Abstract
This chapter considers the Aristotelian examination of slavery in Book I of the Politics in order to question the relationship between slavery and the wider Aristotelian framework of law, reason and emotion. A detailed analysis of Book 1 reveals that it is orientated by an appropriation and transformation of the Platonic conception of virtue and rulership. The Aristotelian response defines the slave as the particular determination of the connection between nature and necessity which, in turn, shape the notions of law, reason and emotion. The relationship between the slave and notions of law, reason and emotion are conferred after the initial determination of, and justification for, the division between (natural) master and (natural) slave. The division is a form of rulership within the household. The slave’s subjection to the master determines that the relationship to law, reason and emotion is coextensive with household management. It is only the free population and, in particular, free men, who are capable of developing a political regime. The political regime is the sole form through which the relationship between law, reason and emotion is to be established in order to realize the ideal or good life. The further development of the Politics is predicated upon the simultaneous recognition and disappearance of a relationship of subjection.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
Edition used: Aristotle (1998).
- 4.
- 5.
Goldschmidt (1984).
- 6.
Brunschwig (2005).
- 7.
The chapter, therefore, considers the ‘economic’ arguments for slavery which Aristotle presents (Aristotle 1998, p. 14, 1253b37–1254a1) as secondary to the primarily political purpose of the discussion of slavery in the Politics.
- 8.
As emphasized by Pellegrin (2013).
- 9.
As emphasized by Deslauriers (2006).
- 10.
- 11.
See for a more extended delineation of this general science of politics, Schofield and Kraut (2006).
- 12.
The figure of the lawgiver is to be understood in relation to the ancient Greek notion of a constitution (politeia). The particular sense to be attributed to this term is that of the ‘system of laws and practices in the civic community that constructs, educates and constrains a person’s condition of citizenship’ Harte and Lane (2013). Hence, the lawgiver is the individual whose character and education indicate their ability to promulgate laws which will fulfil this notion of a constitution. See, also, on the relation between law and constitution in Politics, Morel (2011).
- 13.
Here, following, John M. Cooper’s account of Aristotle’s treatment of emotions in the Rhetoric, and his reading of Aristotle (1991), 1.4.1359b2–18 with 1.2.1358a21–26, and the restriction of the premises of oratorical argument to plausible or reputable opinion (endoxa) and, therefore, its exclusion from the premises of political and ethical science (see, Cooper 1999, 408ff.). However, compare Garver (1995), who seeks to indicate a stronger degree of affinity between Aristotle’s Politics, Eudaimonian Ethics and Nicomachean Ethics and the Rhetoric. See also, Rapp (2009).
- 14.
Henry and Nielsen (2015), p. 9. Emphasis in original.
- 15.
Leunissen (2015), p. 216, fn. 5.
- 16.
- 17.
Leunissen (2015), p. 217.
- 18.
See, Gottlieb (2009).
- 19.
- 20.
- 21.
The translation of “polis” as state follows the interpretation of Hansen and the Copenhagen Polis Centre. On this interpretation, “polis” has the sense of both city and state. It is Aristotle’s Book 1of the Politics which, for Hansen, exemplifies its use in the sense of state in which the initial “‘atom’ of the city-state is the household”, Hansen (2009), p. 110.
- 22.
Here, it must be acknowledged that the education provided by the Politics, is necessarily partial and specific, as it exists as the corollary of, and compliment to, the education furnished by the ethical works of Aristotle (Eudaimonian Ethics and Nicomachean Ethics). For, following the analysis of Bodéüs (1993), the ethical works of Aristotle are to be grouped together with the Politics, as the ethical works and the Politics, in the distinctive knowledge which they impart, are both integral to shaping the formation of the potential lawgiver. Compare, however, the approach in Pangle (2013).
- 23.
- 24.
As C. D. C. Reeve adds in an accompanying footnote to this passage, ‘That is to say, do household managers, masters, statesmen, and kings each employ a different type of technical expertise in ruling? Expertise (technikon) is technical knowledge of the sort embodied in a craft or a science’ (Ibid., p. 2).
- 25.
On this question more generally, in relation to the notion of physis, see Ward (2005).
- 26.
For the examination and identification of the opponents of slavery, see Cambiano (1980).
- 27.
- 28.
See, Nagle (2006).
- 29.
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
See, Rosivach (1999).
- 33.
On this, see, Veloso (2011).
- 34.
Deslauriers (2006), pp. 55–57, together with the additional references, p. 58, fn. 19.
- 35.
Ibid., p. 58.
- 36.
Ibid., p. 55.
- 37.
Ibid., p. 60.
- 38.
Ibid., p. 61.
- 39.
Ibid., p. 62.
- 40.
Ibid., pp. 62–63.
- 41.
Ibid., p. 64.
- 42.
Ibid., pp. 64–65.
- 43.
Schütrumpf (1993).
- 44.
Ibid., p. 114.
- 45.
Ibid., p. 115.
- 46.
- 47.
Schütrumpf (1993), p. 115.
- 48.
A further ‘science’, “the ‘science of acquiring slaves’” is also distinguished by Aristotle, “and is a kind of warfare or hunting” Ibid., Pol. 1255b39.
- 49.
For Fuselli, in this volume, the question of the contemporary relevance of Aristotle’s notion of the soul is its conceptual superiority in comparison to the limitations of existing approaches to the emotions and their relationship to law and legal decision-making. Fuselli (2018).
- 50.
For Bombelli, in this volume, the examination of the Aristotelian relationship between reason and emotion indicates its continued pertinence in comparison with contemporary approaches to this relationship. Bombelli (2018).
- 51.
For a discussion of this argumentative use of the question of nature, see Annas (1997).
- 52.
The presentation of natural slavery, as confined to the household, indicates that this interpretation sees a disjunction, rather than any continuity with the later discussion of the slavish character of non-Greeks (Aristotle 1998, 1285a16–28). The re-emergence of this term is situated with the initial differentiation of types of kingship, and disappears in the subsequent discussion (Pol. 1285b33–1286a1–6). It is also to be differentiated from the further discussion of the ‘natural qualities of citizens’ (Pol. 1327b19) and the ‘lack of spirit’ of nations in Asia which makes them ‘ruled and enslaved’ (Pol. 1327b27–28). This relates to a susceptibility of those who are initially citizens, as is evident from Politics (1327b36–37), where the presence of both spirit and intelligence provides the legislator with an easier task in guiding these citizens to virtue. Hence, the presence of only one of the two simply makes any potential legislator’s task more difficult, but not impossible. The whole discussion is further qualified in Politics (1328a19–20), where the degree of precision of theoretical discussion of these natural qualities of citizens is held to be lower than that provided by perception.
References
Agamben, Giorgio. 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Translated by Daniel Heller-Roazen. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
———. 2013. The Highest Poverty. Monastic Rules and Form-of-Life. Translated by Adam Kotsko. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
———. 2016. The Use of Bodies. Translated by Kevin Atell. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Ambler, Wayne C. 1987. Aristotle on Nature and Politics: The Case of Slavery. Political Theory 15 (3): 390–410.
Annas, Julia. 1995. The Morality of Happiness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 1997. Ethical Arguments from Nature: Aristotle and After. In Beiträge Zur Antiken Philosophie: Festschrift Für Wolfgang Kullmann, ed. Hans-Christian Günther and Antonios Rengakos, 185–198. Stuttgart: Steiner.
———. 2011. Intelligent Virtue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aristotle. 1991. On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Translated by George A. Kennedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 1998. Politics. Edited and Translated by C. D. C. Reeve. Indianapolis, IN and Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishing.
———. 2000. Nicomachean Ethics. Edited and Translated by R. Crisp. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bodéüs, Richard. 1993. The Political Dimensions of Aristotle’s Ethics. Translated by Jan E. Garrett. New York: State University of New York Press.
Bombelli, Giovanni. 2018. Emotion and Rationality in Aristotle’s Model: From Anthropology to Politics. In Aristotle on Emotions in Law and Politics, ed. Liesbeth Huppes-Cluysenaer and Nuno M.M.S. Coelho. Dordrecht: Springer.
Brunschwig, Jacques. 2005. L’esclavage Chez Aristote. Cahiers Philosophiques Hors Série\September: 9–21.
Cambiano, Giuseppe. 1980. Aristotle and the Anonymous Opponents of Slavery. Slavery & Abolition 8 (1): 22–41.
Cherry, Kevin M. 2013. Plato, Aristotle, and the Purpose of Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cooper, John M. 1999. An Aristotelian Theory of Emotions. In Reason and Emotion. Essays on Ancient Moral Psychology and Ethical Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Deslauriers, Marguerite. 2006. The Argument of Aristotle’s ‘Politics’ 1. Phoenix 60 (1/2): 48–69.
Dobbs, Darrell. 1994. Natural Right and the Problem of Aristotle’s Defense of Slavery. Journal of Politics 56 (1): 69–94.
Frank, Jill. 2004. Citizens, Slaves, and Foreigners: Aristotle on Human Nature. American Political Science Review 98 (1): 91–104.
———. 2005. A Democracy of Distinction: Aristotle and the Work of Politics. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Fuselli, Stefano. 2018. Logoi Enuloi. Aristotle’s Contribution to the Contemporary Debate on Emotions and Decision-Making. In Aristotle on Emotions in Law and Politics, ed. Liesbeth Huppes-Cluysenaer and Nuno M.M.S. Coelho. Dordrecht: Springer.
Garver, Eugene. 1994. Aristotle’s Natural Slaves: Incomplete Praxeis and Incomplete Human Beings. Journal of the History of Philosophy 32 (2): 173–195.
———. 1995. Aristotle’s Rhetoric: An Art of Character. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
———. 2014. Aristotle’s Politics. Living Well and Living Together. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Goldschmidt, Victor. 1984. La Théorie Aristotélicienne D’esclavage et Sa Methode. In Écrits I. Études de Philosophie Ancienne, 63–80. Paris: Vrin.
Gottlieb, Paula. 2009. The Virtue of Aristotle’s Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hansen, Mogens H. 2009. Polis: An Introduction to the Ancient Greek City-State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harte, Verity, and Melissa Lane. 2013. Introduction. In Politeia in Greek and Roman Philosophy, ed. Verity Harte and Melissa Lane, 1–11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heath, Malcolm. 2008. Aristotle on Natural Slavery. Phronesis 53 (3): 243–270.
Henry, Devin, and Karen Margarethe Nielsen. 2015. Introduction. In Bridging the Gap Between Aristotle’s Science and Ethics, ed. Devin Henry and Karen Margarethe Nielsen, 1–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hursthouse, Rosalind. 2002. On Virtue Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kamtekar, Rachana. 2014. The Relationship Between Aristotle’s Ethical and Political Discourses (NE X 9). In The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, ed. Ronald Polansky, 370–382. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leunissen, Mariska. 2015. Aristotle on Knowing Natural Science for the Sake of Living Well. In Bridging the Gap Between Aristotle’s Science and Ethics, ed. Devin Henry and Karen Margarethe Nielsen, 214–231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2017. Biology and Teleology in Aristotle’s Account of the City. In Teleology in the Ancient World: The Dispensation of Nature, ed. Julius Rocca. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levin, Michael. 1997. Natural Subordination, Aristotle On. Philosophy 72 (280): 241–257.
Lévy, Edmond. 1989. La Théorie Aristotélicienne D’esclavage et Ses Contradictions. Mélanges de Pierre Lévêque 3: 197–216.
Mayhew, Robert. 1997. Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s Republic. Lanham, MD and Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.
Morel, Pierre-Marie. 2011. Le Meilleur Et Le Convenable. Loi Et Constitution Dans La Politique D’Aristote. In Politique d’Aristote: Famille, Régimes, Éducation, ed. Emanuel Bermon, Valery Laurand, and Jean Terrel, 89–103. Bordeaux: Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux.
Nagle, D. Bernard. 2006. The Household as the Foundation of Aristotle’s Polis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nichols, Mary P. 1992. Citizens and Statesmen: A Study of Aristotle’s Politics. Lanham, MD and Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.
Nielsen, Karen Margarethe. 2015. Aristotle on Principles in Ethics: Political Science as the Science of the Human Good. In Bridging the Gap Between Aristotle’s Science and Ethics, ed. Devin Henry and Karen Margarethe Nielsen, 29–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pangle, Thomas L. 2013. Aristotle’s Teaching in the Politics. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Pellegrin, Pierre. 2013. Natural Slavery. In The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, ed. Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée, 92–116. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Plato. 2000. In The Republic, ed. G.R.F. Ferrari. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Preus, Anthony. 1993. Aristotle on Slavery: Recent Reactions. Philosophical Inquiry 15 (3/4): 33–47.
Rapp, Christoph. 2009. The Nature and Goals of Rhetoric. In The Blackwell Companion to Aristotle, ed. Georgios Anagnostopoulos, 579–595. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rosivach, Vincent J. 1999. Enslaving ‘Barbaroi’ and the Athenian Ideology of Slavery. Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte 48 (2): 129–157.
Russell, Daniel C. 2009. Practical Intelligence and the Virtues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2012. Happiness for Humans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schofield, Malcolm. 2005. Ideology and Philosophy in Aristotle’s Theory of Slavery. In Aristotle’s Politics: Critical Essays, ed. Richard Kraut and Steven Skultety, 91–120. Lanham, MD and Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.
Schofield, Malcolm, and Richard Kraut. 2006. Aristotle’s Political Ethics. In The Blackwell Guide to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, 305–322. Oxford: Blackwell.
Schütrumpf, Eckart. 1993. Aristotle’s Theory of Slavery—A Platonic Dilemma. Ancient Philosophy 13 (1): 111–123.
Sloate, Michael. 1995. From Morality to Virtue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, Nigel D. 1991. Aristotle’s Theory of Natural Slavery. In A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, ed. David Keyt and Fred D. Miller, 142–155. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swanton, Christine. 2005. Virtue Ethics a Pluralistic View. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thornton, Lockwood. 2007. Is Natural Slavery Beneficial? Journal of the History of Philosophy 45 (2): 207–221.
Trott, Ariel M. 2014. Aristotle on the Nature of Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Veloso, Claudio W. 2011. La Relation Entre Les Liens Familiaux Et Les Constitutions Politiques. In Politique d’Aristote: Famille, Régimes, Education, ed. Emanuel Bermon, Valery Laurand, and Jean Terrel, 23–39. Bordeaux: Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux.
———. 2013. Aristote, Ses Commentateurs et Les Déficiences Délibératives de L’Esclave et de La Femme. Les Études Philosophiques 107 (4): 513–534.
Vlassopoulos, Kostas. 2011. Greek Slavery: From Domination to Property and Back Again. Journal of Hellenic Studies 131: 115–130.
Ward, Julie K. 2005. Aristotle on Physis: Human Nature in the Ethics and Politics. Polis 22 (2): 287–308.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Langford, P., Bryan, I. (2018). The Place of Slavery in the Aristotelian Framework of Law, Reason and Emotion. In: Huppes-Cluysenaer, L., Coelho, N. (eds) Aristotle on Emotions in Law and Politics. Law and Philosophy Library, vol 121. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66703-4_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66703-4_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-66702-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-66703-4
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)