SLAVE uWe thus have the first elements of the definition of a X slave;he is a human active instrument separate from the master. This however does not distinguish him from any subordinate in the prudential order As the above passage indicates in every political dominion those under - the rule are as it were instruments.25 it is not his instrumental character, therefore, which is the differentia of the slave from the freeman, and that he is ac-. tive distinguishes him only from the ministers in the arts. Aristotle goes further and calls him ”of another "One who is a human being belonging by nature not to himself but to another is by nature a slave.”26 Now it is just this transition which puzzles the modern reader Why is there a necessary connection between being di­ rected by another in prudential matters and being "of another"? Why is the slave not simply a free subordi­ nate in the household as are the children and the wife? ?.. The key to this puzzle ought to be contained in the following passage, but It remains obscure. These considerations therefore make clear the na­ ture of the slave and his essential quality one who is a human being belonging by nature not to himself, but to an­ other Is by nature a slave, and a person Is a human being belonging to another if being a man he is an article of property, and an article of property is an instrument of action separable from its owner .2? For he is by nature a slave who is capable of belonging to another and. that is why he does so belong and who participates in reason so far as to apprehend it but not to possess it; for the animals other than man are subservlings.2® lent not to reason, by appre 25. St. Thomas, quoting Ar tleladofl ’ an instrument even calls Angels instruments or ministers, Contra Gentiles m,sc.79. r ,,,,,, , 26. o yup μη αυτού φυοει αλλ άλλου άνθρωπος ων, ουτ φύσει δούλος έστιν. Politics, I, ii, 125Ua. "Alterius" is St. Thomas’ word. 27. Ibid., 1, il, 125Ua. 28. Ibid., I, id, 125Ub. ÉÉjÉHiÉiüiÊSSiMS 60 THS THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY Here Aristotle seems to say that a slave is an article of property and hence "of another," because he is an active instrument. But ve have already seen that thia is not the case, or every subject would belong to his kind. The solution to the ambiguity however appears if we recall the reason that active instruments of this special sort are necessary. The wife might be consid­ ered an active instrument Insofar as she carries out her husband's will. Hut her instrumental character remains secondarj^-JaSlL^a^lal^lual^ a cause^j^hg_.exist§pp^jaXLJjh^hQPaPhPld*«-JSbe.J.s an The slave on the other hand is required principally to use the material goods of the household, and these material goods are not par­ ticipants in the life of the household nor its end but only its conditions.29 The slave thus belongs essential­ ly to the conditions of the household rather than to its very entity. Although he participates in the household life' and the life of the master he is allowed to do so in order that the material conditions of that life should be supplied. His position is essentially Instrumental. The wife and children do function as instruments of the father, and the citizens do function as instruments of the king, but they do not belong to these communities just because they are instruments. The wife belongs as required by the very character of generation, the citi­ zens belong as required by the very character of the state which is a community of citizens. But the slave does not belong to the family as demanded by its very entity. A family is father, mother, and children only, it is not a house, beds, food, and slaves to use them with, though these are required for the perfect house­ hold. The slave is thus necessary to the family in a secondary sense. But does this mean that he must be "alterius"? 3 Aristotle's thought on this point can perhaps be best understood by considering why it would be unnatural for a freeman to be a slave. The freeman has the vir­ tues necessary to conduct his own life as a part of the city, especially the virtue of prudence. He naturally 29. Politica., II, il, 1253b. THE FUNCTION OF THE NATURAL SLAVE ________ 61 seeks his own good and that of the city as the whole of which he is the part.JO What if he were subjected to a master and made to fulfill the household tasks. He could no doubt peform them, but he would be also capable of advising the master, as does the wife. More than this he would be just as able as the master himself to direct the affairs unaided. Such a person cannot be called "of another" because in him the power of prudence is an independent and principle one. If he submits to any rule it is because of the necessity of authority.51 But the, slave has prudence only Instrumentally axul sinra thil ls .all that, is. raqni ned for the hnuaaholri tasks. the principle of "one man one task" implies that only « nan of this sort should be a slave. The artisan is in the same position of being dependent on another for his virtue, but this is a virtue of art, and hence he is "alterius" only in one respect, gut the slave is de­ pendent on the master for the virtue which guides not his work, or making, hut—his life, or doing, so that he is wholly "of another." A strong objection to this argumentation is im­ mediately evident. Why cannot the slave havea proper good of his own distinct from that of the master? If the good of the slave is wholly assimilated to that of another being, then he is exactly like an inhuman thing whose extrinsic good is that of another. This problem can be answered only at the end of our researches'! RïrE~ suffice it to say that Aristotle is at. some nains to afipy that slavery serves the advantage of* aXavn «« well as of _the_master.-^ To be "of another" means, as St. Thomas says in his Commentary, to be "existensj alterius,11 incapable of reaching one's own good except in dependence on .another. The citizen is dependent on the ruler for his social good, but he himself could be ruler if not perfectly. The wife depends on the husband for the ordered household life, but she could partially substitute for him. The slave however is "alterius" JO. See the lengthy discussion of the character of the citizen in Book IU of the Politice. JI. Required for unity of action in the state. 52. See references in Chapter VI post. —- 62 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY because he cannot live prudently except as he is a part of the master. He is an animate human instrument of the .active sort, existing as a part of the master but sub^stanti ally separate from him^J :j I This definition is(blear, but our problem re­ I 's ■J J i I I mains dark for two reasons. First it must be objected that a man who has no prudence would be an idiot and hence Incapable of the arts. Secondly it must certainly ï I I 1 be maintained that whether a man can himself attain to his proper good or not, he has such a proper good and it may not be sacrificed to that of another human being, ! ï at* Agigtotle attempts to show that the slave function is ; (γΐ necessary and that its proper instrument is a man câp;' I afclë onIy~~bT the arts.~ slnr.p.~~â hging capable of anything | l batter should serve other functions,.. but does such a j \ person as this "human instrument belonging to another" I -£ΧΤ5ΈΓ~ · . . ·’ 33· St. Thomas collects this definition from Aristotle’s discussion: "Servus est organum animatum activam separatum alterius homo exlstens" I, lectio 2 ad finem. Chapter VI THE EXISTENCE AND CHARACTER OF THE SLAVE We must next consider whether or not anyone exists who is by nature of this character, and. whether it is ad­ vantageous and Just for anyone to be a slave, or whether on the contrary all slavery is against nature. And it is not difficult either to discern the answer by theory or to learn it empirically.^ Aristotle, having explained the necessity of the slave function for the household as he conceives it, next argues that human beings fitted especially for this function exist. The order of his proof is very puz­ zling. After the passage quoted he proceeds to develop the idea that throughout nature in every whole there is a ruling part and subject parts, which has already been discussed in Chapter IV above. He shows that every rule takes its character-from thn 1 neonal 1 t.y between the ruler and.thB- ruled; consequently when two men are as unequal as the soul and the body, then one ought to rule the other as the soul does the body, and this is the rule of master and slave. How does this Indicate any­ thing about the existence of the slavish character? Aristotlg_seems to argue that since everywhere in nature ve find that every wHole is made up of parts which are each adapted to perform a special function under the rule of the part whose function is the order of the whole, therefore since in the whole which is the house­ hold there is required the special function of servile work, nature must have provided a being especially adapted to that function. An objection is obvious: In an organic whole we may assume that nature has provided a proper part for every function, but can we do so in accidental whole like the family? Aristotle would no doubt answer that the family is a natural whole, though 1. Politics, I, 11, 12$Ua. 65 ■! I 64 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY not a substance. Nature has provided for it the woman who is especially adapted to continuing the family, and also the slave who is adapted to preserving it material­ ly. It must be admitted that this is a dangerous method of argument in political matters, since it begins with a picture of an ideal society and then proceeds to argue that nature has provided its parts. Some of this diffi­ culty, however, has been removed by the fact that Aris.totle constructed his picture of the household from the empirical knowledge that households have slaves. But not satisfied with this he now produces another more factual argument; we observe men who are physically and mentally different from freemen, and different in a way that adapts them for physical work. .The proof of the existence of slaves thus has two sides. First their./ lîëcess it y for the household is argued, and this has al­ ready beeri Considered. Second the character and signs of fHF slave are dlscussef~to show that they correspond to well-known facts. Aristotle tells us that the chief characteristic of the mam who is adapted by nature to be a slave is that he be "strong for necessary occupations,"2 that is 4 for servile work. This statement produces a difficulty, for the great soldier and statesman, the virile man must have great strength. The strength of the warrior and Plato, of the slave however have a different character Aristotle, and St. Thomas are commonly insistent on~Îhe view that the chara^^ ten, glye s an in­ dication of the character, of the soul which informs It. This' is why they are especiallyL^on.cerne the_bodily education of the,citizen. Plato and Aristotle are con­ tinually insisting that the gymnastic exercises should produce not athletes who can do strange feats, but strong freemen who are fitted for military valour and for a life of temperance and fortitude. As Plato said: The honourable body is not the fair body nor the strong nor the swift nor the large, nor yet the body that Is sound in health,—although this is what many believe; rather those bodies which hold the mean position between all these extremes are by far the most temperate and stable; 1 2. Politica, I, 11, 1254b .ya?»·».·»*···- THE EXISTENCE AND CHARACTER OF THE SLAVE 65 for while the one extreme makes the souls puffed up'and proud, the other makes them lowly and spiritless.5 Similarly Aristotle insists that great care be taken lest the body be debased by the exercises and occupa­ tions engaged in: .. .they must not participate in such among the use­ ful arts as will render the person who participates in them vulgar. A task and also an art or a science must he deemed vulgar if it renders the hody or soul or mind of free men useless for the employments and actions of virtue. Hence we entitle vulgar all such arts as deteriorate the condi­ tion of the hody.^ Now at the present time some of the states reputed to pay the greatest attention to children produce in them an athletic habit to the detriment of their bodily form and growth, while the Spartans although they have avoided this error yet make their boys animal in nature by their • laborious exercises, in the belief that this is most con­ tributory to manly courage.5 It is manifest therefore that the study of music must not place a hindrance in the way of subsequent activ­ ities, nor vulgarize the bodily frame and make it useless for the exercises of the soldier and the citizen, either for their practical pursuits now or for their scientific studies later.6 From these passages and other references in the Polities as well as in the writings of Plato, it is clear how strongly the Greeks believed that great muscular develop­ ment or an Irregular development that strengthened parts of the body at the expense of the whole is contrary to the proper life of the citizen. Aristotle summarizes this view as applied to the slave as follows: The intention of nature therefore is to make the bodies also of free men and of slaves different—the lat­ ter strong for necessary occupations, but serviceable for 3« laws, V, 728E. fc. Politics, VIII, 1, 1337b. 5. Ibid., TCI, ili, 1338b. 6. Ibid., VIII, vi, 13hla. 66 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY a life of citizenship (and. that again divides into the employments of war and those of peace); hut as a matter of fact often the very opposite comes about—some per­ sons have the bodies of free men and others the souls.? St. Thomas' explanation of this passage is of consider­ able interest, since it reflects the survival of the Greek medical theories into the Middle Ages: y First therefore he says that nature wishes,— i.e·, has a certain impetus or inclination—, to make a differentiation between the bodies of free men and of slaves, so namely that the bodies of slaves may be strong to exercise the necessary function which belongs to them, namely working in the fields, and to exercise other like ministeries, but the bodies of free men ought to be erect, that is well disposed according to nature, and not useful for such servile operations because of their genteel physique (complexio delicata); they should, rather, be useful for civil life in which free men are engaged. Now, the man who has a body useful for civil life has a physique adapted for warlike and peaceful usages; such, that is to say, that in time of war he may have a body fit for fight­ ing and for other military work, but in time of peace for discharging other civic duties. And although nature has a tendency toward causing the aforesaid difference of physiques, nevertheless, she is sometimes remiss in this, as also in everything else which is begotten and is conse­ quently corruptible. Nature has her own way thus in many things, but she is remiss in a few. Since, therefore, na­ ture is remiss in this matter, it very often turns out contrary to what has been said, so that, namely, those who have the souls of free men may have the bodies of slaves and vice versa.® Much of this discussion, however seems to refer more to acquired characteristics than to innate capaci­ ties. The training of the slaves^ and the labors which 7. Politics, I, 11, 1254b. 8. In Polit., I, lect.5. 9. They were forbidden gymnastic exercises, Polit. 11,11, 1264a. THE EXISTENCE AND CHARACTER OP THE SLAVE 6? they performed increased their natural dis-symmetry. What about their natural capacities made this sort of training the best that they could receive?·1· St. Thomas continues in his commentary as follows: For It must be borne in mini that the Philosopher here draws a conclusion from the foregoing in which he was treating about the ordering of the eoul, because, since the body exists naturally by virtue of the soul, nature intended to form such a body as should befit the soul, and on that account, nature tends to give the bodies of free men to those who have the souls of free men, and likewise in regard to slaves. And this is indeed consistent so far as the internal dispositions are concerned; for it is im­ possible that someone should have a well-ordered soul if the faculties of imagination and other natural and sensi­ tive faculties be disordered, even though in the external configuration and size and other external disposition one may find disparity.11 St, Thomas thus interprets Aristotle aa holding that even when the slave and free do not differ in bodily ex­ ternals, there may be a real difference, a difference which is the true root of the slave's unfitness for liberal life. ^The slave's defect is in the Internal senses whlcharerequlred i'or thought. It would not be in place here to discuss a very elaborate AristotelicoThomistic theory* 12 concerning the-relation between the 11 "complectio" of the body and the character of the soul. It would seem at first glance that since the Aristotel­ ian School holds that forms are individuated by their matter, and that the soul is the form of the body, therefore all human souls would be equal. Differences in intelligence could be explained as simply due to the > \ Î accidental characteristics of this or that body. The position of Aristotle and St. Thomas is however much i I ‘ i j" I 10. Aristotle believed that only barbarians should be slaves and they were physically unbalanced because of the climates In which they lived. See post, Chapter VTII. 11. In Polit., I, lect. 3. 12. For an elaborate discussion and Justification of this position see R. J. Slavin,O.P., The Philosophical Basis for Individual Differences according to St. Thomas Aquinas, passim. He shows the theory is not only metaphysically sound but singularly agreeable to modern psychological findings. iBÎM 68 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY more subtle. Because the bodies of different individuals have different dispositions, the souls naturally inform­ ing them are more or less "good." The intelligent man not only has an especially good body and good interior senses, but also an especially Intelligent soul. This does not mean however that there is a difference in spe­ cies between souls, but only a natural difference in quality. The naturally good soul belongs to the natural­ ly good body, and though^as_4rls^^^ Thomas point out, this may often fail as regards outward acci­ dent s, it seldom.fails, as regardsthe interior senses on 'which intellectual operation depends7-^3^~~Tforeover these interior senses, manifest their degree of perfec­ tion in the whole nervous system, and outwardly especial­ ly in the sensitivity of touch. This famous observation of Aristotle that intelligence went with the softness of the flesh1^ has considerable scientific truth and is un­ mi ί 1 > it I doubtedly the key to the present problem. The natural slave is detected by outward bodily signs because these indicate the perfection of the nervous mechanism on which the intellectual powers depend. This does not mean an essential difference between man and man, but it is an innately different intellectual capacity, evinf-nced by bodily signs'?" In another text Aristotle mentions his opinion that erect posture is indicative of the intel­ lectual nature.1^ jn all this there is an absurdity due to errors in positive science, but the principles of Aristotle implied in this discussion are very important. The slave is innately weak intellectually, and this is reflected in an insensitive nervous system, and in the kind of strength which la compatible with such insensi­ tivity^. Nevertheless this does not mean that the slave in paaBnt.iniiy hiffpnent in the metaphysical sense from the master; he can be truly human and yet have naturally weak intellectual powers. The Aristotelian psychology is not contradictory in this. But does Aristotle contradict this psychological theory in the Politics? He says in comparing the slave 1?· In De Anima, a.5 act 5· It. Do Anina, II, c.9. 15« De Partibus Animalium, II, x, 656a si '* I1 THE EXISTENCE AND CHARACTER OF THE SLAVE 69 with the free wife and child: All possess the various parts of the soul, hut possess them in various ways; for the slave has not got the deliberative part at all, and. the female has it, hut without full authority, while the child, has it hut in un­ developed form.·1·^ i By "deliberative part" (βουλευτικόν, consiliativum) ’ λ Aristotle would seem to mean the power of practical rea- son, the power which is perfected by art and prudence. , But a man without practical reason has no free will, no morality, no understanding, and necessarily no art of any sort! Yet Aristotle makes very clear that the slave possess arts which the master himself does not possess. But we distinguish several kinds of slave, as their employ­ ments are several. One department belongs to the handi­ craftsmen, who as their name implies are the persons that live by their hands, a class that includes the mechanic artisan. Hence in some states manual labourers were not admitted to office in old times. ' We gather from another passage that Aristotle distin­ guished between the skilled and unskilled worker and considered both servile. 1θ Moreover he makes the farm- ? ers of his ideal state slaves, and yet admits that while to engage in wealth-getting activities' such as farming is illiberal, yet the principles of’these activ­ ities are scientific and worthy of study.There are grades in servile work, "some more menial and some more honorable,”2° and even the work of directing the house­ hold can be carried on by a steward who is no doubt a slave. Is not Aristotle caught in a gross contradic11οn when he asserts that the slave is capable of the arts and not capable of deliberation nr of guiding his own 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Politics, I, v, 1260a. Politics, III, ii, 1277b. Ibid., Ill, ill, 1278a. Ibid.., I, iv, 1258b. and I, ii, 1255b. Ibid., I, ii, 1255b. See also Economics, I,U,131rta. Ibid., I, ii, 1255b. 70 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY ll£a3- One way of solving this apparent contradiction would be to say that Aristotle did not think the servile arts required any intelligence. There is a famous pas­ sage In the Metaphysics which has been interpreted to mean this : Hence we think also that master workers in each craft are more honorable and. know in a truer sense and. are wiser than manual workers, because they know the causes of things done (we think the manual workers are like certain lifeless things which act indeed, but act without knowing what they do, as fire burns,—but while the lifeless things perform each of their functions by a natural tendency, the labour­ ers perform them by habit This cannot be pressed very far however since Aristotle is contrasting the scientist and the man of habit, not speaking formally of work itself. Undoubtedly Aristotle along with the rest of the Greeks had a special distaste and contempt for servile work. Book I of the Politics has as a polemical undertone a refutation of such writ­ ers as Xenophon who dared praise the life of the farm­ er. 25 if we examine the hbvrtoI texts in which the slave's Intellectual capacities are discussed, Aris­ totle’s main point about the slave's mind becomes evi­ dent. For he is a slave...who participates in reason so far as to apprehend it, but not to possess it; for the ani­ mals other than man are subservient not to reason, by ap­ prehending it, but to feelings.21*· Those persons are mistaken who deprive the slave of reasoning and tell us to use command only; for admoni­ tion is more properly employed with slaves than with children. With this we may compare a passage of St. Thomas on the manner In which rational and irrational creatures are 22. Metaphysics, A,l, 981a. See Jaeger, Aristotle, 71. The parenthetical portion of the above passage is textually dubious;see Hoss’ commentary on the Metaphysics, 118. 23. In his Economics. 2U. Politics, I, 11, 125>Λ. 25. Ibid., I, v, 1260b. üa THE EXISTENCE AND CHARACTER OF THE SLAVE ruled: 71 · A slave is moved, by his master, and a subject by his ruler, by command, but otherwise than as Irrational and inanimate beings are set in motion, since they have no freewill whereby to be masters of their own actions, wherefore the rectitude of their government is not in their power but in the power of their movers. On the other hand, men who are slaves or subjects in any sense, are moved by the com. aiands of others in such a way that they move themselves by their freewill; wherefore some kind of rectitude of gov­ ernment is required in them, so they may direct themselves in obeying their superiors.^ St. Thomas enlarges the same point further as follows: ...both men and brutes are led by benefits, and restrained by punishments, or by precepts and prohibitions, but in different ways: since it is in the power of man that, the same things being similarly represented, whether they be precepts or prohibitions, or whether they be benefits or punishments, they choose them or flee them by a Judgment of reason; but in brutes this Judgment is naturally deterBiined to this that whatever is proposed or happens in one way, In the same way is accepted or fled.2? St. Thomas understands the first text of Aristotle quot ed above in the same way, as follows: i J j- He comparée the man who is naturally a slave to the brute anlmalT"according to similarity and difference: and says that he whô"ïs~naturally a slave, communicates in reason"* ] only to this extent that he receives the sense of reason- / Ing, as it is put forth by another; but not in this way, that he has the sense of reasoning in himself; 'but other animals serve man not as receiving any sense of reasoning from nan, but only insofar as the memory of those things good or ill received from man arouse them to the work of * servitude either through fear or liking , y I think these passages of St,. Thomas correctly Interpret Aristotle. They clear lx distinguish the mind of the 26. S.Th.. II-II, 4.50, a.2c. 27. Pe Veritate, q.2h, a.2 ad 7. 28. In Polit., 1, Lectio 3. 72 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY slave from the animal "mind," and this distinction is essential and not accidental: the slave has reason "(although imperfectly), the animal only passions. Is such a person as described^ "feeble-minded" in thé mod­ ern sense? Aristotle does not clearly distinguish as we do between the stupid and the feeble-minded, but he does distinguish between unintelligent and crazy per­ sons. He says: ...of foolish people those who by nature are thoughtless and. live by their senses alone are brutish, like some races of the distant barbarians, while those who are so as a result of disease (e.g., of epilepsy) or of madness are morbid.^9 His whole description of the natural slave does not im­ ply that he is a diseased or abnormal being. He is sim­ ply stupid in the way Aristotle conceives barbarians to be stupid. He can still learn the arts. \What is this strange "stupidity"? How can one "apprehend but not possess reason"? It cannot be claimed that either Aris­ totle or St. Thomas resolves this difficulty very explic­ itly, and yet the solution is not far to seek. "Reason" is taken in several senses. If we take it as "specula­ tive reason," the slave possesses it in a very imperfect form, so that he is not capable of the liberal sciences.^ If we take it as the practical reason then a further distinction must be made. Practical reason can be per­ fected either by the virtue of prudence or of art.^l However prudence is as it were the chief of all virtues, the meeting place of the intellectual and moral life. Its function is to choose means to the attainment not merely of particular goods but of the good in general. It must extend therefore to judging every means whatso­ ever in light of the ultimate good. Art on the other hand is not a moral virtue at all and is not concerned with the universal good, but only with some particular 29. Ethics, VU, 6, UÀ9 a. JO. It must be noted that St. Thomas says "Quantum ad communia principia rationis sive speculativae sive practicae est eadem veritas seu rectitudo apud omnes et aequaliter nota." S. Th. I~IX,q.l.a.lc. 31. On this whole question see Ethics, VI, 5· THE EXISTENCE AND CHARACTER OF THE SLAVE 73 end, and hence the sphere of means concerning which it judges must be very limited. The prudent man is the good man absolutely, but the artist is good only as an artist of some particular sort. Jt is clear therefore that in Aristotelian psychology it is quite possible Tor a pershTi—te—t^e far­ ther and higher perfection of prudence. If the slave has sufficient reason to understand some particular good and the means to it, he has enough reason for art. It might be thought from the text "the slave apprehends reason without possessing it" that what he lacks is a sort of inventive reason or foresight. But as Aristotle says in discussing the advantage of the slave over the animal as a "live tool," the slave can "see what to do in advance."32 Moreover the arts do all in fact require some foresight. The lowest slaves work from habit "as fire burns," but the higher ones may have quite developed skills. The essentiel thing that mak^ them naturally—sLaves, is the lack of the virtue of_nrudence and of any^ considerable capacity for it■ They are like those_to whom ArÎSl.ul.lB.,iiH.finîa_when he says "it is. possible that, there are some persons incapable of being, educated and becoming men of noble character."33 The slave can will and think and learn, but these actions though human never rise to the level of the virtue of prudence nor the speculative sciences which belong to the free man. This defect in pwiflannft corresponds to the fact studied in our last chapter, that the slave is an Instrument for doing and not for making. Art is a making, and* tire·· slave is capable of that himself, but prudence is the perfecfTün of doing, and the slave is capable of that only by his relation to the master. That St. Thomas understood Aristotle in this way is evident from a remark he makes that parallels Aris­ totle1 s own observation that a "slave cannot be a friend, qua slave."3^ st. Thomas cites the words of Aristotle, that the slave has no "consiliatlvum, " and answers the objection drawn from them in this way: 32. Politics, I, 11, 1253b. 33. Politics, V, x, 1316a. 5^. Ethics, VIH, 1161b. 74 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY • ..the slave does not have the "power of deliberation" (consiliativum) insofar as he is a slave, for thus he is • an instrument of his master; he is deliberative however insofar as he is a rational animal.55 Aristotle does not go this far, but these words do not really contradict his own. The slave may be capable of some acts of prudence, but what~~Is important for the theory of the hnnsRhnld is that the slave cannot successfnlly rnle-his wholè~~îiÎë except as an instrument of the master,—and as an instrument deliberation is not in him but in his master. We have thus before, us Aristotle's characteriza­ tion of the slave. The chief problems it raises still remain to be considered; but this characterization must not be understood too mechanically. What is essential to this description of the slave is this : the man who is incapable of sufficient prudence to be the head of a household and participant in political and contemplative life is, to Aristotle's mind, "naturally a slave." There is something relative about this, however, since as we shall see Aristotle admits that while in some forms of government the artisans are citizens, in others they are slaves.56 35. S.Th..n-n. q.U7, a.12, ad 2. 36. Politics, HI, ill, 1278a. Chapter VII THE EXPEDIENCY OF NATURAL SLAVERY Aristotle is not content with arguing that the rule of slaves is a necessary part of the household do­ minion and that the proper subjects of this rule exist, he also wishes to confute those critics who assert that whatever the advantages of slavery, it is morally‘inex­ pedient, He does this in part by his argument that the natural slave exists, since that which is natural is just and expedient. Domestication is good for animals because they are naturally the property of man, and similarly with the slave who is natrually of the mas­ ter. 1 Aristotle, however, realizes that since the slave is different from other property in being human, a further problem remains. In the first part of the First Book of the Politics he indicates what the parts of.-.the household are; in the last section he considers whaiL virtues nngTvh tn be fostered in its human parts. In the same way in Books VII and VIII he discusses first the parts of his ideal state, and then the educa­ tion necessary for the citizen. Aristotle is thus faced with the problem of deciding whether the slave attains to any strictly human good. If his function requireÈThuman virtue, then he lives a life which is simply good. This would be the true expediency of ' slavery if it were ns^saryMii useful to promote* the virtues of the slave and the master. It must be emphasized that Aristotle does not approach the problem directly in this way. He has in mind the good of the household, rather than the good of 1. Politica, I, ii, 1254b. This argument da dubious since even if the animal suffers as regards its intrinsic end, e.g., la killed, it attains its extrinsic end which is to be of use to man. This cannot be the case for the slave or any human being. 76 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY its members separately, ghat is the advantage of slavery to the, slave, in Aristotle's view? As we have seen Aristotle says that the community of master and slave arises from a need of security, the slave profits from the more intelligent master's foresight;this is repeated when the slave is compared to tame animals who are more secure under a master than.in the wild.5 The slave attains to a life where he is always sure of food and clothing, and protection from outside forces, by placing himself under a master. We know from our own experience that the free worker faced with unemployment sometimes envies the slave's lot. This advantage of the slave is evident, but it is an advantage shared by the animals. Does Aristotle attribute anything better to him? There are many texts which make this doubtful; the two most difficult are as follows: i I . «1 But a state exists for the sake of the good life, and not for the sake of life only; if life only were the object, slaves and brute animals might form a state, but they cannot, for they have no share in happiness or in a life of free choice Λ And any chance person—even a slave—can enjoy bodily pleasures no less than the best man; but no one assigns a slave a share in happiness—unless he assigns to him also a share in human life. For happiness does not lie in such occupations, but as we have said before, in virtuous activities.5 These texts however are both Intended to show how the truly free and good life differs from the sensual idea which the man in the street has of it. The truly good 2. politics, i, i, 1252b. 3. Ibid., I, 11, 1254b. 4. Politics, III, lx, 2179b. I have here followed the Jowett-Boss translation. 5. Ethics, X, vll, 1176a, also Meta. Λ10, 1075a. The text Poli­ tics, I, 11, 1254b "this is the condition of those whose func­ tion is the use of the body and from wham this is the best that is forthcoming" must be considered in its context. Aristotle is contrasting the slave function with the liberal functions. The whole discussion of the first part of Book I has to be qual­ ified by the discussion of the slave’s virtues in its latter part. THE EXPEDIENCY OF NATURAL SLAVERY . /^Tp> life which is really happiness is not one of pleasure but of liberal activity ("free choice"), political ac­ tion and contemplation. The slave is not capable of these (except in such eanns-when he..has a share in hugàn~ïife "6), and consequently cannot have true happlaess. .If it is kept in mind that what is denied to the slave is not well being, nor every an-nt·. nf "happiness." the question of the kind of goodness Ί1 fe can have remains open. It might be thought that it is mere­ ly of one sensual pleasure, like that of animals. As the writer of the Aristotelian Economics says, "Three things make up the life of a slave, work, punishment, and food....The slave's reward Is his food." But this same writer says, "To the higher class of slaves he ought to give some share of honour, and to the workers abundance of nourishment."7 The life of the slave is thus primarily the life of prudence.and contemplation whlcE~EieT0hgS- tn the-trul^-gond-maa. But is this life of appetite any different than that of the animals? Aristotle says: A question may indeed, be raised, whether there is any excellence at all in a slave beyond and higher than mere instrumental and ministerial qualities—wheth­ er he can have the virtues of temperance and courage, p Justice and the like; or whether slaves possess only ' bodily and ministerial qualities. And, whichever way we J answer this question a difficulty arises; for, if they \ have virtue, in what will they differ from freemen? On ] the other hand, since they are men and share In rational ’ principle, it seems absurd to say that they have no vir­ tue. θ He then procedes to try to solve the general question proposed: How Is It that both ruler and subject have virtues? ..He decides that in human beings both have virtues, and that these are similar, but that they "hâve an essential difference, just as ruler and subject are 6. This puzzling qualification is discussed infra. 7. Economies, I, U, ljhha. 8. Politics, I,v, 1259b. I have followed the Jowett-Soss transla­ tion here. The quotation is in sec. 13 of their division of Book I. îü 78 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY es3enttally different positions. St. Thomas discusses *iKe "sAffie-problem-in the following way: Prudence is in the reason. Now ruling and. governing be­ long properly to the reason; and. therefore it is proper to a man to have reason and. prudence insofar as he has a share in ruling and governing. But it is evident that the subject as subject, and the slave as slave, are not competent to rule and govern, but rather to be ruled and governed. Therefore prudence is not the virtue of a slave as slave, nor a subject as subject. Since, how- ? ever, every man, for as much as he is rational, has a share in ruling according to the Judgement of reason, he is proportionately competent to have prudence. Where­ fore it is manifest that "prudence is in the ruler after the manner of a mastercraft, but in the subjects after the manner of a handicraft.9 Aristotle having settled this for prudence as does St. Thomas, goes on to say, We must suppose that the same necessarily holds good of the moral virtues: all must partake of them but not in the same way, but in such_maa§ure as is proper to each in relation to his own^unctionj) Hence it is manifest that all the persons mentione dhave a moral virtue of their own.10 He is speaking here of the woman, the child, and the slave. What then are the virtues that are most appro­ priate to the ruler and to the ruled? The two are com­ pared to the rational and irrational parts of the soul.IV Hence each has the virtues appropriate to those parts. The ruler "must possess intellectual vir­ tue in its completeness," and with respect to the house­ hold this means domestic prudence.The subordinates on the other hand must have the virtues which control the appetitive or irrational part of the soul and these J 9· S.lh., H-H, 4.U7, a. 12, c. The quotation is fran the passage of Aristotle which we are considering. 10. Politics, I, v, 1260a. 11. Politics, v, 1260a. 12. Kthies, HI, 10, Hh2a and S.Th., II-H, 4.50, a.3, c. THE EXPEDIENCY OF NATURAL SLAVERY 79 are temperance, which controls the desires for pleasure, and fortitude, which strengthens the appetites for dif­ ficult things.15 But among the subordinates themselves there are different natures and functions, and hence different virtues : For the free rules the slave, the male the female, and. the man the child in different ways. And all possess the various parts of the soul, but possess them in dit/ ferent ways; for the slave hwn ywi: cot the deliberative I/ Λ/' part at all, and the female has it, but without full. child has it.but in undeveloped formA^ Por this reason the woman has not only the virtues strictly proper to a subordinate, but also .has an imper­ fect power of rule, a certain degree of prudence. The child on the other hand will some day possess these vir­ tues, but now is only in the process of acquiring them. He has them as "not personal to himself, but relative to the fuTIV dfevaiopecfbelng, that is. the p<=-T»s£Lti_in..jmthnrïtÿ over Elm.11 This is true also of the slave, "hia virtue also is in relation to the master, that is thë~slavé is able to remain virtuous only under his mas- ter*s control. Why this is the case is apparent only if ltïs~rêmémbered that prudence perfects and preserves the virtues, and the slave is deficient in this, like the child. His virtues however are of an extremely hum­ ble character: And we laid it down that the slave is serviceable for the mere necessaries of life, so that he clearly needs only a small amount of virtue, in fact Just enough to prevent him. from, failing in his tasks owing to intemperance and cowardice.^ ■ Î ! / I The slave’s love of pleasure, and his fear of pain must not render him unable to carry out the servile arts* I ? 1 r I I I 15. Ethics, IH, 10, 1117b and S.Th., I-II, q..61, a.2 on the dlvislon of the moral virtues. lb. Politics, I, v, 1260a. See also HI, 11, 1277b. 15. Politics, v, 1260a. 16. Ibid,, v, 1260a. ΒΚΒΕ / 80/ THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY which are his function. _ The slave will not develop theea.. virtues of hi a nwn accord, they must be produced in him by the guidance of the master:- It is manifest therefore that the master ought to he to the slave the cause of the virtue proper to a slave, hut not as possessing that art of mastership which teaches a slave his tasks Λθ This makes very clear the character of the household rule. The master does not direct the slave in his ser­ vile arts, nlnrr the dl-reetinn of them is also servile, but he does direct him in the prudential order, since to create virtue in another is a liberal occupation,^ as is the use of property for the immediate needs of life., The labor of the farmer is illiberal though it includes the management of animals, but the guidance of slaves has a certain liberal character. Since however the slave is capable only of the least virtues, this is an unimportant liberal function, and for this reason men wisely have stewards to perform most of it. The steward’s function is to execute the master’s commands, but the final decision must come back to the master, who alone has true prudence. Might it not be said that Aristotle does not mean to go even this far, since he frequently compares the slave to the animal in such passages as the follow­ ing? The usefulness of slaves diverges little from that of animals;/bodily service for the necessities of life is forthcoming from both slaves and from domestic animals alike.2° I?. The Economics I, U, IJhUa indicates that the slave must not have the spirited kind of courage appropriate to masters, but a fortitude which endures hardship. 18. Politics, v, 1260b. 19. Ibis is Aristotle’s (as well as Plato’s) own description of the function of a liberal man and citizen, he is "an artificer of virtue." Politics, VU, Till, 1329a; Republic, 500d. 20. Politics, I, 11, 125*b. THE EXPEDIENCY OF NATURAL SLAVERY Against this are two facts: (1) The slave is discussed along with wife and child, and their virtues are refer­ red to collectively and in Identical terms. The virtues of all three subordinates are compared with those of the master and are said to have a similar character. (2) Aristotle in the Politics and Ethics does not use the term virtue (άρετη) for anything except human virtues. Greek usage indeed applied the term to almost any excel­ lence including that of animals.Aristotle comes nearest this in attributing φρονησις or prudence to the higher animals, but here he is avowedly referring simply to common speech.22 He gays in another place ,fA brute animal has no vice or virtue and neither does a God." This is because virtue is for him an exact term refer­ ring to voluntary actions of beings who can be otherwise than they are. The sign of the human character of the slave's virtue which Aristotle gives is as follows: Hence those persons are mistaken who deprive the slave of reasoning and tell us to use command only; for admonition is more properly employed with slaves than with children.2^ Thus the slave is to be made to act not only by simply apprehending ,the command (as Aristotle mentioned^before) but also because the master has shown him a certain rea· sonableness in his commands. Aristotle thus attributes to the slave the vir­ tues which are appropriate for the kind of soul which is necessary for the slave functions, a soul which has the appetitive part and the calculative part sufficient for servile art, but who lacks a development of the pruden­ tial part of the calculative power, and the speculative part.25 He is thus the lowest human type, since a per­ son of pure appetite would be an animal. He is capable 21. See W. Jaeger, Paideia, The Ideals of Greek Culture, J. 22. Ethics, VI, 7, llhla. W. Jaeger, Aristotle, 85 who holds that this passage is a trace of Aristotle’s earlier work, since lat­ er he usedtppovpOLC strictly. 23. Ethics, VII, 1, HU5a; vii,'llUgb. 2H. Politics, I, v, 1260b. ----------------- _____ 25. On the parts of the soul aee/dSthice, VI, 1138a-39b. 82 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY of virtue however only relatively, since his master supplies the prudential guidance necessary to temper his appetites. St. Thomas, having in mind the thought of the Stoics and of Christianity on the subject, had a much more fully developed view of the kinds of virtue possi­ ble to the man of humble intellect who does not direct his own life. These however are connected with the idea of the natural limitations on slavery which will be discussed later.26 Here it is important to see that Aristotle has implicitly introduced a certain limita­ tion of the master’s right over the slave. Man can use animals and irrational creatures generally without any limitation except in his own nature, the reasonableness of his own action in making use of them for some end. But if we say that the ruler is to produce virtue in his subject, then we limit his use of the subject by the nature of the subject itself. The master does not teach the slave to cook well, but he guides him to live temperately, and what is temperate depends on the human nature of the subject. Aristotle does not in any way develop the important consequences of this principle which logically concludes to what we now call "natural rights." Natural rights however are practically mean­ ingless unless it is granted that the subject may re­ sist a command of the master which is contrary to vir­ tue. Aristotle shows no conception of such an idea, but as will be seen, it appears strongly in Thomistic thought. No doubt he would have thought the idea con­ trary to the ideal condition in which the judgement about virtue procedes from the virtuous and wise master, and the submission comes from the virtuous but unwise slave. How is it possible for the slave to know better than the master? It is just because he has a less per­ fect prudential judgement that he is a slave. Robert Schlaifer in an interesting article has written: •t 3 ί 3 The necessary granting of psyche to the slave really indicates that his relation to his master should have been defined as that of the reasonable part of the 26. Chapter I, post. THE EXPEDIENCY OF NATURAL SLAVERY 83 soul to the unreasonable, absolute ( βασιλική) but nonarbitrary (πολίτικη ).27 But this presses the analogy too far. Aristotle it is true says "the slave is part of the master—he is as it vere a part of the body, alive yet separate from it," but this does not deny the slave psychical powers.28 Khat is important is that with respect to the master, the slave’s function is characteristically bodily, the servile arts. The wife supplements her husband with respect to the higher virtues, but the slave only in the lowest. The familiar tripartite division of the soul by Plato is reflected here.29 The slave has the lover appetites, the free subordinates the higher as veil, the slave has a lower fortitude than that of the freeman. Because the slave's function and capacity is the lowest and of the body as compared with the other functions which have an essentially liberal character, he is ruled like the body rather than like the appe­ tites. The. master does not move him at will of course, but relatively speaking the rule is like that over the body, rather than like that over the appetites. The desires rightly prompt the intellect, and the wife her husband, but the body only obeys, and the slave only obeys. THE COMMON GOOD OF THE MASTER AND SLAVE The most difficult problem of all concerning the expediency of slavery remains'. St. Thomas in a fa­ mous passage tells us why slavery is a painful thing which men avoid: The slave in this differs from, the free man that the latter is his own cause, a slave however is ordered to another. So that one man is master of another as his slave when he refers the one whose master he is, to his 27. Bobert Schlaifer, "Greek Theories of Slavery from Hamer to Aristotle," Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, l»y, (1956) 165-201», 195. 28. Politics, I, 1255b. 29. Republic, IV, 1»55B. 84 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY own--namely the master’s use. And. since every man’s prop­ er good is desirable to himself, and consequently It is a grievous matter to anyone to yield to another what ought to he his own, therefore such a dominion implies of neces­ sity a pain on the part of the subjects.. .But anyone is ruled by another as a freeman when he directs him to the proper good of him who is directed, or to the common good.30■ · Here he makes a distinction which, is certainly Aristo­ telian in principle and which .is of great help in under­ standing Aristotle’s text. A man has a private good and he also participates jn the common good of which he.is an element, the common good of those societies, of which lie is a member, chiefly the household and the state. When he works for his own good he is doing what is sim­ ply natural and essentially pleasant, but also when he is working for the common good he is following a natural Impulse. Although he may have to make personal sacri­ fices for that common good, it is natural that he should do so. St. Thomas, however, implies that the slave can­ not seek his private good nor a common good of which he is a participant. What does Aristotle say? For he that can foresee with his mind ie natural­ ly ruler and naturally master, and he that can work with his body is subject and naturally a slave; so that the master and slave have the same interest.31 There is a certain community of interest and friendship between slave and master in cases when they have been qualified by nature for those positions, al­ though when they do not hold them in that way but by law and by constraint of farce the opposite is the case.32 The authority of a master over a slave, although in truth when both master and slave are designed by na­ ture for their positions their interests are the seme, nevertheless governs in greater degree with a view to the interest of the master, but incidentally with a view 30. 8.Th., I, 4.96, a.4, c. 31. Politica, I, 1, 1252a. 32. Ibid,, I, 11, 1255b. THE EXPEDIENCY OF NATURAL SLAVERY 85 to that of the slave, for if the slave deteriorates the position of the master cannot he saved from, injury.55 But he has just said that this , is not the case in the rule over the rest of the household: But authority over children and wife and over the whole household, which we call the art of household management, is exercised either in the interest of those ruled, or for some common interest of "both pairties, —es­ sentially in the interest of those ruled, as we see that the other arts also, like medicine and athletic training are pursued in the interest of those on whcim they are practiced.5^ And to these texts we must add the still more puzzling passage in the Ethics : .. .where there is nothing common to ruler and ruled, there is not friendship either, since there is not Jus­ tice, e.g., Between craftsman and tool, soul and Body, master and slave; the latter in each case is henefitted By that which uses' it, hut there is no friendship nor Justice towards lifeless things. But neither is there friendship towards a horse or an ox, nor to a slave qua slave. Ear there is nothing common to the two parties; the slave is a living tool and the tool a lifeless slave. Qua slave then, one cannot he friends with him. But qua man one can; for there seems to be some Justice between any man and any other who can share In a system of law or be party to an agreement; therefore there can also be friendship with him insofar as he is a man. 55 Thia last passage is very famous, and a very astute critic Ernest Barker has seen in it a confession on Ar­ istotle’s part of the inconsistency of his slave theory with human nature: 33. Ibid., HI, iv, 1278b. 34. Politics, HI, iv, 1278b. 35. Ethics, ΤΠΙ, 11, 1161a. ΊΜβ is paralleled by the Eudemi an Ethics, VH, lx, 12hlb in which it is said of body and soul, mantor' and slave, etc., that they are one as a whole and a part, and hence have "no good divisible between them." ί (λ fl 86 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY If the slave can be treated as a man in any re­ spect, he ought to be treated as a man in all; and the admission that he can be regarded as a man destroys that conception of his wholly slavish and non-rational (one might say non-human) character, which was the one justi­ fication of his being treated as a slave.56 We seem to have in this series of passages first the claim that the master-slave relation is a partnership or κοινωνία like any other for a common interest or good, as the union of man and -wife is for the common good called family life. Next we have the statement that this is useful to both only when the master is a natural master and the slave a natural slave, and this community of interest is called a "friendship.” Then we have the crucial statement that the rule over the slave differs from the rule over the other members of the family because it is for the good of the miler first, and the good of the slave incidentally. Finally we discover from the Ethics that there can be no friendI ship with a slave qua slave, although he has said that I the relation is most perfect when the slave is most ■H s i: I truly a slave. i i I This last point requires to be cleared up first. The reason that the master and slave are not friends is due to an inequality between them, but it is not neces­ sary in the context of Aristotle’s discussion that this inequality be one of essential nature. He has just dis­ cussed the friendship of unequals and shown that it is possible only when some equality comes first and the If the "basic Inequality of merit comes secondarily equality is not attained there is no friendship. Thus man and the gods cannot be friends, and ...it is clear also in the case of kings; for with them too, men who are much their inferiors do not expect to "be friends; nor do men of no account expect to be friends ■with the -wisest and best men. In such cases it is not possible to define exactly up to -what point friends re­ main friends; for much can be taken away and friendship }6. Ϊ. Barker, The Political Thoutdit of Plato and Aristotle, 356. R. Schlalfer, loc. clt., lÿ» believes that Aristotle is quite consistent on this point. THE EXPEDIENCY OF NATURAL SLAVERY 87 remain, tut when one party is removed to a great dis­ tance, as God is, the possibility of friendship ceases.57 It is thus possible to say that there is no friendship between master and slave in most of the things of life since their qualities are so different, as "the man of no account" and the wise man, but there is nevertheless thé basic equality that both are rational beings who can enter into agreements. Thus a man who makes him­ self voluntarily a slave or who comes to submit willing­ ly has a friendship with his master as far as the bene­ fits which both receive. In this way the slave is a friend qua man, not as .a person of virtue or intelli­ gence, t>üt~3Îinÿly as being capable of agreement or com­ mon purpose with the master. Something more however is implied in comparing the slave again to an instrument, and this is evident from another passage in the Politics .which does not mention the slave, but has a parallel interest: As in other natural compounds the conditions of a compos­ ite whole are not necessarily organic parts of it, so in a state or in any other combination forming a unity not everything is a part, which is a necessary condition. The members of an association have necessarily some one thing the seme and common to all in which they share equally or unequally... .But where there are two things of which one is a TOftHTia and the other an end, they have nothing in ccsmmsn except that the one receives what the other pro­ duces.... And bo states require property but property even though living beings are included in it, is no part of a state; for a state is not a community of living beings only, but a comnunlty of equals, aiming at the best life possible. 5® Th1a touches on the heart of the Aristotelian conception nf the highest life of the state. its true alm, is possible only for some and it is their function in the state to live this life. Not all do~so equally, but all who do in any measure are citizens, es­ sential members of that good. Those who cannot are not 37. Ethics, VHT, 7, U59b· 38. Politics, TH, vll, 1328a, (Jowett-Boas translation). 88 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY essential parts, "but they are nevertheless indispensa­ ble, each living as good a life as is possible for bls nature, and receiving advantages from the existence of the higher parts of the state. In Aristotle's ideal state these "indispensable" but not essential parts are the slaves.59 . ' The slaves hove ver live in the Jigas ehold--and thl s fact is probably the key to the many puzzles in the passages quoted. The household life has an end of its" own, thè~Hâily life, but this daily life is itself a means to Produce the free citizen. The master re­ quires the household in order to live and to be set free for the truly good life of the state. His share in the household life is also a liberal one, since he directs its prudentlally. His wife too shares in a liberal way as she shares in direction. To the child this life is a means to make him a liberal man. What about the slave? It is clear that he shares in the _h.pusehold life in some manner; he is a "partner in his .master's life," in a way which distinguishes him from the "artisan; ~He gA-ltlS Security, certain~pleasures, the lower virtues, and an instrumental participation in the masterLa -prudence by which he is able ΐό~~ι1βγβίαρί-βο<ί preserve these virtues. He is even capable of a cer­ tain friendship based on his mere humanity, and power to consent to his position. Finally he performs the servile arts. These things all belong to daily life, but what is liberal about daily life, direction, and deliberation, he cannot have, except as he is placed over other slaves, and then he has It only instrumen­ tally and relatively to the master. It is clear then that in one sense the slave shares in a common good with the master, the lower daily lif e. This is stressed in the First Book l·)? the -politics when the household is under discussion, as we have seen. But the passage quoted from Book III con- 39. The free artisans are also such indispensable but non-essential parts, but as is observed post. Chapter TUI, it 1b not clear that Aristotle really approves of such a class in the ideal state. It is mare probable that even their -work should, be done by slaves who belong to a master. THE EXPEDIENCY OF NATURAL SLAVERY trasts the slaves’ position to that of the wife and .. child, in order to explain the nature of the rule over free persons. The wife and child in some way aim at the liberal life and the husband supplies their defects by raising them toward that life, by letting his wife advise him, and by educating the child. But the slave is incapable of rising to that life in either way, con­ sequently he must be ruled for the master’s good which rises to the good of the state, rather than for his own. Everything in the household must serve the good J of^the~master~în~ôrder to serve the~good of the state. I The master, wife, and child serve the state by being f somehow of its essential rgHitami highsi—virtues; but the slave (and also the artisan). can serve it only mediately, by setting free the liber al members~0f~t~He housêhold~for~~Îhat llffe. ~~~ " : To summarize it can be said that with respect the lover life of the household, the dally life of the appetlties controlled by virtues, and of the use and acquiring of material goods, the slave is a participant, and the rule is to his advantage. But as to the higher life of the state he is only a means, and in this sense the master rules him for the master’s good first, since the master participates directly in the life of the city. This is Aristotle’s picture of the ideal slave. As an abstract description it appears today far from the reality of the common working people as we know them, the farmer who manages his own household rather well, the proletarian who votes about as Intelligently as the college professor, and who understands something of scientific interests. C. H. McIlwain says optimisti­ cally: ' The true solution Hee not in denying him the cltltenehlp for which a lack of leisure must unfit him, hut rather in achieving an economic order which will itself ensure that leisure without retarding the work of the world.4*0 40. The growth of political thought in the vest, 70. -ί 90 . ill ?! It I •I ( THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY But It seems to me that the difficulty is rather in the aristocratic idealism of Greek political thought. Aris­ totle’s slave would be very well off in a state whose common life was so sublime as to be above the capaci­ ties of the ordinary servile worker, in which the heads of the households were philosophers. This however has never been the case, and Christianity has made us un­ derstand why this is not likely to be the case. Be­ cause of Aristotle’s lofty and unreal idea of the citi­ zen, he has not bothered himself with the real question of the servile classes: Given humanity as it is, not given to a properly human life of contemplation, or of prudence, but Interested rather in pleasure, and in the technical improvements that Increase pleasure, how are men to be protected from each other and turned to es­ sential goods? We know that Aristotle’s master would not· be the cause of virtue to his slave, but would show himself worse than a slave in selfishness, greed, and brutality.The history of slavery shows that, We know that slavery would not set him free for the llberal life, but for one of Idleness and meaningless belllgerence. Aristotle did not see how much there is of human worth and truly human capacity in the least of humanity, because he was blinded by the contrast of that real man with his ideal citizen, with the picture of the philosopher king. The theologian could have set him straight. ΑύΛ. i 111. Of coarse Aristotle shows hUaself well aware that his ideal state is nowhere realized., but it ie a beet "possible" state in which he is interested. Moreover the fault mentioned. is much more evident in the treatment of slavery thaÿ in most portions of the foiltics. Chapter Vil) ARISTOTLE AND CONVENTIONAL SLAVERY Aristotle tells us little about the details ei­ ther of the slavery of his own tines or of the natural slavery which he proposes. He could not have Imagined that all the slaves he saw about him were natural slaves, moreover he admitted that at least the outward signs of the naturally servile character were sometimes deceptive. Even heredity was no safe guarantee; since he agrees with Plato that the Iron father may have a silver son, and the silver father an iron son.1 The gap between the theoretical description, of the natural slave and the practical Institution is thus one of the most striking features of the theory. M. Defourny has recently made an Interesting ..." attempt to explain how Aristotle thought that this gap between theory and practice should be closed.® Aristot­ le, he explains, realized that the existence of a large group of servile laborers was an economic necessity. However these workers could not be recruited from the Greeks for two reasons. First because th» r.nopl·’' were naturallyliberalmen to whom servile work was unsuitableandwho ^ealized_gr ought to have realized that^.. fact; secondly, because of the lack of a money economy, ·*· ther.e_.was no way of paying the necessary wages as in­ ducement s for free laborers.. Consequently slavery was., the only solution, These slaves however, Aristotle be­ lleved','ought not to be taken from the Greeks who would not submit to It willing and ought not to be made to submit to it, but from the barbarians who were used to tyranny and servitude, not well able to resist it, and1 2 1. Politics, I, 11, 1255a; Republic, IU, U15C. 2. M. Defourny# Aristote; Etudes sur la Politique, 27-5θ·' 91 92 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY ■who finally were "naturally slaves. But even then the problem remained. On the one hand Aristotle knew that some of them were not "naturally slaves, " a per­ centage were capable of the liberal life.^ To enslave them would be both unjust and dangerous, since intelli­ gent and spirited slaves would be the cause of dissen­ tions. On the other hand there was the problem of in­ ducing even the natural slaves to work diligently and peacefully. Aristotle discovered a simple method of solving both problems. If the slaves were offered free­ dom for doing their work well, this would act both as an Inducement for diligence and also as a test of their in­ telligence. Those.whose efforts proved them to be of more than servile capacity would be liberated, and this actual liberation would serve as a continual hope even for those not so gifted.5 Thus the actual slave popula­ tion would more and more approach the natural ideal, on­ ly those naturally slaves remaining In that status. In this way the theory which demands the enslavement only of those naturally fit for slavery, and the practical Institution of enslavement by war would tend to coincide. This argument probably represents the mind of Aristotle correctly, though it must be admitted that it rests oh a single phrase in the Politics, "How slaves would be employed and why it Is advantageous that all slaves should have their freedom set before them as a reward, we shall say later.This Isolated sentence is somewhat reinforced by a reference in the pseudo­ Aristotelian Economics.7 Aristotle’s practical solutio thus rests primarily on the common belief that barbar-j Ians are of a servile temperament. This geo-political I theory is elaborated for the world which he knew by ' Aristotle as follows: — 3· On the Greek view of the Barbarians see R. Schlalfer, "Greek Theories of Slavery from Homer to Aristotle," Harvard. Studies Classical Philology, 47 (1936), 165-204. “ ——— 4. Politics, I, 11, 1255a. 5. Politics, VII, lx, 1330a. 6. Ibid., VU, lx, 1330a. 7. I, 4, 1334a. aristotleandconventional slavery ' Let us now speak of what ought to be the citi­ zen’s natural character. Now this one might almost dis­ cern by looking at the famous cities of Greece and by ob­ serving how the whole inhabited world is divided up among the nations. The nations inhabiting the cold places and those of Europe are full of spirit but somewhat deficient in intelligence and skill, so that they continue compara­ tively free, but lacking in political organization and capacity to rule their neighbors. The peoples of Asia on the other hand are Intelligent and skillful in tempera­ ment but lack spirit, so that they are in continuous sub­ jection and slavery. But the Greek race participates in both characters, just as it occupies the middle position geographically, for it is both spirited and intelligent; hence it continues to be free and to have very good po­ litical institutions, and to be capable of ruling all mankind If it attains to constitutional unity. The same diversity also exists among the Greek races compared with one another; some have a one-sided nature, others are happily blended in regard to both these capacities.® To this may be added the remarks in Book I which assert that as a matter of fact the Barbarians are commonly enslaved by tyrants and treat their women and children as slaves,9 and similar remarks in the discussion of tyrannies.8 1011 These views of Aristotle were not a mere * acceptance of popular national prejudice; they were strengthened by scientific conjectures of his day. We find in the work called the Problemata such a question as this: Why ere those who live under conditions of excessive cold or heat brutish in character and aspect? Is the cause the in both cases? For the best mixtures of conditions befit the mind as well as the body, but excesses of all kinds cause disturbance, and, as they distort the body, so they pervert the mental temperament.Ü 8. 91°. 11. Politica, VÜ, vi, 1527b. Ibid., I, 1, 1252b. Ibid., HI, lx, 1285a. Politica, VII, vl, 1527b. As Westermann suggests, "Sklaverei Pauly-WiBBQwa, Supplement Band VI, col. 927, Hippocrates sup­ plies evidence that the Greeks had very elaborate ideas of the Λ -s* 94 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY It is interesting to compare this, to us, exaggerated belief in the affect of environment on character, with the geo-political ideas at the time of St. Thomas. St. Albertus Magnus with evident scientific interest en­ forces Aristotle’s words in such passages by referring to biological ..theories found in Aristotle’s other writ­ ings.* 12 St. Thomas in Chapter 2 of the Second Book of 4 : -J £ 1 i I’ ί I; his portion of De Regimine Principum discusses the proper site for a city at great length, in order to in­ sure a climate favorable for the good life. But the continuator of St. Thomas’ Commentary on the Politics attempted to resolve the evident difficulty which a Eu­ ropean felt in agreeing that Europeans are so debased by nature.1? His views are probably those of St. Thomas in this respect since they agree very well with St. Thomas’ remarks on the effects of the stars on temperament.1^ The continuator points out that it is hard to see how the Greeks are the only natural rulers since the Persians and the Chaldeans, although Asiatics, had very great Empires, and the Romans, although Europeans, ruled much longer than the Greeks. Consequently he makes three qualifications to Aristotle’s observation: (1) Climates and their effects are dependent on celestial or astrological influences and these change from age to age, so that a region once favorable may became unfavorable for virtue, and vice versa. (2) A region which is naturally cold or hot be­ cause of the zone in which it lies, may have its cli­ mate much modified by the presence of mountains or the sea. (3) Although geographical conditions undoubted­ ly have a dispositive effect on the body and senses, and hence on temperament, nevertheless the will and j-. 12. IJ. 1H. ■ ■ (Footnote continued) effect of regime and exercise on the body, temperament, and the virtues. In his treatise "On Airs, Waters and Places" Hippocrates explains that Asiatics have soft and servile temperaments because of the climate, and their habitual occupations. In Polit., VU, c.5; also I, c.J. m Polit., VU, lectio 5. 3.Th., Ι-U, q.9, a.5> o; and the opusculum Da Judiciis astrorum and Fratrem Heglnaldiaa. ARISTOTLE AND CONVENTIONAL SLAVERY 95 intellect remain free, so. that a people that cultivate virtue may overcome every handicap, while those who cultivate vice, like the Romans may lose their power. These sensible medieval objections are quite sufficient as a criticism of Aristotle's view, and the third of them wholly adequate as a criticism of determinism and racialism. It may be asked however whether the de­ struction of his geo-political argument destroys the theory of natural slavery. It certainly largely removes Aristotle’s practical solution, but it does not alter the general analysis. Moreover he might have defended himself as Imperialists have done by arguing'that even If the primitive peoples are not innately servile, they are in fact fit only for enslavement until such time as education and civilization have raised them to a posi­ tion where they can be freed. This argument was strengthened for Aristotle by the fact that primarily he had in mind the adult slave, since, as we have seen, there was little trade in child slaves. It might be charged moreover that Aristotle is Inconsistent here in calling the Asiatics "intelligent" and then enslaving them. But as Professor Schlalfer has pointed out, Aristotle intended to attribute to them simply an artistic cleverness, not the prudential wisdom which is the main mark of the free man. 3-5 They are per­ haps Aristotle’s ideal slaves since the northern ones are too wild and fierce to be either safe or useful. In any case, however, his practical theory de­ pended also on his interpretation of conventional slav­ ery. Was there any justice in first enslaving men be­ fore it"w^ certain that they were naturally slaves? The objections which he was trying to answer were based pre­ cisely on the fact that enslavement in war as it was practiced seemed often to lead to gross Injustices. Aristotle’s answers to these objections are very ob­ scure, partly because of textual difficulties.Ip These objections were principally three; (1) enslavement by force "IÇ^just because justice is the will of the strong- 15. B. Schlalfer, loc. cit.. 193, note 7. 16. Politice, I, 11, 1255a-55b. B. Schlalfer, loc. cit.. Appendix, 202-20U h R; “"■““■•WMBWMBBlieBBlBiBBHBBBiiaeia^HMrt 96 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY of force, (?) slavery is just because it is prescribed by the laws of war. Modern editors and translators such as Newman, Jowett, and RackhanP-T, though they differ in details, take the general sense of the passage to be as follows : .Aristotle finds some truth in all these posi­ tions. It is true that the law of war which enslaves the conquered means the rule of the stronger, and that in this way servitude arises by force rather than from the mutual Interests of master and slave. On the other hand he argues that the use of force is entirely com­ patible with virtue since power Itself is a kind of vir­ tue.' Consequently the mere fact that a man has been en­ slaved by force does not prove that he is not rightly a slave. «Thus far the Interpretation agrees fairly well with that of St. Albert and St. Thomas.I The modern edi­ tors however indicate that Aristotle coneludes_hy_saying that ..conventional . s-lAvermis thus in the ftnal-nnalysl-S^ just only when it results in the enslavement of him who. is naturally a slave, although this may take place ac­ cording to the law of war, i.e., by force, as veil as. ~T6r~mutual advantage. The problem however was simpli­ fied for Aristotle because for him a war of Greek against Barbarian was just, and the Barbarian captives almost all natural slaves, while war of Greek against Greek was unjust, and the victims were naturally free and unjustly enslaved. St. Albert and St. Thomas however regard this passage as a more abstract attempt to give a qualified justification to the law of war as such, to justify this form of conventional slavery apart from the ques­ tion of the natural slave altogether. They suppose that when Aristotle begins by saying that those who op­ pose his theory of natural slavery have some right on their side, he Intends to agree in some way that not all slaves are naturally slaves, and then to prove that they can rightfully be held by another title. St. Thom­ as writes: 17· Se® the translations and. notes of the two latter, and. Newnan’s The Politics of Aristotle, 139f· 18. On Aristotle's concern for peace among the Greeks see Defourny, Aristote; Etude sur la politique, Chapter V. ARISTOTLE AND CONVENTIONAL SLAVERY 97 Since it 1b not just according to nature that certain ones conquered, by an enemy should, he slaves, for very of­ ten it happens that wise men are conquered, hy the stupid, he eays that this is not absolutely just; but it is for the convenience of human life. For this is beneficial both to the conquered because due to this they are spared and they may at least live as subjects, hence from their having been spared they are called servi. And it is ben­ eficial too, to those who conquer, because due to this, men are aroused to fight more bravely. The fact that there are some courageous fighters is a benefit to human relations for holding in check the malice of many. But if human law had been able to determine efficiently who vere better in mind and determine them without a doubt following nature, it would have established them as mas­ ters, but because this could not be done, the law ac­ cepted that sign of preeminence, namely, the victory it­ self which comes from a certain superiority .of bravery, ... and therefore it decided that victors should be masters ~ of those who are conquered. And so this is said to be r Just relatively as it was possible for the law to be established; but it is not absolutely Just. And yet the i virtuous man must serve according to his mental ability; > because since the common good is better than the private " good of one along, that which- agrees with the public good must not be infringed even though it may not be agreeable to some private person. ^9 St. Thomas thus understood Aristotle to defend the law of war as such, apart from the question of Greek and Barbarian. But this, valuable as it is in helping us to understand the medieval theory, is probably an adapta­ tion of Aristotle to a time when the opposition of Greek and Barbarian no longer existed. What was familiar to St. Thomas was rather the Roman lawyer’s idea of the laws of war. The idea that the slave who is too good for his position must serve as well as possible for the common good is undoubtedly a reflection of Christian and Stoic ideas, rather than those of Aristotle. St. Thomas himself believed, as will be seen later, that only the victims who were guilty in the war could be justly en­ slaved. 19· In Polit., I, lectio b. V . 98 THE THEORY OF RATORAL SLAVERY . \L Aristotle also believed that wars might be carwrled on against Barbarians for the specific purpose of making slaves; he says: The science of acquiring slaves is different both from . their ownership and. their direction—that is, the Just acquiring of slaves, which is akin to the art of war or that of the chase.20 If therefore nature makes nothing without purpose or in vain it follows that nature has made all animals for the sake of men. Hence even the art of war will by nature be in a manner an art of acquisition (for the art of hunting is part of it) that is properly employed both against wile animal s and. against such of. mankind as though de­ signed for subjection by nature refuse to submit to it, inasmuch as this warfare is by nature Just.2^ In these passages so inhuman in tone, Aristotle departs from the opinion of Plato who forbade the reduction of freemen to slavery by kidnapping, because he feared it would be turned against Greeks, and that in any case the trade would be debasing.?? St. Thomas In commenting on this passage does not Sëèm to comprehend that enslav­ ing expeditions are probably meant, but takes It simply as a further reference to the law of war.23 it was not < !' . ? until the time of La Casas and Vittoria that theologians girded themselves to expose the hypocrisy of military marauders who pretended that their victims were better off enslaved.2* From the Politics we gather no special informa­ tion about enslavement as a civil punishment or for debt. Presumably Aristotle agreed with the Solonlc law forbid­ ding enslavement for debt25 and with Plato in not using it as a punishment for free Greeks.26 Politics,·I, il, 1255b. Ibid., I, ill, 1256b. laws, TH, 823c. See G. Morrow’s Plato’s law of Slavery, 23· In Polit., I, Lectio 6. See J. Eppsteln, The Catholic Tradition of the law of Hations, passim, especially the translations of portions of Vittoria’s De Indlls, l»35f. 25. See Aristotle’s Atheniensium Respublica, vi. 26. G. Morrow, op. clt., 23· 20. 21. 22. 23. 2U. ( i s/:· ARISTOTLE AND CONVENTIONAL SLAVERY ί·1. -r THE REGULATION OF THE SLAVE CLASS Aristotle1s special remarks about the regulation of the slaves and their place in the state as one of its classes are readily Intelligible in light of the general theory which has been discussed. He disapproves of the admis 31on_o£~ any part of the working class to. citizen-' they are. naturally fitted for their tasks then„they_are_ unfit for liberal dutlesT2^ in his ideal state he wishes the farm work to be done by slaves, and if that is not possible then at least by serfs, who are aliens.29 He sees in license for the-slaves and the working class a mark of the disorder produced by tyran­ nies. The disenfranchisement of slave or of the chil­ dren of slaves he regards as a natural sign of improve­ ment in the condition of a state.30 All these details are in agreement with his basic position that the state... isjbest ordered· when the, functions and the people fitted for the functions are sharply distinguished. Moreover since the working population is to be guided by the ruling class it is essential that they be prevented from disorders. For this reason he is strongly against the Spartan and Thessalian system of . helots, or publicly owned native serfs who can conspire with other countries, to overthrow their masters.31 He is also significantly opposed to the proposal found in Plato's Republic that farmers should be made owners of their land, since this removes them from the control of masters.32 In spite of his belief that slaves are to be made virtuous after their capacity, he wishes free chil­ dren to be kept free of contamination' by servants33 and believes that too great familiarity with them is a bad thing.3^ From the pseudo-Aristotellan Economics we 27. Politics, m, 11, 1277b; 111, 1278a. 28. Ibid., n, 11, 1265b. 29. Ibid.., VI, 11, 1519b; V, lx, 1515b. 50. ibid., hi, H, 1278a. 51. Ibid., II, ▼, 1269a. 52. Ibid., II, 11, 126Ha; Republic, HI, U16D, U17B. 35. Ibid., VII, xv, 1556b. 3*»· Ibid·., H, 11, 1265a. ιιιμιιμιΐΒΐΙΒΒΜΙ ’4 ■ Ï gather that the master is to be very prudent about feed­ ing and caring for his slaves, distributing benefits and punishments in such a way as to improve their work and keep them contented. He is to allow them to marry and have children as an incentive to contentment, and the better class of slaves are to be given some recognition for their work as well as a promise of freedom.55 Aristotle finishes his discussion of the slave by Indicating his place in the ideal state. Some have seen a difficulty In that the First Book of the Polities treats the slave as purely domestic and useful for con­ sumption, while in his discussion of the Ideal state, Aristotle makes the most productive class, the farmers, all slaves, and he admits public slaves.56 ,, r .λ — ... ~ · ■ » . . It is necessary therefore for the land, to be di­ vided. into two parts, of which one must be common and the other the private property of individuale; and each of these two divisions must be divided into two. Of the common land one portion should be assigned to the servic­ es of religion, and the other to defray the cost of the common meals. Ihose who are to cultivate the soil should be best of all, if the ideal system is to be stat­ ed, be slaves, not drawn from people all of one tribe nor of a spirited character (for thus they would be both ser­ viceable for their work and safe to abstain from insur­ rection) but as a second best they should be alien serfs of a similar nature. Of these labourers those in private employment must be among the private possessions of the estates, and those working on the common land, common property.37 In the VII-th Book the discussion of the classes of the Ideal state makes it clear that the farmers are to be slaves,58 put the position of the artisans is very illdefined. It is only said that they will not possess property.59 I believe that it is not unreasonable to Economics, I, iv, llÿ’a. H. Schlaifer, loc. cit., 192 note 2. Politics, VU, lx, 1330a. Politics, VU, lx, 1330a· Also the arguments against Plato’s opposite axrangeaents, Politics, H, 11, 1261a. 39. Ibid., VU, till, 1329a. 35· 36. 3738. ARISTOTLE AND CONVENTIONAL SLAVERY 101 that Aristotle believed that the best arrangement would be to reduce all servile workers to slavery. It seems the logical conclusion of the First Book. Aris­ totle does not agree with Plato's allowing freedom to the farmers and there is no reason he should agree in allowing freedom to the higher artisans. It is not con­ tradictory to believe that the slave is to be a producer on the farm and an artisan because, although he is a "tool of doing" not a "tool of making," nevertheless, as we have seen, he can exercise the productive arts as long as he remains an instrument with respect to action, i.e., his life.^° He is a maker in the artistic order, think ( but he is an Instrument of doing with regard to the life of the household. In this way every worker would be ei­ ther public or domestic, i.e., inside the household units which would not be very large in Aristotle's tem­ perate state. As for the public slaves they will be by turns under the citizens who are ruling and these citi­ zens necessarily possess the household art. Hence the slave will receive the same advantages as if he were in the household. Moreover these public services probably had a more liberal character than many of the other tasks, since they included the service of the temple, and the games, etc.^l Thus we have Aristotle's practical conclusion from his theoretical analysis, the servile worker is to live under a household management, as a part of his mas­ ter incidentally sharing in the household life. The public slave is in the same position except that he works on public land under changing masters. In all this we see one interest predominating, to divide the tasks of the state in such a way, that the highest can be that of the entirely liberal life of governance and contemplation. Aristotle's thought Itself is wholly no­ ble in this ideal of the perfect citizen, but is there any nobility in seeing in the worker a being of little Interest for the science of society, and of little account in the truly human life?..... l»0. See Chapter V, ante. t .· .·. ··· 111. See the discussion of the publié ^âlejreh.'of rAthôfts and. referenc­ es in Chapter U, ante. ... ..... Chapter IX ST. THOMAS AND SLAVERY AS A CONSEQUENCE OF SIN Did. St. Thomas fundamentally alter the Aristo­ telian theory of natural slavery?1 We have seen that he makes many references throughout his work to it and without special criticism. We must now examine his ex professo treatment of the question. This is contained in his answers to two theological questions: (1) "Wheth­ er in the state of innocence man had dominion over man," which is discussed both in the Commentary on the Second / Book of the Sentences, d.44, q.l, a.3, and in the later Λ. Summa Theologica, q.96, a.4, and (2) the questions con- cerning slavery as an impediment in receiving the Sacra­ ments of Holy Orders and of Matrimony in the Commentary on the Fourth Book of the Sentences, d.25, q.l, a. 2 and and d.36, q.l, a.l, etc. The character of these two questions makes very evident the sort of difficulty with which St. Thomas was faced. I The institution of slavery and serfdom was a social fact whose legality was recog­ nized by Church and State. But Aristotle’s theory taken as an analysis of that institution made two very direct conflicts with theology. First there was the fact that the Fathers had universally held that slavery was the result of sin, while Aristotle said it was natural.1 2 1 Secondly Christian doctrine and practice recognized in every human being not only a personal dignity but cer­ tain absolute rights, conferred on him by both the di-, vine and the natural law. 1. For references to authors who hold, that St. Thomas was In funda­ mental disagreement with Aristotle see ante, Chapter IV, note 1. For the opposite view t&hfi George O’Brien, An Essay on Medieval Economic Teaching?-n.2,; ee<*.3, 88ff. 2. See S. Talano, II Concetto della Schiavitù, C.V. ST. THOMAS AUD SLAVERY AS A CONSEQUENCE OF SIN 10? St. Thomas' answer to the first problem cannot be understood, without reference to his general view of the Fall and the character of "human nature." Theolo­ gians since the scholastics distinguish four different states of human nature.5 First they speak of mere na­ ture (status naturae purae) which is an abstraction re­ ferring to rational animality as such without reference to supernatural grace. If God had chosen to create man as a purely natural being without special graces then human nature would have been mere human nature. In fact, however, God created man In grace, having supernatural gifts of two sorts: (1) strictly supernatural gifts, the theological and Infused virtues, and (2) preter­ natural gifts which prevented death, sickness, ignor­ ance and all those fallings to which man as a corporeal creature was liable by mere nature. This happy condi­ tion was an historical reality before the fall of man, and. is called the state, of innocence (status naturae in­ tegrae). The third state like the second one Is histor­ ical, the condition of man after his fall (status naturae lapsae). Lapsed human nature has suffered a double mis­ fortune. The fallen man has lost all his strictly su­ pernatural gifts, the theological and infused virtues, and Incurred in their place guilt before God, and he has . lost as well all the fortifying preternatural gifts. He has become homo nudatus, stripped of the perfection of his Integral nature, and liable to death and disease and ignorance. He is thus reduced to a condition of mere nature. But more than this, according to Thomist theol­ ogy, the tearing away, so to speak, of his supernature has wounded his mere nature: Therefore insofar as reason is deprived of its or­ der to the truth there is the wound of Ignorance; insofar as the will is deprived of its order to the good, there is J. It would he hopeless to give all the Thomlstic texts on these points. I have followed John of St. Thomas, Cursus Theol., q. 109,d. 19,a.l, n.10 in my terâlnélbjgy;*: Ttte whole'questlon is . discussed in J. B. Kors, O.P.,îto?;^lÎ&evPïdâÎt;iVe et le péché originel d*apres S. Thomas. For ^.ddBcusHioij.finA .application of this problem to painful servlïeî ijiËoii .Which" is also a conse­ quence of the Wal l, see Xvep Çippp;. "Work and the .Workman, ” The Review of Politics, 2 (19^)5 ôspecSâîly'.78’-îQ0;. THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY 104 the wound, of malice; insofar as the irascible is deprive! of its order to the arduous, there is the wound of weak­ ness; and Insofar as the concupiscible Is deprived of its order to the delectable moderated by reason, there is the wound of concupiscence. Thus fallen man has suffered evils as a result of his fall in two ways, and we can speak of two kinds of "evil consequences of the Fall." First there are de jure con­ sequences which are essentially connected with the his­ torical fact that man once had a supernature, these are the guilt and the wounds which he has suffered. Second­ ly there are the evils which have in fact come upon him because of his fall, but which flow from his mere nature. They are consequences in the way that being cold is a consequence of taking off one’s clothes in the winter. Finally there is the state of the redeemed man (status naturae reparatae) in which man receives again the strictly supernatural gifts but is without the pre­ ternatural ones. He has charity but he is still liable to death. In this state the effects of the wounds are in the process of being healed. Ultimately he may reach the status gloriae in which man’s integral nature is re­ stored but still further perfected. , ;' '! /■ Î s;·. I i i ·, . < 's St. Thomas, in view of this doctrine, had to answer the question: Is slavery a de jure or a de facto consequence of the Fall? The texts of the Fathers leave this quite obscure, because they did not write with these distinctions explicitly formulated. Thereaare several possibilities of interpreting the statement "slavery is a consequence of the Fall" and it is necessary to set them down before attempting to discover which St. Thomas favored. First there was the possibllity of saying that slavery was strictly a de jure consequence, that is a special curse consequent on original sin, to which man would not have been liable if he had been created a merely natural being instead of in grace.5 , , \ ... γΪΓ, * 4· S.Th., I-II> and 87. 5. An ambiguity copcemlte, th© .term "state of mere nature" must be noted. It nayiaftanWΡΜΓ©-abstractIon, the human faculties conaliened apart from whether' they are ordered by grace to a super,- . natural’· end, and; apart 'frôâ thé'wûûnda of nature. Or it may be .1: : ■ · - '■ -·■ I I f I , I J But if this position is taken a three-fold possibility remains. First that man i s liable to slavery, although it is an unjust act to enslave another, because merely natural man would have committed many injustices. SlavST. THOMAS AMD SLAVERY AS A CONSEQUENCE OF SIN 105 ery thus comes about as a sin of the strong against the weak. Aristotle and the theologians alike admit that To accept 1 thia it is to show slavery the came this is one source of necessary slavery; the Greekthat considered into existence because of unjust. the wounds of sin,possibility an extreme­ enslavement of the Greeks A, second difficult position since it ques­ is ly that slavery belongsto to prove mere nature as raises a just such penalty tions as to whether the wounds are equal in all.^ Sec­ to be used by men in punishing men who have committed ondly it was possible hold than that the slavery was sin, only for de actual, personal sins, to rather original facto abyresult ofwars the Fall, that is the A human race would example waging that are unjust. third possi ­ bility have been is that liable slavery to slavery is under evensome if it conditions had been acreated just institution as a state, punishment but as socially useful. in a merely not natural as non-Chrlstlans suppose. Of course a great many further questions arise about these last two possibilities, e.g., can enslavement as a punishment extend to the children? About the-third possibility it can be asked if this sort of slavery must always be voluntary on the part of the slave in order to be just, etc. Î Which possibilities, since they are not all mu­ tually exclusive, did St. Thomas admit? That he did not consider slavery specifically a de jure consequence be­ comes clear if we consider his treatment of some other (Footnote continued.) taken in a concrete sense, man as he would, have heen if God. had. chosen to create him as a purely natural creature without supernatural graces.' Here the concrete sense 1b intended.. 6. St. Thomas says they are equal, S.Th., I-H,q.82,a.l,c, et ad. 1. Of course the essential effect of sin, the deprivation of sancti­ fying grace is equal in all men, since all died in Adam. 7. My discussion is largely dependent on the interesting treatment of work and the effects of original sin in the article of Tves Simon, loc, cit., 7θ-δΟ· 106 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY results of the original sin. The Third Chapter of Gene­ sis relates how man was condemned by God as a punishment for his fall to toil painfully, and the woman to bear children in pain, and to be subject to her husband. Yet it is clear that mankind merely as "rational animals," intellectual beings with corruptible bodies, would have been liable to suffer work and even pain in childbirth, as the animals suffer, St. Thomas says concerning the subjection of woman, The subjection of the woman to her husband is to be understood, as inflicted in punishment of the woman, not as to his headship (since even before sin the man was the • head and governor of the woman) but as to her having now to obey her husband's will against her ονη.θ The pain of this obedience is wholly natural since in mere nature it is unpleasant to give up one's own judg­ ment and will to another. The wounds of original sin, the de jure consequences simply intensify the pains to which a corporeal rational thing is naturally subject. Similarly slavery need not be assumed to be a special curse on man, if its origin can be shown to be compati­ ble with man as he would have been if he was not created in grace. On all this St. Thomas does not speak expli­ citly, but no evidence is to be found in his works that he considered slavery a de jure consequence of sin ex­ cept as it is made more painful by the wounds of sin. Since there is no evidence to the contrary we may assume that St. Thomas believed that slavery was not purely and simply a de jure consequence. Which of the three possi­ ble ways in which it could be a de facto consequence did St. Thomas accept? Did he consider it (1) essentially unjust, (2) just as a punishment for crime, (3) just as a useful non-penal dominion? St. Thomas had as his beloved guide in this, as in most matters, St. Augustine, who said in a famous pas­ sage: (God) did. not Intend that his rational creature, who was made in His image, should have doainion over any­ thing but the irrational creation, —not man over man, but 8. S.Th., D-H, q.164, a.2,lm. ST. THOMAS AND SLAVERY AS A CONSEQUENCE OF SIN 107 nan over 'beasts. And hence the righteous men in primitive tines were made shepherds of cattle rather than kings of Den. God intending thus to teach us what the relative po­ sition of creatures is, and what the desert of Bin; for it is with Justice, we believe that the condition of slavery Is the result of sin. And this is why we do not find the words "slave" in any part of Scripture until righteous Noah branded the sin of his son with this name. It is a name, therefore, introduced by sin and not by nature. The origin of the Latin word for slave is supposed to be found in the circumstance that those who by the law of war were liable to be killed were sometimes preserved by their victors, and were hence called slaves (servi). For even when we wage a Just war, our adversaries must be sin­ ning..... The prims cause, of slavery is sin, which brings nan under the dominion of hie fellow,—that which does not happen save by the Judgment of God.....But our Master In heaven says, "Everyone who doeth sin is the servant of sin." And thus there are many wicked men who have relig­ ious men as their slaves, and who are yet themselves in bondage; "for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought into bondage."9 This la both profound and ambiguous; several ideas which are quite distinct are expressed, as it were, all at once. But it is quite clear that Augustine does not accept the first position mentioned as an exclusive one; he believes that slavery is not always unjust, nor simply a consequence of the Fall in the way murder is.^·0 9’ De Civitate Dei, XIX, 15. This is paralleled by Quaestiones in Genesim, 155, P.L., T.xxxiv, col. 589-90. The first sentences of the passage quoted seem to Imply that Augustine was an an­ archist believing that there was not even a political subordi­ nation of man to man In Eden. The passage in Quaestiones in Genesim as well as the whole argument of the De Civitate Dei prove that thia is not the case. He means that there would be no coercive subordination in Eden. This is the sense in which St. Thomas takes this passage in Sent. IV, d.hh, q.l, a*3 ad 2. 10. The view that slavery is a consequence of the Fall because it is essentially unjust has been lately taken by M. J. Adler in his paper "The Demonstration of Democracy, " Proceedings of the Cathoiic Philosophical Association, 25 (1939), 122-165, 128 and not 17, 150. Tn Chapter XII, post, it will be-asked if Leo XHI ■-JWBD1IIW ? i |- < I · ί 1 108 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY Augustine accepts the second possibility fully; enslave­ ment can be an act of justice when done by just men against their criminal opponents in a war. He also seems to admit slavery as a traditional institution in the latter part of the passage, but not very clearly. The third possibility, that slavery is a useful institu­ tion for slave and master, whether the slave is criminal or not, is not mentioned at all. Only if this possibil­ ity is admitted is there any room for Aristotle ' s view, though of course it does not automatically follow upon the acceptance of this possibility. In a parallel pas­ sage in another work St. Augustine does say: For it is the natural order among men, that the women should serve their husbands and the sons their parents; since it is Indeed Just that the weaker in reason should serve the stronger. This is therefore clearly Just in dominations and servitudes, that those who excel in rea­ son should excel in domination.^· But, although he has been speaking of slavery, this pas­ sage does not clearly bear on real servitude, but simply on any subjection whatsoever. St. Augustine’s tone in the passage from De Civitate Dei is noticeably unfavor­ able to slavery as such. St. Thomas in his earlier an­ swer to the question "Was there dominion of man over man in the state of innocence?" writes as follows: A king regulates his rule (praelationem) to the good of the people over whcsa he rules....a tyrant however regulates his rule for his own proper utility; and there­ fore the two modes of rule mentioned differ in this : in the first the good of the subjects is sought, in the sec­ ond the proper good of the ruler; and therefore the sec, ond kind of rule could not have existed in the state of innocence (in statu naturae Integrae), except in regard (Footnote continued) in his Encyclical "In plurimis" (1888) took this view. He seems however to have followed in the main point the view of St. Augustine. This position seems clearly to be that of Iktns Scotus, In Iv Sent., d.j6, q.l, "patet magna crudelitas fuisse in prima inductione servitutis quia hcoinem arbitrio liberum et dominum suorum actuum facit quasi brutum." 11. Quaestiones in Genesim, 155, ?·!·.> T.xxxlv, coi. 589-90. ii ■ /V ST. THOMAS AND SLAVERY AS A CONSEQUENCE OP SIN 109 to those things which, are ordered to man as to an end. These however are irrational creatures, over all of which he ruled, much more to his advantage than he does new. But the rational creature, since it is of itself (de se) is not ordered to another as to an end, as a man to a man; hut if this he done, it will not he except insofar as man, because of his sin, is compared to irrational creatures; whence also the Philosopher compares the slave to an in­ strument, saying that the slave is an animate instrument and the instrument, an animate servant. And therefore such rule of man over man did not exist before sin.^ 3 Here St. Thomas gives a possible justification of slav­ ery. It was excluded from the state of innocence because it is contrary to the dignity of man, but once man has lost his own dignity by sin, it becomes a fitting punishment. Man, however, does not thus lose his digni­ ty by original sin, or every unbaptized person could be put to death, a theological absurdity. The sin meant is actual sin of an individual for which he can be punished by enslavement. In other parts of the Summa is a paral­ lel passage: Q: Whether it is lawful to kill sinners: A: ....By sinning man departs from the order of his rea­ son, and consequently falls away from the dignity of his manhood, insofar as he is naturally free, and exists for himself, and he falls into the slavish state of the beasts, by being disposed of according as he 1b useful to others. Hence, although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserves his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast. For a bad man is'worse than a beast, and is more harmful as the Philosopher states (Politics I and Ethics VIII These passages taken together with the passage from St. Augustine, which St. Thomas had before him, are quite clear. St. Thomas holds that slavery when used as a com­ mutation of punishment for the unjust losers in a war is r 12. Sent. II, d.4U, q.l, a.3, c. The Cammentarles on the Sentences were finished in 1256. See P. ΰ. M. Manser, Das Wesen des Ώιαηί emus, IS. 13. S.Ih., H-H, q.6h, a.2 ad 3»· 1U. See Objection 2 of the article quoted from the Camaentary on . the Sentences. ■ u 110 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY justified.. ^5 This punishment could, not have existed in Eden of course, since there man had his full dignity. Nothing more can be gathered from this question of the Sentences. It certainly does not favor the third, or Aristotelian position, that slavery is a useful Institu­ tion apart from punishment, since the stupidity of "the natural slave" cannot be called a degradation of man to the beast in the moral sense Intended here. The wicked man is like a beast in having his reason dominated by his passions, but the stupid man may have perfect con­ trol over the passions (thus, as Aristotle says, he may have temperance and fortitude) thought he may be Incapa­ ble of the highest natural virtues. The second answer of St. Thomas is found In the later Summa Theologica·.·*-^ In one way dominion is taken as it is commonly referred to any kind of subject; and thus even he who has the duty of governing and directing free men can be called a mas­ ter. In the first acceptance of dominion man did not dominate man in the state of Innocence. Hie reason for this is that the slave in this differs from the free man that the latter is his own cause (cause sul^), a slave however is ordered to another. So that one man is master of another as his slave when he refers the one whose mas­ ter he Is, to his own—namely the master’s use. And since every man’s proper good is desirable to himself, and consequently it is a grievous matter to anyone to 15· Catholic theologians of course no longer admit this law of war. The change of view on this subject will be touched on in Chap­ ter XU post. 16. S.Th., I, q«96, a.4. The Summa Theologica was begun in 1266 and worked on until 1273. See Manser, op. cit., 18. 17 · Ihe Editor of the Marletti edition of the Sumtia notes that this phrase is grammatically ambiguous and might mean either that the slave exists for the sake of another or merely that he does not direct his own affairs. I think it clear that the former mean­ ing is more probable since It accords with the Aristotelian discussion of the slave, which St. Thomas evidently had In mind, as well as with the remainder of the passage. Cajetan paraphrases as follows "liberum est propter ee, servus propter allud, idest dominum." ST. THOMAS AMD SLAVERY AS A CONSEQUENCE OF SIN 111 yield, to another what ought to "be hie own, therefore such dominion implies of necessity a pain (poena) on the part of the subject; and consequently in the state of inno­ cence such a mastership could, not have existed, between man and man. But anyone is directed by another as a free man, when he directs him to the proper good, of him who is di­ rected, or to the common good. J ; * I I ’ It is very notable that here St. Thomas has answered his question much more economically. There is no reference to original sin or the degradation of man's nature. .The phrase poena subjectorum (translated "pain on the part of the subject") implies punishment as well as pain, but it need be no more than punishment in the sense that all pain is at least a de facto consequence of the Fall. What is emphasized is that to work for another's good . Instead of one's own (or for the common good which is also in a sense one's own) has an essentially painfulv Character.To work for one's own good or the common"! good is often painful, but only accidentally, because ofJ various mischances, but to work for another's private good Instead of one's own is essentially painful. Henc.e the state of innocence could have removed the. accidental pains of work for one's own good or the common good, but not the essential pain of working for another's private good. The full consequences of this cannot be grasped until we consider St. Thomas' views as to the relation of slavery and natural right.. It is very evident how­ ever that this passage goes a step beyond Augustine. By its argument St. Thomas is not committed to any of the three possibilities we have been discussing. Slavery, if defined as a frustration of man's natural tendency to seek his own good or the common good in the interest of his master, is essentially painful and therefore exclud­ ed from Eden; but this does not say whether such servi­ tude is (1) essentially unjust, (2) just as a punishment of actual sin, or (3) a useful Institution for master and slave. At least superficially all three are compati­ ble with this distinction between the dominion of free­ dom and of servitude. We may, however, for the reasons 1S. Also see Sent. IV, d.4h, q.l, a.3 ad Im. It is essentially painful because opposed to a natural instinct. already given, eliminate the first as the only correct explanation. St. Thomas gives sufficient-evidence in the Summa itself that he considers slavery sometimes *7\ He agrees"with'both Aristotle' and~Augustine that the~law of war enslaving the unjust' side is permissible. We are thus returned to asking about the third possibility. Is the idea that slavery is essentially painful compatible with the Aristotelian theory of "nat­ ural slavery?” St. Thomas says nothing of this here, but we must ask if he has silently eliminated the Aris­ totelian theory. The answer is very difficult to make. ,0n the one hand it cannot be denied that St. Thomas is correct in holding that there is always a painful check in being compelled to seek another’s good in place of one's own. As St. Thomas says "servitude is an impedi­ ment to the good use of power, and therefore men natural­ ly flee from it."^9 On the other hand, as we have seen, Aristotle believes that when the conditions of servitude are realized there is a "friendship" master and slave so that the slave ought to be with a position that is to his profit. But if tion of the natural slave is not painful, then Thomas* sense it cannot be servitude at alii natural between contented the posi­ in St. This logical difficulty is removed however if we consider Aristotle’s "natural slave" again. It is true that his enslavement is to his advantage, but it is so in an indirect fashion, the master does not order him to do things which are evidently for his own. good, nor for the common good of the household In the precise sense in which he belongs to that household. His action is one of doing another's will for the other's good first, his profit comes indirectly from that action. Moreover the slave cannot be expected to understand fully the advan­ tages which he receives} he lives blindly. Consequent­ ly the relation remains essentially painful, though It is advantageous, according to Aristotle. In Ideal cases the slave and master are truly friends. The slave acts not only because he must, but also out of love of the master, and the master makes It evident to the slave that he has the Interests of the slave at heart. In this 19. B.Th., Ι-H, q.2, ηΛ, ST. THOMAS AND SLAVERY AS A CONSEQUENCE OF SIN 113 case the servitude is pleasant, but only accidentally, since the essential check on the slave’s pursuit of his own good remains. Aristotelian servitude of the "nat­ ural'’ sort, thus remains true servitude in St. Thomas sense. Its naturalness however is evidently somehow secondary to the naturalness of man’s impulhb to seek his own or the common good first. These conclusions can now be drawn: (1) St. Thomas does not consider slavery as only : a de Jure consequence of original sin, i.e. , a special evil consequent on man’s spiritual history to which he vould not have been liable if man had been created a merely natural being. (2) He admits that slavery, though 1often unjust nay be justly used as a punishment for actual sins or crimes. (3) He considers servitude as ful because he defines it as a status works first for another man's private following his natural impulse to seek good or the common good. essentially pain­ in which a man good rather than his own private (4) Aristotelian servitude, natural slavery, is true servitude according to this definition, although it aims to remove the essential pain by finding a master and slave between whom the greatest friendship of inter­ est can exist without removing the dominion. (5) Although St. Thomas clearly has Aristotle’s theory in view in his ex professo treatment of slavery, he neither accepts nor excludes the possibility that "natural slavery" exists. Chapter X ST. THOMAS ANO THE RIGHTS OF THE "SLAVE"< In speaking of St. Thomas’ more concrete views on slavery, it is necessary to remember that he has in mind the medieval Institution rather than antique slav­ ery. In the last chapter it has been shown that the two great texts about man’s dominion over man do not permit us to draw any certain conclusion about St. Thom­ as’ attitude toward "natural slavery." A text of the most capital importance found in the Summa Theologica remains to be considered. As we have seen above in Chapter III St. Isidore is continually quoted by the scholastics because he held that slavery belonged to the jus gentium. St. Thomas in his own discussion of that species of right states and answers the following objection: < Objection: Slavery among men is natural, for some are naturally slaves according to the Philosopher (Polit. 1). How slavery belongs to the jus gentium as Isidore states (Ktym. v). Therefore the Jus gentium is the same as jus naturals. - Answer: Considered absolutely, the fact that this partic­ ular man Should be a slave rather than another man does not have a natural reason (non habet rationem naturalem), but is based only on a resultant utility, in that it is useful to this man to be ruled by a wiser, man, and to the latter to be helped by the former, as the Philosopher states (Polit, I). Wherefore slavery which belongs to the jus gentium is natural in the second way, but not in the first.l This text seems like a simple admission that "natural slavery" as described by Aristotle belongs to the jus gentium, the right of nations. It is necessary however 1. S.Th., q,57, a.3, 2m. 114 ST. THOMAS AND THE RIGHTS OF THE ’’SLAVE1' 115 to make two qualifications. First is the fact that in this passage a citation of authority is "being parried by a counter citation, and hence nothing is intended to be asserted as to the truth of the authority. It must be admitted however that St. Thomas does not commonly follow the method of answering objections with answers untrue in themselves. A more important objection is that slavery is here defined simply as a mutually ad­ vantageous rule of the wise over the stupid, and noth­ ing is said about the lesser being "alterius," the cru­ cial point in Aristotle's view. This text is undoubt­ edly the most favorable statement which St. Thomas makes outside the Politics for the Aristotelian posi­ tion. In order to understand the import of his answer the Thomistic theory of the jus gentium must be consid­ ered. St. Thomas holds that a thing can be just in three ways. First an act can be just or due to something be­ cause it is demanded by the very nature of the thing concerned (this is just by nature strictly speaking, Jus naturale), or because it is consequent to nature but useful to attain the ends of nature, (this is just by immediate institution of human reason, by jus gentium), and finally simply because it is in accordance with rules enacted by human prudence with the common good in view (this is by jus positivum in the strictest sense). St. Thomas gives as an example of the first kind of right the union of the sexes, of the second private property and slavery, and third any positive institution which is for the common good.2 St. Thomas' great con­ tribution to the theory of law is the elucidation of the second sort of jus. Jus gentium.3 The Roman lawyers, as we have seen,4 developed the theory of jus gentium, be­ cause they found an existing body of rules which were not enacted by any man and yet not simply natural. They defined Jus naturale as a right which is common to men and animals, while jus gentium was proper to Ban. This* 11 2. S.Th., n-n, q.57, e.J and I-H, M-P* and 95. j. St. Thomas’ contribution is brilliantly developed, in 0. Lottin, le nrojt Haturel cheg St. Thomas d*Aquin et aes prédécesseurs. 11. Chapter Hl, ante. THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY vas the view of Ulplan. As Lottin has shownS St. Thom­ as revived this view which had fallen In some disrepute with Christian thinkers. "When we compare several texts from his works which touch on slavery Itself, we dis­ cover the subtlety of this theory. On the one hand he ' says that while marriage is by Jus naturale, slavery Is by Jus positivum: ...since Jus positivum.. .procédés from Jus natu­ rale; therefore servitude, which Is of the Jus positivum, cannot prejudice those (rights) which are of the natural law, e.g.,...the appetite to conserve the species through generation.^ Here he takes jus naturale in the strict Roman sense: only that is natural which follows immediately from na­ ture. Just as the sexual union is due to naturàl animal powers, so It is due to natural human powers. Since both jus positivum and jus gentium require a deduction by human reason which seeks for something to satisfy hu­ man ends, they can both be called positive as being sub­ sequent to human reason and will. In this sense slavery Is only based on jus positivum. On the other hand St. Thomas speaks of slavery as of the Jus naturale as against jus positivum (i.e., jus civile).V This Is be­ cause both jus gentium and jus naturale can be called natural since neither requires enactment by a legisla­ tive authority. One is strictly natural, the other im­ mediately consequent to nature: The law of nations is indeed, in some way natural to man, insofar as he is a reasonable being, because it is de­ rived from the natural lav by way of a conclusion that is not very remote frein its premises. Wherefore men easily agreed thereto. Nevertheless it is distinct from the natural law, especially frem the natural lav which is common to all animalη.θ A man can appropriate unowned land for his own use and possession without the enactment of any law, but he can 5· 6. 7. 8. 0. Lottin, op.clt., 61-67Sent. IV, d.36, q.l, a.2, c. S.Th., H-II, q.57, a.J, ad 2. S.Th., I-H, 4.95, a.U, ad 1. ST. THOMAS AND THE RIGHTS OF THE "SLAVE" 117 ses that this is right only by a process of deduction, vhile the rightness of sexual union is immediately evi-\ dent tn him as suitable to his natural desires.9 Slav- I , ery is thus opposed to the natural lav in the strictest sense (in its "first intention"10) since it is not immediately evident that enslavement is the proper treatnent of a given man; in this vay no man is "by nature a I X / ( slave" any more than any piece of land is by nature oved to this particular man. It cannot belong to any man simply to be a slave or master.H \ Thus we can distinguish three conditions. There Is the case of the head of the family vhose dominion is immediately demanded by nature both as to the dominion Itself and the person vho holds it. There must be a ruler in a family and he must be the father. Secondly there is the head of the state. There must be a head; this is by jus naturale, but that it should be this man or that is ordinarily a matter of the will of the com-. munity, jus positivum.Finally there is slavery, vhlch is not of the jus naturale, but of the jus genti­ um, both as an institution and as to person. This is quite evident from our crucial text: "Considered abso- ΛΔ. lutely, the fact that this particular man should be a slave rather than another man, does not have a natural reason, but it is based only on a resultant utility. "13 St. Thomas’ fundamental contention then is that slavery cannot be called.natural as the state is natural or the family,!^ but because human reason immediately 9· It must be noted that though St. Thomae epeaks of Jus naturale as ccmoon to men and animals, it is ccamnon only in being due simply to a faculty, and known to be due by natural appetite . rather than by a ratiocinative process. The animals have no moral rights since their good la wholly ordered to man. 10. Sent. IV, d.36, q.l, a.l, ad 2m. S.Th., II-H, *·3· 12. τ*»™ la no need to prove a point over which such famous con­ troversies have been waged. Without doubt Be Hermine’s theory of the passage of "authority" from God through the people is Biomietic in principle. 13· S.Th., Ι-H, g.95, »·*, 1· "...miller autem ex natura habet subjectionem, et non servus; et ideo non est simile." Sent. IV, d.25, q.l, a.2. me . 118 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY sees a utility in it, without the enactment of positive law. What is this utility? St. Thomas names two dif­ fèrent reasons because of which slavery may be right and just. The first is, as we have seen, as a punish­ ment : 1 ... .Jus naturale dictates that a punishment may be inflicted for a crime, and that no one ought to be punished without crime; but to determine a punishment according to the condition of person and crime le of the Jus positivum; and therefore servitude which is a cer­ tain determinate punishment Is of the Jus positivum; and therefore servitude which is a certain determinate pun­ ishment is of the jus positivum and procedes from the Jus naturale, as a determination from an indeterminate.}·5 'h hl 3 Here St. Thomas speaks of jus positivum, but as we have seen this is only in contrast with jus naturale. He means that slavery as a punishment is a positive addi­ tion to the natural law, not positive as being a civil enactment, but rather as belonging to the jus gentium. , %P33-avement a punishment in war is thus just and ac7Î ceptable to St~7~~Thomas, who here simply agrees with the common ορϊηϊόηΓό?~Η1Β day.^-6 i '4 ■ ’ What is the other reason given for slavery be­ longing to the jus gentium? lt is the one mentioned in a single text which we have already cited: ....[slavery] is based on a resultant utility, in that it le useful to this man. to be ruled, by a wiser man, and to the latter to be helped by the former as the Philosopher states (Polit. I). Wherefore slavery which belongs to jus gentium is natural In the second way, and not In the flrat. 17 ·? « 15. Sent. TV., d.?6, <1.1, a.l. 16. Since the justice of such slavery arises from its evident "utility" for attaining to natural ends, a change In the nature of war or in what may be called "the collective conscience" may make such an Institution unsuitable to attain those ends, and hence unjust. In St. Thanas’ own conception rights arising from jus gentium necessarily vary with circumstances, while those of the Jus naturale cannot so vary. On the change in the moral attitude toward war, see Chapter XU, poet. 17. 3.Th., q.57, a.3, 2m. ST. THOMAS AND THE RIGHTS OF TWR "sT.avg" 112 What are we justified in concluding? Probably that St. Thomas believed that the servitude of a less intelli­ gent man to a wiser for mutual advantages was natural in the sense of being an immediate conclusion of reason from their natural fitness to each other. Can we go further and say that this is equivalent to Aristotle's ; theory of "natural slavery? " We cannot do so safely for two reasons. First because it is a single, isolat­ ed text. Second because it does not explicitly indi­ simply re refers to cate that .the the slave is "alterius 'alterius, but «imply hin as a s^pid man who can be aided by a wiser, This is little more that the remark of St. Augustine quoted the last chapter: ....it is indeed Just that the weaker in reason should serve the stronger. This is therefore clearly Just that the weaker in reason should serve the strong­ er. This is therefore clearly Just in dominations and servitudes, that those who excel in reason should excel in dominations. 1θ i The only argument that could be brought to bear is that St. Thomas defines the status of slavery as one in which the slave serves first the private interests of the master. If the slavery mentioned in the text just quoted fits this definition, then St. Thomas holds Aristotle’s view that slavery involving this ''alterius1' condition can be advantageous to the slave and there­ fore just, but if we are more cautious and recognize the somewhat different view points in the two passages, then we must conclude that St. Thomas nowhere espouses the Aristotelian theory, since this is only text direct­ ly in its favor. The first of these alternatives is favored by the fact that St. Thomas has Aristotle in mind in all these passages and never criticizes him, but the second is favored by his great insistence on the rights of the ~ ‘ What does this Thomlstic theory of jus gentium and the limitations on the master's power over the slave slave. ■β. g,,aBnticmee in Genesim, 153, , t.xxxiv, cols.589-90· 120 THE THEORT OF NATURAL SLAVERY have to do with Aristotle’s own views? St. Thomas drew the theory of the jus gentium from the Roman jurists and not from Aristotle, hut as Lottin shows·* 1· 9 he harmo­ nizes this theory with the Philosopher in his Commenta­ ry on the Ethics. Aristotle distinguishes only natural right and positive right. How is the jus gentium to he Inserted? St. Thomas says:2° It must however he considered that jus naturale is that to which a man is inclined hy nature... .The Jurists how­ ever call only that Jus naturale, which is consequent on an inclination of nature common to men and to other ani­ mals, as the conjunction of man and woman, the education of children, and other things of this sort. That Jus however which is consequent upon an inclination proper to human nature, insofar as man is a rational animal, the Jurists call Jus gentium, since all nations use it, e.g., pacta eint servanda, and that ambassadors are safe between enemies, and other things of this sort. Both of which however are comprehended under the Jus naturali, as the term is used by the Philosopher. It Is immediately evident how much clearer the first chapter of the Politics, which we have studied, would be if Aristotle had used this distinction In discussing the way in which slavery is "natural." . If Aristotle had concluded that slavery is nat­ ural in a secondary and different sense than the fami­ ly, for example* then the chief moral difficulty of his theory would be cleared up. Then it would be evident that slavery is not an institution required under every circumstance, and, more important, Aristotle would have had to admit that the slave has personal rights conse­ quent on a prior natural law. Aristotle indicates that he sees a difference in the naturalness of the two in­ stitutions when he writes as follows: The first coupling together of persons then to which ne­ cessity gives rise is that between those who are unable to exist without one another; for instance the union of female and. male far the continuance of the species (and 1 I 19. 0. Lottin, Le droit naturel chez St. Thomas, 62. 20. In Ethic., Lib.V, 1135», Lectio 12. ST. THOMAS AND THE RIGHTS OF THE ’’SLAVE 121 this is not of deliberate purpose, but with man as with the other animals and. with plants there is a natural in­ stinct to desire to leave behind, one another being of the same sort as oneself): and the natural ruler and natural subject for the sake of security.®1 Here he indicates that the union of male and female is natural as based on instinct rather than on a reasoned deduction, but in the second part of the passage he Is ambiguous. In one sense the union of wiser and stupid­ er is natural if we mean simply that they enter into society for their common good, since to live in society la strictly natural for man and follows a natural in­ stinct. But it is clearly not possible to say that the stupid man has an instinctive inclination to enslave himself to a wise man, or vice versa. This comes about because one or both recognize a "utility consequent" on their naturally complementary abilities., St. Thomas has the great merit to have accepted the common sense of the Roman Jurists in making slavery an institution estab­ lished by men, though having a certain basis in natural conditions. St. Thomas’ main modification of Aristotle’s rea­ soning was to insist that all just slavery whether a punishment or a social institution belongs to the jus * gentium and that hence the rights of the master over his slave are limited by the natural law.' THE SPECIFIC RIGHTS OF THE SLAVE AND THE SERF i St. Thomas gives us very little light on the concrete economic or social institutions of his day. So many of his political remarks are based simply on the observations of Aristotle, that we can gain only gl imp­ ses of St. Thomas’ special qualifications of the dominTwo of his works however ion over slaves and serfs, One is his permit us to see his views in practice. little epistle De Regimine Judaeorum ad Ducissam Brabantiae which contains his advice as a moral theologian on the treatment of the Jews, who were considered to be the 21· Politic*» If If 1252b. ...... 122 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY slaves of the Christian princes whose territory they inhabited.^2 The other source is his treatment of cer­ tain standard casuistical problems on the administra­ tion of the sacraments and the slave status. Neither of these permit us to see if St. Thomas distinguished' between serfdom and slavery. It would have been inter­ esting to see the principles of Aristotle explicitly applied to the manorial society, but St. Thomas does not give us such an analysis. St. Thomas in speaking of the Jews was consider­ ing the nearest analogue to Aristotle’s distinction be­ tween Greek and barbarian, since the Jews were aliens and non-partners in the very life of Christendom. But how different a situation, since, as St. Thomas says in his little letter, our action toward the Jews must be that which will hasten their conversion and soften their hearts. It has nothing in common with modern racism, which, like Aristotle’s view, is based on a belief in a natural rather than a moral difference between the "Greek" and the "Barbarian." St. Thomas writes that the Jew is justly held in servitude as a punishment for his Infidelity, and that his property therefore belongs to the prince, but that the prince must rule him in "a moderate servitude, in order that the necessities of life shall not be taken away," lest the master’s severi­ ty lead to bad feeling which will be a stumbling block to the Jew’s conversion. This moderation Is best se­ cured by following traditional exactions. Since how­ ever the Jews have gained most of their property immor­ ally by usury, they ought to be punished for it, and the most appropriate punishment is a monetary one. He warns the Duchess not to accept bribes from the Jews since their money was unjustly obtained. Finally he advises that the best solution is to get the Jews to leave off usury and take up some kind of honest employ­ ment, farming for example, as "is done in some parts of Italy." To this account we may add his answer to the question in Quodlibet. II, a.6, Jm as to whether the children of Jews should be baptized against their par­ ents* wishes. The objection argues thus: 22. Quodllb. H, a.?, 3». ST. THOMAS AND THE^RIGHTS OF THE nSLAVE" ,XL ΑΊ, 5 12^5 ....the children of slaves (servi) are slaves, and in the power of their lord.. But the Jews are slaves of the king and. the prince. Therefore kings and princes have power, over the children of Jews to do as they please. It is no injury therefore, if they are "baptized, against the wishes of their parents. And St. Thomas answers: ... .this is contrary to natural justice. For the child is naturally something of his father; and. at first.he is not distinguished, "bodily from his parent as long as he is in his mother’s womb; "but afterwards, after he has coms out of the womb, before he has the use of free will, he belongs under his parents ’ care as in a spiritual womb. For as long as he does not have the use of reason a child does not differ in what he does from an irra­ tional animal. Whence Just as the ox and horse belong by jus gentium and jus civile to his possessor, that he may use them as he pleases as his proper instrument; so■ it is by the jus naturale that the child before he at­ tains the use of reason is under the care of his father; whence it would be against natural justice if a child before he has reached the age of reason should be taken from the care of his parents or anything done concerning him without their consent... .The Jews are servants of the princes by civil law which does not exclude divine or natural right. I ■ > I I I t We have here an especially characteristic example of how the distinction-of the kinds and levels of law acte in practice to limit the control of the master over his ■ slaves. ■ . In the Commentary on the Sentences St. Thomas gives a great many answers to practical questions in Sacramental theology. His answers are in no way original, agreeing very closely with those of St. Albert and St. Bonaventura, but the principles which he uses in determining his answers are of interest. It has already been mentioned that he teaches that baptism does not loose the slave from his servitude since its action is spiritual and does not remove duties which are not sinful.in the same article he develops ρλ- Sent. Π, d.Hb, q.2, a.2, also S.Th. H-U. q.104, a.l et a.6. » £ 4 j. ; conscience, by asking -whether a subordinate is bound to obey a just authority as a moral obligation. He answers yes, but hastens to add that no one is bound to obey an authority which (1) steps beyond its proper bounds, "so that if a master exacts tribute which the servant is not bound (non tenetur) to give, or anything of this sort, then the subj ect is neither bound to obey or bound' not to obey," or (2) which commands something sinful and contrary to the end for which he was made ruler, then the subject Is "not only not bound to obey, but even bound to not obey, as the holy martyrs suffered death rather than obey the unjust commands of a tyrant." The phrase "if the lord demands a tribute which is the serv­ ant is not bound to give," is perhaps the best indica­ tion anywhere that S. Thomas was acquainted primarily with serfdom. The idea that a master's exactions from the slave are of a defined and limited sort, so that the slave can say, "l am not held to do this," is exactly the essence of feudalism which attempted to reduce every relation of superior and Inferior to a set of defined exactions. With Aristotle the master's power can have no other limitation than his own virtue and justice to­ ward the slave, or a sense of expediency. By giving the slave a legal limitation with respect not only of life but with the kind and amount of services demanded, St. Thomas betrays his feudalism; but further than this he Insists on the slave’s moral right of resistance. This view however does not at all prevent St. Thomas from hold­ ing that the slave is a part of his master. He says: But nevertheless it must be understood, that spe­ cial Justice can be taken in two ways: for it is taken properly and. ccuaonly. Special Justice most properly taken, as the Philosopher says in Kthic. V, Cap. 6 is only between those who have a certain equality in this regard, that they can stand, before the prince, before whom one is able to require from the other -what is his, in which way there cannot be said, to be Justice between father or son, nor between master and. slave, since whatever is the slave's Is the master's and. whatever is the son's is the father's. Special Justice however is conmcnly applied even to this that the master renders his servant that which is his, or conversely, and so of ST. THOMAS Aim THE RIGHTS OF THE "SLAVE ' 125 the others, since in this way the equality mentioned- is not required; and if special Justice is taken in this way, obedience pertains to justice, since through obed­ ience the inferior renders the superior what is due.21* This same doctrine is emphasized elsewhere^5 when it is said that neither wife, son, nor servant may give aims without the consent of the head of the family, except I in emergencies. St. Thomas is thus especially insist­ ent on the rights of the head of the household. Again in Sent, TV, d.22, q.l, a.l, Am he shows that crime does not itself destroy emancipation, but the freeman is returned only as a punishment for a new crime. ; ! J j f I I ί However the two most important problems concerning the slave discussed by St. Thomas are whether a man of slave status can receive the sacraments of Holy Matrimony and Holy Orders. As to the first the position of the Church was absolute. The slave could contract a sacramental marriage without the consent of the master and this marriage was binding in every respect, ΪΊιβ reason given by St. Thomas is as follows: Since the jus positivum...procedes from the Jus naturale, servitude which is of the jus positivum,26 ιθ not able to prejudice that which is of the natural law. Such however is the appetite of nature for the conser­ vation of the species through generation. Whence as the slave is not subjected to the master inasmuch as he is able to eat freely and to sleep, and to do other things of this sort which pertain to the necessity of the body, without which nature cannot be conserved; so he is not subjected insofar that he is not able to contract a mar­ riage even though the master does not know it or forbids it.27 2U. Sent. U, d.W», 4.2, a.2 e. 25. Sent. TV, d.l$, 4-2, a.5. 26. Is Jus gentium, since Jua gentium le positive with respect to ^ub naturale, as we have seen supra* 27. Sent. TV, d.?6, 4.1, a.2 c. «ΚΙ ! Η" ■ 126 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY The answers to objections in this question are also of great importance. The first objection argues that the slave is "alterius" and St. Thomas answers: J ....the slave is a thing of his master’s with respect to those things which are euperadded to natural things; but with respect to natural things men are equal: whence in those things which pertain to natural acts, the servant is not able to be of another, thus the master unwilling, he is still able to give his bodily powers to matrimony. Here the "naturalia" in which all men are equal are the 1 3 I 1 things which belong to jus naturale, and are common with animals, but this reasserts strongly St. Thomas' fundamental assignment of slavery to the jus gentium. This question also insists that the master has a duty not to separate families, and that he cannot prevent the performance of the conjugal debt. If a freeman deVqU*** sires to sell himself into slavery, St. Thomas says his marriage holds, but L_i a _ woman ______ cannot _______ so . sell " herself. ' ” " 2θ °n St Thomas permits voluntary enslavement since a man can give to another what is his own and the free man is sui juris with respect to his■liberty, consequently he can surrender his liberty to another man. This recalls the famous argument of Locke that no man is able to sell himself into slavery, a point which Locke felt it necessary to prove against Hobbes who held that the social contract was such a voluntary enslavement, or absolute subjection to the sovereign: Far a man, not having the power of hie own life cannot by compact ar hie own consent enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute arbitrary power of another to take away his life when he pleases. Nobody can give more power than he has himself, and. he that cannot take away his own life cannot give another power over lt.^9 St. Thomas of course would agree with Locke that man has no power over his own life, but that his right over himself is limited by God's dominion, by the jus natu- 28. Sent. IV, d.lj, q.l, a.3· 29. Second Essay on Civil Government, c.lv, ST, THOMAS AND THE RIGHTS OF THE "SLAVE" 127 rale. St. Thomas thus must mean that when the slave gives himself to the master he gives only what is his to give, his liberty, but not his natural rights,, the natural things In which all men are equal. These, as Locke says, he cannot give away because he has no right to them. That' these rights do not remove the special character of servitude however, is evident from the way in which slavery acts as an impediment to marriage. If a person marries a slave who has concealed his servi­ tude after marriage is void. This is because slavery can be a serious obstacle to the essential acts of marriage; in this respect, says St. Thomas, it is worse than leopresy.30 Since he has already said that when the master treats his slaves justly the marriage act is not imped­ ed, this implies that the actual institution of slavery commonly fell far short of what was morally required. | |X; I* fe St., Thomas in all this in no respect departs ·;.■■.■■■■■■■■■· |ï?Bà from the ordinary theological opinions of his day. He Ivfcl does not intend to alter the institution as it exists, f! except to remind men of their duties with regard to it. < |i fe He discusses the question of the inheritance of the ■·■■■; .1;;g| serf status without questioning whether Inheritance |i || such a condition is just. He himself prefers that the | Bj children follow the condition of their mother, but ad| || mlts. that since the system of "the worsen condition" Is . followed widely It must have some reason to recommend ! |j It. Perhaps there is some mitigation for these views ^ | |a in the fact that St. Thomas' rule meant the préserva|«.|; tlon of the slave family with the mother, under the same | I lord, and on the same estate. · |I The other chief sacramental problem was whettier the slave could receive Holy Orders. The early Church had caused an enormous change In the social attitude toward the inferior classes by ordaining slaves. Pope Callxtus was a former slave. This was absolutely necessary in the early days of the Church, but once the society had become at least nominally Christian at 5O. Sent. IV» d.«56> Q..1, a.l. sent. IV» d»56, 4»1,. a.^. |; | . | | |; Γ ■ | . I I 128 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY every level, the sociological implications of this pplicy had to he reconsidered. If the clergy was to any considerable extent drawn from the servile classes it could not possibly have had any great influence with the aristocracy which the Christianization of the war lords had produced. Moreover the Church would have be­ come a camp of runaways from the social order. The Church’s policy consequently became less favorable to the slave candidate for ordination and more favorable to those groups which could readily supply a cultivated and easily educable priesthood. If the slave was to be ordained, then he must first be freed. St. Thomas says: --- ...... ·■■■*■ ........ In the reception of Orders a man is freed, for divine dut­ ies. And since no one is able to give what is not his, the slave who does not have power over himself, is not able to apply for Orders. If he does apply however, he receives Orders, since liberty is not of the necessity of the sacrament, granted that it is necessary by precept; since it does not impede the power, but the act only.... If one applies with the knowledge of his master, and is not recalled, by this he is made free by his master. If however the master is ignorant, then the Bishop, and he who has presented the slave, owe the master double the price of the slave, if they knew him to be a slave; otherwise if the slave has a peculium he ought to redeem himself; otherwise he is returned to the service of his master, notwithstanding that his Orders cannot be exer­ cised.32 This is about all that we can learn from St. Thomas on his views concerning slavery and serfdom as it existed in his time. His views insist on the moral character of the slave and the Iimitations of his mas­ ter, but they show no special Insight into the social problem of slavery. We must remember however that in all St. Thomas’ writings there is not a grain of Aris­ totle’s contempt for the humble. Rather It is Sti Thom­ as who once said In a sermon that since the Incarnation "any old woman knows more of God than Aristotle did." 32. Sent.IT, d.25» q.l, a.2. Chapter XI THE DOMINION OF SERVITUDE AND TYRANNY If St. Thomas is right in. placing natural slav­ ery as an immédiate conclusion from jus naturale, then the dominion of servitude is a limited one, formally dis­ tinct from the dominion of man over sub-human things. However the second aspect of the question remains to he explored: What is the systematic importance of the master-slave dominion? What does it have in common with other dominions of man over man? Which is it most like? Dr. Yves Simon has recently made some interesting obser­ vations with regard to these problems:1 It should he noticed that the set of opposite no­ tions, dominion of servitude, dominion of freedom, is often erroneously thought to be equivalent to two other sets of opposite notions. Some might think that the op­ position made between the dominion of servitude and the dominion of freedom fully coincides with the opposition between regimen politicum and regimen despoticum. We are touching one of the most equivocal aspects of the so­ cial philosophy of Aristotle. On close examination, it seems that there are in Aristotle two definitions of the slave, which can be easily mistaken as equivalent (and possibly were mistaken as such by Aristotle himself), and which in fact do not cover the same object, either in comprehension or In extension. From the point of view of •e-infti causality, the slave is one whose activity under­ goes alienation, while a free man is one who is endowed with some power of resisting the orders he receives (regimen politicum or statutory regime), while a slave is one who is not given such a power of resistance (regimen despoticum). It is clear that those definitions are not equivalent In comprehension, since the point of view from which they proceed is not the same; nor are 1, e and Functions of Authority, 34ff. 129 l?o THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY they equivalent in extension, since one who âoes not en­ joy any power of resisting the orders he receives is not thereby necessarily hound to serve the private welfare of his superior. Dr. Simon clearly distinguishes two quite different kinds of domination which are frequently confused by the liberal. Afraid to admit true superiority and inferiori­ ty among men lest this commit him to an objective evalu­ ation, the thorough-going liberal insists that to be ruled absolutely is the same as to be ruled for the in­ terests of another. Granted however that there are su­ periors and inferiors, Aristotle’s great proposition re­ mains true: "Authority and subordination are conditions not only inevitable but also expedient.When this in­ feriority is very great the only way in which authority can be exercised certainly is by guiding the subject "inflexibly," without allowing him power to modify di­ rections but only to execute them, as a father guides a disobedient child. This absolute rule may be required just because the ruler wishes to insure the good of his subject, the father's love makes him sometimes stern. Ab­ solute rule and rule for the ruler's own interest are not the same. Admitting the great importance of this distinc­ tion, we may hesitate to accuse Aristotle of ambiguity in this regard. The slave is certainly under both sorts of rule. Since he is lacking in prudence by nature he requires to be ruled absolutely, as does a child. , But^ the only inducement for the master to admit the slave to the~Hôûsëhold- ia. as an.i.natriaaent to be used~fôr~Yhë ’ master's own good,-therefore he must also be ruled as "alteriusOr looking at it in a different way we may say that since the slave is naturally "alterius" he is only susceptible of rule for the ultimate good of a free man. In either case absolute rule and rule directed to the master's good are involved with each other in the slave's case, but Aristotle does not say that therefore they must always be connected. He says clearly: 2. Politics, 1,11, 1254a. _ ______ THE DOMINION OF SERVITUDE AND TYRANNY /l?! ‘, ....for it is a part of the household science to rule over wife and children (over both as over freemen, yet not with the same mode of government, but over the wife to exercise republican government and. over the chil­ dren monarchical.. The rule of the father over the children... .is that of a king; for the male parent is the ruler in virtue both of affection and. seniority, which is , characteristic of the ’father in relation to the child..5 i (yë~have thus three kinds of dominions^ ^First there is a division between free and slave, and th^Ti^ basecTon f5e'status of being ^alterius," "one who is by nature J hot his own but of another."4 Among the free members of the household there is again a distinction between those vho are ruled regally, that is absolutely or without any share in the decisions; these are the children; and those vho are ruled politically with a share in the delibera­ tions; this is the wife. Only the slave is ruled for the master’s benefit first, and his own second; but both he and the children are ruled absolutely. The diagram (Table II on the following page) illustrates the way in which absolute dominions can differ from each other. Aristotle and St. Thomas describe varieties 1^ to 5, and the sixth dominion that of "wage-slavery" is added to emphasize the character of the other two dominions (4 and 5) over servile workers. The comparison of the mas­ ter-slave (4) and the paternal dominion (3) is most en­ lightening . In both cases the head of the house rules his, sub ject as a part of the household and with the good of the household in mind; but in the case of the.child this household life is. as it were, a means for his private good, education, while in the case of the slave it is a meansTnot to his own private good but to that of thê~ni'aât.ftr»s,~vho is set free for life beyond the house­ hold^ In a very strict sense, neither the child as a child nor the slave a perfect private good, since they are relatively rather than independently virtuous beings, but the child will some day have such an Independent life while the slave will never rise above the depend­ ent life.5 , Politics, I/ T> 1259bJ also Ethics, VHT, xil, 1100b. k. 5. S’’ ______THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY Ό § o o 3 o w Λ Φ 3 O 03 Φ 3 j J I Some color is given to the charge that Aristotle did not always keep absolute rule and rule for the mas­ ter's own good distinct by certain passages in which the term "despotic" is applied to tyrannical political rule ■ rather than to the domestic relation. In Book I of the folitics "despotic rule" is never applied to any other relation than that of the master to the slave. Moerbeke's Latin translation and St. Thomas* commentary preserve this usage faithfully. In later Books however we find the following interesting association of "despotic" with state governments : It is clear then that those constitutions that aim at the common advantage are in effect rightly framed in accordance with absolute Justice, while those that aim at the rulers* own advantage only are faulty, and are all of them deviations from the right constitutions; for they have an element of despotism, whereas a city is a partner­ ship of free men.^ Now tyranny....is monarchy exerting despotic pow­ er over the political community; oligarchy is when the control of the government is in the hands of those that own the properties; democracy is when on the contrary it is in the hands of those that do not possess much proper­ ty, but are poor ."7 There is a....monarchy examples of which are kingships existing among some of the barbarians. The pow­ er possessed by all of these resembles that of tyrannies, hut they govern according to law and are hereditary; for because the barbarians are more servile in their natures than the Greeks, and the Asiatics than the Europeans, they endure despotic rule without resentment.® A....kind of kingship is when a single ruler is sovereign over all matters in the way In which each race and each city is sovereign over its common affairs; this monarchy ranges with the rule of a master over a house­ hold, for Just as the master's rule is a sort of monarchy 6. Ibid., ΠΙ,Ιν, 1279a. 7. Ibid., m,v, 1279b. 8. Ibid., Ill,I1/ 1285a. The words underlined Indicate that tyrtvanical leaders are not always absolute. r ί 134 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY In the home, so absolute monarchy Is domestic mastership over a city, or over a race or several races. In speaking of certain tyrannies which had. an elective character, Aristotle remarks: ... .they were on the one hand of the nature of royal­ ty because they -were in accordance with law and because they exercised monarchic rule oyer willing subjects, and on the other hand of the nature of a tyranny because they ruled despotically and according to their own Judgment.91011 12 To these passages we may add the following in which Aris­ totle describes the characteristics of a state in which the rich are too rich, and the poor too poor: ... .the latter class do not know how to govern but know how to submit to government of a servile kind, while the former class do not know how to submit to any govern­ ment, and only know how to govern in the manner of a mas­ ter. The result is a state consisting of slaves and mas­ ters, not of free men, and of one class envious and another contemptuous of their fellows.11 Taking all these texts together, we cannot but conclude that Aristotle does not concur In the modern use of "despotic" simply to mean absolute rule. In all these cases outside of Book I he uses It to describe a form of rule which he regards as perverted because it extended a principle of rule proper only >to the household to the governance of the state, and in each case he indicates that while despotic rule is natural in the household it is tyrannical is the state. But not every absolute rule is tyrannical. When he speaks above of the παμβασιλεία or absolute monarchy he calls it a "domestic (economic) mastership,” not a despotic one, because it is rather like the rule of the father over his children. Regal 9. Ibid.» HI, x, 1285a. 10. Ibid.» IV, vili, 1295a. This perhaps shows scone confusion of . the different characteristics of which we are speaking, but Aristotle is not so much stressing the absolute character of the rule as its arbitrary character. The tyrant, once elected, did what he pleased regardless of his subjects' good. 11. Ibid., IV, lx, 1295b. 12. Ibid., HI, x, 1285a. the dominion of servitude and tyranny 135 dominion is thus absolute but for the good of the sub­ jects, tyrannical dominion may be absolute and is for the good of the ruler not his subjects, despotic rule is within the household and is both absolute and for the good of the master. McIlwain has pointed out that the parts of the De Regimine which are by St. Thomas never confuse absolute monarchy with rule for the monarch's sake, nor apply the term regimen despoticum to anything except the household relation of master over slave.1? Neither in that work nor in the Politics nor in the Commentary of St. Thomas is it applied to the relation of father and son, or husband and wife. The continuator of the De Regimine, Ptolomy of Lucca, however, seems to have had much more sympathy for republican rule than St. Thomas. In Chapters 8 and 9 of Book II of the De Regimine1^ he opposes regimen despoticum and regimen politicum in regard to forms of state government and pro­ ceeds to treat absolute monarchy as a despotic, tyranni­ cal, and arbitrary form of government. The Aristotelian passages which we have quoted provide him with material for this view, but it is clear that though perhaps he is historically correct about the evils of absolute rule he has confused distinctions carefully preserved by St. Thomas. Neither Aristotle nor St. Thomas, therefore can justly be accused of failing to see that to be ruled ab­ solutely and to be ruled for another ’ s good are differ­ ent things, but a puzzle remains. Both these conditions exist in only two rules, the tyranny, and the rule over slaves. Aristotle, after condemning the Persians for treating their sons as slaves, says: Tyrannical too is the rule of a master over slaves; for It is the advantage of the master that is brought about in it. Nov this seems to be a correct form of gov­ ernment, but the Persian type is perverted; for the mode of rule appropriate to different relations is diverse. IJ. C. H. McIlwain, The Growth of Political Thought in the West, J29ff. ' An excellent discussion indeed. : 14. St. Thomas’ portion probably ends with ΙΤ,ο.1». For references to Grabmann and Mandonnet see Phelan's translation, page 1. 15. Ethics, VIH, xii, 116Gb. ,** 4 ’ 136 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY How can It be that a mode of government which is unnat­ ural for the state or for the free members of the house­ hold is natural for the slave? For there is such a thing as being naturally fit­ ted. to be controlled, by a master ("a despot"), and in an­ other case, to be governed by a king, and in another, for citizenship, and this is Just and expedient; but there is no such thing as natural fitness for tyranny, nor for any other of the forms of government that are divergences, for these come about against nature.^ The difference between tyranny and slave rule is clearly in the nature of the subject and the end which belongs- ' to that nature. The tyrant in the state or the tyranni­ cal father rules over men who are potentially or actual­ ly capable, of the common good of free men in such a way that the common good is sacrificed to the tyrant’s own private good. The slave, on the other hand. 1« at best capable .only of the common good of the household arAj private,-good which is imperfect and rgiqtlve. Aristotle has tried to prove that these are insured by the master's rule not sacrificed. In the tyranny both the final and efficient aspects of the rule are unnatural, the subjects lose the life due them and they are ruled absolutely when they are capable of sharing in rule. Sometimes, as Aristotle says,l? the subjects are so inferior as to requir'e’ the last, but they are never so inferior as to justify the first unless, like Barbarians, they are ac­ tually servile in character: "for because the Barbarians are more servile in their nature than the Greeks....they endure despotic rule without resentment. A question might be asked which is not directly treated by Aristotle. Is there a perfect analogue in the state to the slave, a person who is not necessarily a part of the state, (as the slave is not necessary to 16. Politics, III, xl, 1287b. Here we have the despotic rule, the rule of absolute monarchy, and the rule over citizens having the power of resistance. I?. Ibid., HI, x, 1285b. He is speaking of an absolute monarchy based on the superiority of the ruler. 18. Ibid., IH, lx, 1285a. THE DOMINION OF SERVITUDE AND TYRANNY 1}? t.hs famiΊy like wife, child, or husband), and whose prop­ er good is sought only incidentally by the state, (as the slave's is sought as incidental to the household's welfare)? The closest analogue would be the metics or alien residents who from the Greek point of view were not really sui juris. ^-9 They were incidentally prosper­ ous because the Greeks allowed them to participate in the benefits of the life of the city, but not for their good but only for the good of the city. In the same wav the slave was allowed to participate in the ..benefits of the daily life of the family but for the family's sake first, for his own only incidentally.. Is this not to say that the metic and the slave worked for’ a common good in which they were members? No, because the common good for which each worked was not the one in which they shared. The metic did not share in the liberal life of the state, since he was not a citizen, though he reaped advantages because of the life and order of that state. The slave , did not share in the liberal life of the free | members oTJthe family, but like the animal he reaped "se*- 1 curity. and ïïke~the wife and chi 1d he gained"a Muman~ I .life nf neietivo-virtMWi19 20 In this last respect, as we have seen, h& was in a better position, according to Aristotle, than.the metics (who were commonly artisans) since the free worker was not even a, partner in his mas­ ter's life.21 The relation of the despotic dominion to the whole state becomes still clearer when we consider the relation of the various classes in the ideal Aristotellian state to the common good. Only the military and political classes are truly free since only these per­ form liberal functions, only these have the higher vir­ tues in perfection since political activity requires justice and prudence, and military life a special pru­ dence. These same men are the heads of households, 19. Politics, IU, 1, 1275a· Slaves and aliens live in the state without being properly part of it. 2°· Ibid., v, 1259a-1260b. 21. Ibid., I, v, 126ob. "For the slave is a partner in his mas­ ter’s life, but the artisan is acre remote and only so much of virtue falls to his share as slavery. , 138 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY particularly the older men who have full political pru­ dence. The wealth and land of the state is also to be­ long to them as heads of the households.22* 25 Of the two lower classes Aristotle says: We have therefore stated the things indispensable for the constitution of a state, and the things that are parts of a state: tillers of the soil, craftsmen and the labouring class generally are a necessary appurtenance of states, but the military and deliberative classes are parts of the state: and moreover each of these divisions is separate from the others, either permanently or by turn.2^ It is clear that it is the laboring classes which are permanently separated, the other classes are occupied by the citizens in turn, first they are soldiers (and hence own land22*), then they are politicians, and then priests. These lower classes are to be slaves.25 The servile life is incompatible with the free life, those who are to perform it must be men capable of noth­ ing better than household life, therefore their postr tion is permanent. As a human being the slave should be a "politi­ cal animal," but as in the wife and child this political nature lacks its full development, in the slave it is so permanently Imperfect as to permit him only to share in the material conditions which he provides for the state and in its virtues as an instrument of the master’s prudential life, "a partner of his master’s life." 22. The varicus classes of the ideal state are discussed in the Tilth Book of the Politics, vii, 1328a-1330a. On the virtues required in the upper classes see the Ethics, V, passim and VI, vlli-lx, llklb-1142a. St. Thomas develops this discussion elab­ orately in S.Th. H-H, qq.47-79 passim. See especially the discussion of the kinds of prudence in q.l»7 and q.48. He dis­ tinguishes regnative, political, and domestic prudence in q.50, as well as military prudence. 2J. Politics, VU, lx, 1329a. 2h. Ibid., VU, lx, 1329b. 25. Ibid., VU, lx, 1330a. Artisans are perhaps free. See VU, Till, 1329a. THE DOMINION OF SERVITUDE AND TYRANNY I ■ ~ . .......... ... ................. 159 ■„.......... .... .. .......j.-.. , We may add as a final text to this discussion the words In which Aristotle explains that the life of the state is not merely for material advantages or for security: But a state exists for the sake of a good life, and not for the sake of life only: if life only were the object, slaves and brute animals might form a state, but they cannot, for they have no share In happiness or In a life of free choice.^ This text, which somewhat exaggerates the lowness of the slave to emphasize the point at hand, makes clear the reason why Aristotle will not admit the slave class to citizenship.27 They are like animals in falling short of the good life which Is supreme in the state, happi­ ness which is the life of perfect virtue, and free choice which is the power of self-direction fortified by pru­ dence. We might justly say that the whole Politics has as its theme the essential difference between the good life of the state, its rulers, and its subjects, and the life of the household, its master, his wife, his chil­ dren, and his slaves. 26. Politics, HI, lx, 1279b. I have here followed the Jowett-Boss translation. 27. This quotation can be corrected by the parallel one in Sthlcs, vll, 1176a: "And any chance person—even a slave—can en­ joy bodily pleasures no less than the best man; but no one as­ signs a slave a share in happiness—unless he assigns to him also a share in human life. For happiness does not lie in such occupations, but, as we have said before, in virtuous ac­ tivities." Chapter X11 CONCLUSION Jacques Maritain has recently written a bitter description of the views of those who wish to divide the human race in order to excuse their hunger for power: ...the race which calls itself the master-race concentrates in Itself all the privileges and all the dignity of our common human nature. The Inferior cate­ gories are treated as a sub-human species, barely on the threshold of humanity. They hold an Intermediate place between man and beast. They are intended by Nature to serve the master race. As.this is the aim and purpose' assigned to them by nature, they find their happiness the fulfillment of It. Let them obey their masters, let them work for their masters, do that through their labors and'< suffering the masters may enjoy the fruits of supreme hu­ man knowledge and power, and thus attain the full life of x the free and strong. ,In their turn the master-race will make their Inferiors happy. Hiey will chastise them for their own good, and for the same reason they will keep them in a state of servitude, refusing them for their own benefit the rights and liberty of which they are not worthy, distributing among them the nourishment and semi­ animal, semi-human pleasures such as are suited to their capacities and without which they might give a bad return or run the risk of Joining in the hideous revolt of the slaves. The highest benefit that can be bestowed on them and understood by them is to be found In the happiness of those to whose pleasure they administer; and that is the last recompense of their fidelity. 3Thia picture of the division of the human race is at once revolting in itself, and terrifying when we realize 1. "Christian Equality," The Dublin Bevlew, No. hl?, (194θ) 163f. 140 CONCLUSION 141 J that racialism, the "class-struggle," and extreme naÎ" tionalism cannot but lead to such a division as a polit­ ical reality. Maritain does not mention Aristotle, but it is quite evident that his words are a mordant picture of a modern application of the Aristotelian theory. f What are we to say then in judgment on such a view? I j I What is to be said about the practical meaning of "naturaï slavery"? The history of Christian culture, as Mr. Belloc t has said, is the history of the alow abolition of the . servile status. The mode in which this was done, he I says, was by the distribution of land. The peasant, bej cause he owns the necessary means of subsistence, necI essarily has an independent life of his own. Even if I he is not capable of much more than a life of toil, nevertheless, fortified by traditional habits, he is able to live as a free man in charge of his own family. Maritiain himself has stated a still deeper rea­ son why ancient slavery is contrary to the whole tenor of Christian life, the fact that it was based on the premise that the man whose function is to do servile work cannot share in the life of contemplation: for Christian conscience, as I have just pointed, out, there do not exist two categories in humanity, homo fab er whose task is to work, and. homo sapiens whose task is the contemplation of truth. The same man is both faber and, sapiens, and. wisdom calls us all to the freedom of the Children of God. 3 . χ. . X— The authoritative voice of the Church itself spoke when in 1888 Leo ΧΪΙΙ Issued his Encyclical ”In ( plurimis" to the Bishops of Brazil urging the comple­ tion of the abolition of slavery in that country. His condemnation did not depart from the reasoning of St.χχχχ,χ Augustine, nor did he lay down any new doctrinal views, ■ but he spoke clearly on the Church’s abhorrence of the manifold evils which the institution had spawned. 2. The Servile Stats, Section 5, 41-54. j. Scholasticism and Politics, ΐγβ. ί. J. Thitllleul» "Esclavage,1* Dictionnaire da Iheologie Catholique, vol.5, part 1, cols. 503-516, gives an exhaustive treatment of.,·., ■the complicated history of theological opinion on this question after St. Thomas. 142 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY If slavery is an Institution opposed to the spirit of Christianity and leading to the most danger­ ous divisions of the human race in its natural and super­ natural oneness, how are we to answer these two ques­ tions: Why does St. Thomas to some extent justify slav­ ery? Is there any permanent practical truth In the Aristotelian tradition on this point? As to the first question our analysis has shown how in the hands of St. Thomas the elements drawn from Aristotle., the Stoics, and the Roman Jurists took on an essentially Christian form. If slavery is an institu­ tion of the jus gentium, the slave remains truly human, possessed of the fundamental human rights, and slavery itself becomes an institution of relative value. St. Thomas, as we have seen, did not adopt the Aristotelian idea of the slave as "alterius" as a principle in decid­ ing practical ethical problems. Concretely speaking he recognized only two forms of slavery as justified, first/f enslavement of the offenders in war, and second slavery as a traditional institution which could not be uprooted without upsetting the hard won.social order of his times. He was not acquainted with the horrors of the later slave-trade and slaving expeditions, but only with a traditional servitude to which no free man was reduced except voluntarily or in punishment for crime. These institutions had their place in the heirarchy of a so­ ciety of Christians, and did not imply any spiritual division of men, except the one between Chr1stIans and non-Christians, which the Church longed to remove by preaching Her Gospel. Nevertheless we must admit that these instltutions were replete with evils. Christianity has a moral development just as it has a doctrinal development. Charity, the principle of its moral life is eternally the same and proceeds from an Eternal Source, but the refinement of the human conscience under the impulse of that charity is a gradual process both in the life of . the individual and in the life of the Mystical Body, the history of Christendom. The very knowledge of our own weakness has come to us slowly and painfully. The law of war in St. Thomas day permitted the victor to kill or enslave his victims on the ground that they were CONCLUSION 143 waging an unjust war. The growth of Christian under­ standing (side by side with the increasing irihumanness of war fed by anti-Christian currents) has made us real­ ize how often soldiers on the unjust side of a war are personally Innocent of any guilt. St. Thomas was him­ self an angel of charity and yet he was a member of a collective conscience which was imperfectly Christianized It is quite possible that the practical rules laid down by such a theologian may be wholly sound and scientific j relative to the institutions and the moral conscience of I the society of his time and yet be inapplicable now ! without the greatest qualification. Thia does not re­ « duce moral theology- or ethics to mere relativism, but only emphasizes the fact that practical wisdom has to St. Thomas is wholly right do with concrete conditions, and eternally right in laying down the principle that a sinner can justly be killed for the common good but he * is not right if we take his conclusion to be practical wisdom for us today in our wars, if we conclude that all „ soldiers on the unjust side ought to be killed or en­ slaved. With this caution in mind, what can we say to our second question, what is the permanent content of the Aristotelico-Thomistic discussion of slavery? The expediency of slavery as a part of the law of war is eliminated by the nature of modern war which involves the most Innocent, and produces an almost universal in­ vincible ignorance in its armies. It could be justified perhaps as a punishment for certain crimes; in fact much imprisonment is a kind of slavery, but modern society seeks to return the criminal to his normal place as soon as possible, and for this servitude is not very well adapted.' What if by slavery we mean the condition men­ tioned by St. Thomas, where the subject has full rights but requires to be guided by a wiser person for his own good, presumably as a member of the household? Such a person labors simply for his living. This Is a condi­ tion actually to be found everywhere in society, in the case of "hired-hands" on farms, and servants who are "part of the family." Such arrangements are accepted < S «sr® 144 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY by everyone as reasonable and just.5 When voluntary it cannot be called servitude in the proper sense, since the subjected person really works for the common good in which he directly shares. But might this legitimately exist as an involuntary institution? In this case there is probably real servitude since the subject is forced to labor directly for the good of someone in whom he has no personal interest, while his own good is obtained only indirectly. The serfdom of the Middle Ages which St. Thomas had in mind approximated this condition. It has been generally admitted that such an arrangement is “not essentially wrong if (a) it is necessary for the common good of the society, and (b) if it does not de­ prive the subject of his strictly natural rights. It involves a sacrifice of personal liberty by the individ­ ual for a common good in which he shares, but to which his labors are not directly orientated. Such an arrange­ ment is not only dangerous given the selfishness of the superior individuals to whom the subject is enslaved, but its usefulness also depends on an aristocratic conΓ stitution of society. Aristotle's analysis serves the /[ purpose of bringing out clearly that the justification" U ofalavery-js tied up with the idea of a state in which V the citizens are all participants of the highest life.' In any other social order the common good which is sought can be shared by any human being. Liberty, wealth, power, pleasure, even glory are common goods in which any human being who is capable of the servile arts can share in it. It is only in the life of virtue that the distinction between master and slave is a real one, in tolstotle's theory. Only if the state is truly aristo^crat£c~~in this way can "natural slavery11 exist 7~ The . 1 'tyrannies of our day enslavè~liron. for Llie~~sake of goods in which every man can share directly. "Wage-slavery" unjustly divides material goods between two men either of whom could do the work and share in the profit with equal fitness. The division must arise from largely ac­ cidental circumstances. Racial tyrannies are forced to construct myths as the basis of selecting a certain group for subjection, and the goods for which they strive 5. For a scholastic proof of the Justice of such an Institution see J. Gredt, Elementa Philosophiae, H» 597. i I CONCLUSION________ 145 might as well be shared by that group as by the "chosen race." These dominations are really struggles between rivals rather than the symbiotic relation which Aristotle described. j ■ j > I i I Since "natural slavery" depends on aristocracy, It is clear without further examination that it has no direct application to modern societies which are either .democratic, mixed or oligarchic in their constitutions. uffiut further than this it is clear that Christian society Miust always view with extreme suspicion a system which \ supposes the perfect virtue of the intelligent, and the uov virtue of the poor and simple, a system which naRurally aims first at the freedom of the most virtuous, land only secondarily at making a way for the lowest men /toward the life of contemplation. Christian culture must /always be more interested in the least than in the high- ( est and wary of every system in which human pride is the veading note. If we turn to St. Thomas we see that if the natural rights of the slave are emphasized, the most radi­ cal implications of Aristotle's theory disappear. His servitude is primarily a thing of tradition to be safe­ guarded by interference from Church and State to protect the subject. Other than his unerring insight into the essence of servitude, it cannot be said.that St. Thomas took Aristotle's analysis of slavery much further. Beyond the aristocratic feature of Aristotle’s theory the most striking point is that he placed all or almost all economic functions inside the family. This he conceived as necessary in order to combine private property and the free life. Because the household was an economically free unit its head was able to partiel-,.. pate In the state. Because the life of production and use was confined to the household, the life of the state could be a political and liberal one, not occupied with primarily illiberal economic considerations'. ^-The man xho is capable only of artistic action must find his highest life in the daily life, this daily life is diT.Actïÿ~aonnecitfΰ liberal life through the head f^the^àëHôId; ' ' ’ i. 146 THE THEORY OF NATURAL SLAVERY When this view Is compared with modern social situation the ethical difference is striking. The state is to a considerable degree occupied with economic affairs. The working class which, in spite of its power to vote, has no true share in liberal life, exists as a separated group in the state, having little security, and no direct connection with a daily life which is di­ rected by a liberal mind. The traditional factors which once enriched the life of the simple by an accumulation of spiritual possessions, have disappeared and left in its place an astonishing poverty of mind and heart. The problem which Aristotle’s slavery does not solve for us, is nevertheless a real problem. The parts of the popu­ lation whose life is primarily one of servile work must attain security, and a participation a life of prudence. If Belloc is right, this is best done by making each worker himself the head of a household and of property. The American agrarian seeks a similar solution. On the other hand nothing is more obvious than that modern political life is hardly "political" at all. It is not aimed to culminate in the prudential and con­ templative life of its citizens, but in the acquisition of material wealth or power, in the art of endless mak­ ing, and goal-less transitive activity. The slave ex­ isted because these things belong rather to the lowest human beings, according to Aristotle, but we today give , them to the highest. Marltaln’s interest in social pluralism comes largely from this same realization that non-politcal functions should be returned to lesser com­ munities, in order that the life of the state itself Should become more truly human. How 4° separate the servile, the prudential, and ^the contemplative functions in the life of the state, I remains our problem. Aristotle may have had little re­ spect for the servile worker, but do we have the proper respect for the free man and his contribution to the life of society? Christian thought which, more than the pagan, values what is truly human in society, must solve this problem in a way which recognizes the claim of con­ templation, not in the fashion of liberalism which equalizes men by debasing the life of the city, nor like totalitarianism which makes men slaves to men themselves enslaved by material illusions. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE The English translations of texts from the works of Aristotle used in the text of this dissertation are taken from the editions listed in the following bibliog­ raphy. The quotations from the Politics are always from the translation of H. Rackham unless otherwise noted. The translations of Thomlstic texts are either my own or from the following translations: Quotations from the Summa Contra Gentiles or Summa Theologica are from the standard translation by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province, published by R. and T. Washbourne, Ltd., 1915· Quotations from De Regimine Prlncipum are from On the Governance of Rulers, G. B. Phelan, Toronto: St. St. Michael’s College, 1935· Quotations from the. Commentary on the Politics are taken from the unpublished translation by Valentine J. King of Saint Ignatius College of the University of San Francisco, I have felt free however to make some alterations in this translation.