Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is
established with a view to some good; for mankind always act in order
to obtain that which they think good.
 But, if all communities aim at
some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of
all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree
than any other, and at the highest good.
Some people think that the qualifications of a statesman, king,
householder, and master are the same, and that they differ, not in
kind, but only in the number of their subjects. For example, the ruler
over a few is called a master; over more, the manager of a household;
over a still larger number, a statesman or king, as if there were no
difference between a great household and a small state. The
distinction which is made between the king and the statesman is as
follows: When the government is personal, the ruler is a king; when,
according to the rules of the political science, the citizens rule and
are ruled in turn, then he is called a statesman.
But all this is a mistake; for governments differ in kind, as will be
evident to any one who considers the matter according to the method
which has hitherto guided us. As in other departments of science, so
in politics, the compound should always be resolved into the simple
elements or least parts of the whole. We must therefore look at the
elements of which the state is composed, in order that we may see in
what the different kinds of rule differ from one another, and whether
any scientific result can be attained about each one of them.
He who thus considers things in their first growth and origin, whether
a state or anything else, will obtain the clearest view of them.
the first place there must be a union of those who cannot exist
without each other; namely, of male and female, that the race may
continue (and this is a union which is formed, not of deliberate
purpose, but because, in common with other animals and with plants,
mankind have a natural desire to leave behind them an image of
themselves), and of natural ruler and subject, that both may be
For that which can foresee by the exercise of mind is by
nature intended to be lord and master, and that which can with its
body give effect to such foresight is a subject, and by nature a
slave; hence master and slave have the same interest.
 Now nature has
distinguished between the female and the slave. For she is not
niggardly, like the smith who fashions the Delphian knife for many
uses; she makes each thing for a single use, and every instrument is
best made when intended for one and not for many uses. But among
barbarians no distinction is made between women and slaves, because
there is no natural ruler among them: they are a community of slaves,
male and female.  Wherefore the poets say,
"It is meet that Hellenes should rule over barbarians; "
as if they thought that the barbarian and the slave were by nature
Out of these two relationships between man and woman, master and
slave, the first thing to arise is the family, and Hesiod is right
when he says,
"First house and wife and an ox for the plough, "
for the ox is the poor man's slave.
 The family is the association
established by nature for the supply of men's everyday wants,
 and the
members of it are called by Charondas 'companions of the cupboard,'
and by Epimenides the Cretan, 'companions of the manger.'
several families are united, and the association aims at something
more than the supply of daily needs, the first society to be formed is
the village. And the most natural form of the village appears to be
that of a colony from the family, composed of the children and
grandchildren, who are said to be suckled 'with the same milk.'
this is the reason why Hellenic states were originally governed by
kings; because the Hellenes were under royal rule before they came
together, as the barbarians still are. Every family is ruled by the
eldest, and therefore in the colonies of the family the kingly form of
government prevailed because they were of the same blood.
 As Homer
"Each one gives law to his children and to his wives. "
For they lived dispersedly, as was the manner in ancient times.
Wherefore men say that the Gods have a king, because they themselves
either are or were in ancient times under the rule of a king.
imagine, not only the forms of the Gods, but their ways of life to be
like their own. 
When several villages are united in a single complete community, large
enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into
existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in
existence for the sake of a good life. And therefore, if the earlier
forms of society are natural, so is the state, for it is the end of
them, and the nature of a thing is its end.
 For what each thing is
when fully developed, we call its nature, whether we are speaking of a
man, a horse, or a family. Besides, the final cause and end of a thing
is the best, and to be self-sufficing is the end and the best.
Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that
man is by nature a political animal.
 And he who by nature and not by
mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above
humanity;  he is like the
"Tribeless, lawless, hearthless one, "
whom Homer denounces - the natural outcast is forthwith a lover of war;
he may be compared to an isolated piece at draughts.
Now, that man is more of a political animal than bees or any other
gregarious animals is evident. Nature, as we often say, makes nothing
in vain, and man is the only animal whom she has endowed with the gift
of speech. And whereas mere voice is but an indication of pleasure or
pain, and is therefore found in other animals (for their nature
attains to the perception of pleasure and pain and the intimation of
them to one another, and no further), the power of speech is intended
to set forth the expedient and inexpedient, and therefore likewise the
just and the unjust. And it is a characteristic of man that he alone
has any sense of good and evil, of just and unjust, and the like, and
the association of living beings who have this sense makes a family
and a state. 
Further, the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the
individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part; for
example, if the whole body be destroyed, there will be no foot or
hand, except in an equivocal sense, as we might speak of a stone hand;
for when destroyed the hand will be no better than that.
 But things
are defined by their working and power;
 and we ought not to say that
they are the same when they no longer have their proper quality, but
only that they have the same name. The proof that the state is a
creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the individual,
when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore he is like a part
in relation to the whole. But he who is unable to live in society, or
who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a
beast or a god: he is no part of a state.
 A social instinct is
implanted in all men by nature, and yet he who first founded the state
was the greatest of benefactors.
 For man, when perfected, is the best
of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst
of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is
equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by intelligence and
virtue, which he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if he have not
virtue, he is the most unholy and the most savage of animals, and the
most full of lust and gluttony.
 But justice is the bond of men in
states, for the administration of justice, which is the determination
of what is just, is the principle of order in political society.
Seeing then that the state is made up of households, before speaking
of the state we must speak of the management of the household.
parts of household management correspond to the persons who compose
the household, and a complete household consists of slaves and
freemen. Now we should begin by examining everything in its fewest
possible elements; and the first and fewest possible parts of a family
are master and slave, husband and wife, father and children. We have
therefore to consider what each of these three relations is and ought
to be: I mean the relation of master and servant, the marriage
relation (the conjunction of man and wife has no name of its own), and
thirdly, the procreative relation (this also has no proper name).
there is another element of a household, the so-called art of getting
wealth, which, according to some, is identical with household
management, according to others, a principal part of it; the nature of
this art will also have to be considered by us.
Let us first speak of master and slave, looking to the needs of
practical life and also seeking to attain some better theory of their
relation than exists at present. For some are of opinion that the rule
of a master is a science, and that the management of a household, and
the mastership of slaves, and the political and royal rule, as I was
saying at the outset, are all the same. Others affirm that the rule of
a master over slaves is contrary to nature, and that the distinction
between slave and freeman exists by law only, and not by nature; and
being an interference with nature is therefore unjust.
Property is a part of the household, and the art of acquiring property
is a part of the art of managing the household; for no man can live
well, or indeed live at all, unless he be provided with necessaries.
 And as in the arts which have a definite sphere the workers must have
their own proper instruments for the accomplishment of their work, so
it is in the management of a household. Now instruments are of various
sorts; some are living, others lifeless; in the rudder, the pilot of a
ship has a lifeless, in the look-out man, a living instrument; for in
the arts the servant is a kind of instrument. Thus, too, a possession
is an instrument for maintaining life. And so, in the arrangement of
the family, a slave is a living possession, and property a number of
such instruments; and the servant is himself an instrument which takes
precedence of all other instruments. For if every instrument could
accomplish its own work, obeying or anticipating the will of others,
like the statues of Daedalus, or the tripods of Hephaestus, which,
says the poet,
"of their own accord entered the assembly of the Gods; "
if, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the
lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want
servants, nor masters slaves. Here, however, another distinction must
be drawn; the instruments commonly so called are instruments of
production, whilst a possession is an instrument of action. The
shuttle, for example, is not only of use; but something else is made
by it, whereas of a garment or of a bed there is only the use.
 Further, as production and action are different in kind, and both
require instruments, the instruments which they employ must likewise
differ in kind. But life is action and not production, and therefore
the slave is the minister of action. Again, a possession is spoken of
as a part is spoken of; for the part is not only a part of something
else, but wholly belongs to it; and this is also true of a possession.
The master is only the master of the slave; he does not belong to him,
whereas the slave is not only the slave of his master, but wholly
belongs to him. Hence we see what is the nature and office of a slave;
he who is by nature not his own but another's man, is by nature a
slave; and he may be said to be another's man who, being a human
being, is also a possession. And a possession may be defined as an
instrument of action, separable from the possessor.
But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for
whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all
slavery a violation of nature?
There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of
reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a
thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth,
some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.
And there are many kinds both of rulers and subjects (and that rule is
the better which is exercised over better subjects- for example, to
rule over men is better than to rule over wild beasts; for the work is
better which is executed by better workmen, and where one man rules
and another is ruled, they may be said to have a work); for in all
things which form a composite whole and which are made up of parts,
whether continuous or discrete, a distinction between the ruling and
the subject element comes to light. Such a duality exists in living
creatures, but not in them only; it originates in the constitution of
the universe; even in things which have no life there is a ruling
principle, as in a musical mode. But we are wandering from the
subject. We will therefore restrict ourselves to the living creature,
which, in the first place, consists of soul and body: and of these
two, the one is by nature the ruler, and the other the subject. But
then we must look for the intentions of nature in things which retain
their nature, and not in things which are corrupted. And therefore
must study the man who is in the most perfect state both of body and
soul, for in him we shall see the true relation of the two; although
in bad or corrupted natures the body will often appear to rule over
the soul, because they are in an evil and unnatural condition.
 At all
events we may firstly observe in living creatures both a despotical
and a constitutional rule; for the soul rules the body with a
despotical rule, whereas the intellect rules the appetites with a
constitutional and royal rule. And it is clear that the rule of the
soul over the body, and of the mind and the rational element over the
passionate, is natural and expedient; whereas the equality of the two
or the rule of the inferior is always hurtful.
 The same holds good of
animals in relation to men; for tame animals have a better nature than
wild, and all tame animals are better off when they are ruled by man;
for then they are preserved.
 Again, the male is by nature superior,
and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled;
this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind.
Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body,
or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is
to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are
by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that
they should be under the rule of a master.
 For he who can be, and
therefore is, another's and he who participates in rational principle
enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by
nature. Whereas the lower animals cannot even apprehend a principle;
they obey their instincts.
 And indeed the use made of slaves and of
tame animals is not very different; for both with their bodies
minister to the needs of life.
 Nature would like to distinguish
between the bodies of freemen and slaves, making the one strong for
servile labor, the other upright, and although useless for such
services, useful for political life in the arts both of war and peace.
But the opposite often happens- that some have the souls and others
have the bodies of freemen. And doubtless if men differed from one
another in the mere forms of their bodies as much as the statues of
the Gods do from men, all would acknowledge that the inferior class
should be slaves of the superior. And if this is true of the body, how
much more just that a similar distinction should exist in the soul?
but the beauty of the body is seen, whereas the beauty of the soul is
not seen. It is clear, then, that some men are by nature free, and
others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and
But that those who take the opposite view have in a certain way right
on their side, may be easily seen. For the words slavery and slave are
used in two senses. There is a slave or slavery by law as well as by
nature. The law of which I speak is a sort of convention - the law by
which whatever is taken in war is supposed to belong to the victors.
But this right many jurists impeach, as they would an orator who
brought forward an unconstitutional measure: they detest the notion
that, because one man has the power of doing violence and is superior
in brute strength, another shall be his slave and subject. Even among
philosophers there is a difference of opinion.
 The origin of the
dispute, and what makes the views invade each other's territory, is as
follows: in some sense virtue, when furnished with means, has actually
the greatest power of exercising force; and as superior power is only
found where there is superior excellence of some kind, power seems to
imply virtue,  and the dispute to be simply one about justice (for it
is due to one party identifying justice with goodwill while the other
identifies it with the mere rule of the stronger). If these views are
thus set out separately, the other views have no force or plausibility
against the view that the superior in virtue ought to rule, or be
master. Others, clinging, as they think, simply to a principle of
justice (for law and custom are a sort of justice), assume that
slavery in accordance with the custom of war is justified by law, but
at the same moment they deny this. For what if the cause of the war be
unjust? And again, no one would ever say he is a slave who is unworthy
to be a slave. Were this the case, men of the highest rank would be
slaves and the children of slaves if they or their parents chance to
have been taken captive and sold. Wherefore Hellenes do not like to
call Hellenes slaves, but confine the term to barbarians.
 Yet, in
using this language, they really mean the natural slave of whom we
spoke at first; for it must be admitted that some are slaves
everywhere, others nowhere. The same principle applies to nobility.
Hellenes regard themselves as noble everywhere, and not only in their
own country, but they deem the barbarians noble only when at home,
thereby implying that there are two sorts of nobility and freedom, the
one absolute, the other relative.
 The Helen of Theodectes says:
"Who would presume to call me servant who am on both sides sprung from
the stem of the Gods? "
What does this mean but that they distinguish freedom and slavery,
noble and humble birth, by the two principles of good and evil? They
think that as men and animals beget men and animals, so from good men
a good man springs. But this is what nature, though she may intend it,
cannot always accomplish.
We see then that there is some foundation for this difference of
opinion, and that all are not either slaves by nature or freemen by
nature, and also that there is in some cases a marked distinction
between the two classes, rendering it expedient and right for the one
to be slaves and the others to be masters: the one practicing
obedience, the others exercising the authority and lordship which
nature intended them to have. The abuse of this authority is injurious
to both; for the interests of part and whole, of body and soul, are
the same, and the slave is a part of the master, a living but
separated part of his bodily frame. Hence, where the relation of
master and slave between them is natural they are friends and have a
common interest, but where it rests merely on law and force the
reverse is true. 
The previous remarks are quite enough to show that the rule of a
master is not a constitutional rule, and that all the different kinds
of rule are not, as some affirm, the same with each other. For there
is one rule exercised over subjects who are by nature free, another
over subjects who are by nature slaves.
 The rule of a household is a
monarchy, for every house is under one head: whereas constitutional
rule is a government of freemen and equals. The master is not called a
master because he has science, but because he is of a certain
character, and the same remark applies to the slave and the freeman.
Still there may be a science for the master and science for the slave.
The science of the slave would be such as the man of Syracuse taught,
who made money by instructing slaves in their ordinary duties. And
such a knowledge may be carried further, so as to include cookery and
similar menial arts. For some duties are of the more necessary, others
of the more honorable sort; as the proverb says, 'slave before slave,
master before master.' But all such branches of knowledge are servile.
There is likewise a science of the master, which teaches the use of
slaves; for the master as such is concerned, not with the acquisition,
but with the use of them. Yet this so-called science is not anything
great or wonderful; for the master need only know how to order that
which the slave must know how to execute. Hence those who are in a
position which places them above toil have stewards who attend to
their households while they occupy themselves with philosophy or with
politics. But the art of acquiring slaves, I mean of justly acquiring
them, differs both from the art of the master and the art of the
slave, being a species of hunting or war. Enough of the distinction
between master and slave.
Let us now inquire into property generally, and into the art of
getting wealth, in accordance with our usual method, for a slave has
been shown to be a part of property. The first question is whether the
art of getting wealth is the same with the art of managing a household
or a part of it, or instrumental to it; and if the last, whether in
the way that the art of making shuttles is instrumental to the art of
weaving, or in the way that the casting of bronze is instrumental to
the art of the statuary, for they are not instrumental in the same
way, but the one provides tools and the other material; and by
material I mean the substratum out of which any work is made; thus
wool is the material of the weaver, bronze of the statuary.
Now it is
easy to see that the art of household management is not identical with
the art of getting wealth, for the one uses the material which the
other provides. For the art which uses household stores can be no
other than the art of household management. There is, however, a doubt
whether the art of getting wealth is a part of household management or
a distinct art.  If the getter of wealth has to consider whence wealth
and property can be procured, but there are many sorts of property and
riches, then are husbandry, and the care and provision of food in
general, parts of the wealth-getting art or distinct arts? Again,
there are many sorts of food, and therefore there are many kinds of
lives both of animals and men; they must all have food, and the
differences in their food have made differences in their ways of life.
For of beasts, some are gregarious, others are solitary; they live in
the way which is best adapted to sustain them, accordingly as they are
carnivorous or herbivorous or omnivorous: and their habits are
determined for them by nature in such a manner that they may obtain
with greater facility the food of their choice. But, as different
species have different tastes, the same things are not naturally
pleasant to all of them; and therefore the lives of carnivorous or
herbivorous animals further differ among themselves. In the lives of
men too there is a great difference. The laziest are shepherds, who
lead an idle life, and get their subsistence without trouble from tame
animals; their flocks having to wander from place to place in search
of pasture, they are compelled to follow them, cultivating a sort of
living farm. Others support themselves by hunting, which is of
different kinds. Some, for example, are brigands, others, who dwell
near lakes or marshes or rivers or a sea in which there are fish, are
fishermen, and others live by the pursuit of birds or wild beasts. The
greater number obtain a living from the cultivated fruits of the soil.
Such are the modes of subsistence which prevail among those whose
industry springs up of itself, and whose food is not acquired by
exchange and retail trade - there is the shepherd, the husbandman, the
brigand, the fisherman, the hunter.
 Some gain a comfortable
maintenance out of two employments, eking out the deficiencies of one
of them by another: thus the life of a shepherd may be combined with
that of a brigand, the life of a farmer with that of a hunter. Other
modes of life are similarly combined in any way which the needs of men
may require. Property, in the sense of a bare livelihood, seems to be
given by nature herself to all, both when they are first born, and
when they are grown up.
 For some animals bring forth, together with
their offspring, so much food as will last until they are able to
supply themselves; of this the vermiparous or oviparous animals are an
instance; and the viviparous animals have up to a certain time a
supply of food for their young in themselves, which is called milk.
like manner we may infer that, after the birth of animals, plants
exist for their sake, and that the other animals exist for the sake of
man, the tame for use and food, the wild, if not all at least the
greater part of them, for food, and for the provision of clothing and
various instruments. Now if nature makes nothing incomplete, and
nothing in vain, the inference must be that she has made all animals
for the sake of man. 
And so, in one point of view, the art of war is a
natural art of acquisition, for the art of acquisition includes
hunting, an art which we ought to practice against wild beasts, and
against men who, though intended by nature to be governed, will not
submit; for war of such a kind is naturally just.
Of the art of acquisition then there is one kind which by nature is a
part of the management of a household, in so far as the art of
household management must either find ready to hand, or itself
provide, such things necessary to life, and useful for the community
of the family or state, as can be stored. They are the elements of
true riches; for the amount of property which is needed for a good
life is not unlimited, although Solon in one of his poems says that
"No bound to riches has been fixed for man. "
But there is a boundary fixed, just as there is in the other arts; for
the instruments of any art are never unlimited, either in number or
size, and riches may be defined as a number of instruments to be used
in a household or in a state.
 And so we see that there is a natural
art of acquisition which is practiced by managers of households and by
statesmen, and what is the reason of this.
There is another variety of the art of acquisition which is commonly
and rightly called an art of wealth-getting, and has in fact suggested
the notion that riches and property have no limit. Being nearly
connected with the preceding, it is often identified with it. But
though they are not very different, neither are they the same. The
kind already described is given by nature, the other is gained by
experience and art.
Let us begin our discussion of the question with the following
Of everything which we possess there are two uses: both belong to the
thing as such, but not in the same manner, for one is the proper, and
the other the improper or secondary use of it. For example, a shoe is
used for wear, and is used for exchange; both are uses of the shoe. He
who gives a shoe in exchange for money or food to him who wants one,
does indeed use the shoe as a shoe, but this is not its proper or
primary purpose, for a shoe is not made to be an object of barter. The
same may be said of all possessions, for the art of exchange extends
to all of them, and it arises at first from what is natural, from the
circumstance that some have too little, others too much.
 Hence we may
infer that retail trade is not a natural part of the art of getting
wealth; had it been so, men would have ceased to exchange when they
had enough. In the first community, indeed, which is the family, this
art is obviously of no use, but it begins to be useful when the
society increases. 
For the members of the family originally had all
things in common; later, when the family divided into parts, the parts
shared in many things, and different parts in different things, which
they had to give in exchange for what they wanted, a kind of barter
which is still practiced among barbarous nations who exchange with one
another the necessaries of life and nothing more; giving and receiving
wine, for example, in exchange for coin, and the like.
 This sort of
barter is not part of the wealth-getting art and is not contrary to
nature, but is needed for the satisfaction of men's natural wants. The
other or more complex form of exchange grew, as might have been
inferred, out of the simpler. When the inhabitants of one country
became more dependent on those of another, and they imported what they
needed, and exported what they had too much of, money necessarily came
into use.  For the various necessaries of life are not easily carried
about, and hence men agreed to employ in their dealings with each
other something which was intrinsically useful and easily applicable
to the purposes of life, for example, iron, silver, and the like. Of
this the value was at first measured simply by size and weight, but in
process of time they put a stamp upon it, to save the trouble of
weighing and to mark the value.
When the use of coin had once been discovered, out of the barter of
necessary articles arose the other art of wealth getting, namely,
retail trade; which was at first probably a simple matter, but became
more complicated as soon as men learned by experience whence and by
what exchanges the greatest profit might be made. Originating in the
use of coin, the art of getting wealth is generally thought to be
chiefly concerned with it, and to be the art which produces riches and
wealth;  having to consider how they may be accumulated.
is assumed by many to be only a quantity of coin, because the arts of
getting wealth and retail trade are concerned with coin. Others
maintain that coined money is a mere sham, a thing not natural, but
conventional only, because, if the users substitute another commodity
for it, it is worthless, and because it is not useful as a means to
any of the necessities of life, and, indeed, he who is rich in coin
may often be in want of necessary food.
 But how can that be wealth of
which a man may have a great abundance and yet perish with hunger,
like Midas in the fable, whose insatiable prayer turned everything
that was set before him into gold?
Hence men seek after a better notion of riches and of the art of
getting wealth than the mere acquisition of coin, and they are right.
For natural riches and the natural art of wealth-getting are a
different thing; in their true form they are part of the management of
a household; whereas retail trade is the art of producing wealth, not
in every way, but by exchange.
 And it is thought to be concerned with
coin; for coin is the unit of exchange and the measure or limit of it.
And there is no bound to the riches which spring from this art of
wealth getting. As in the art of medicine there is no limit to the
pursuit of health, and as in the other arts there is no limit to the
pursuit of their several ends, for they aim at accomplishing their
ends to the uttermost (but of the means there is a limit, for the end
is always the limit), so, too, in this art of wealth-getting there is
no limit of the end, which is riches of the spurious kind, and the
acquisition of wealth.  But the art of wealth-getting which consists in
household management, on the other hand, has a limit; the unlimited
acquisition of wealth is not its business. And, therefore, in one
point of view, all riches must have a limit; nevertheless, as a matter
of fact, we find the opposite to be the case; for all getters of
wealth increase their hoard of coin without limit. The source of the
confusion is the near connection between the two kinds of
wealth-getting; in either, the instrument is the same, although the
use is different, and so they pass into one another; for each is a use
of the same property, but with a difference: accumulation is the end
in the one case, but there is a further end in the other.
 Hence some
persons are led to believe that getting wealth is the object of
household management, and the whole idea of their lives is that they
ought either to increase their money without limit, or at any rate not
to lose it.  The origin of this disposition in men is that they are
intent upon living only, and not upon living well; and, as their
desires are unlimited they also desire that the means of gratifying
them should be without limit. Those who do aim at a good life seek the
means of obtaining bodily pleasures; and, since the enjoyment of these
appears to depend on property, they are absorbed in getting wealth:
and so there arises the second species of wealth-getting. For, as
their enjoyment is in excess, they seek an art which produces the
excess of enjoyment; and, if they are not able to supply their
pleasures by the art of getting wealth, they try other arts, using in
turn every faculty in a manner contrary to nature.
 The quality of
courage, for example, is not intended to make wealth, but to inspire
confidence; neither is this the aim of the general's or of the
physician's art; but the one aims at victory and the other at health.
Nevertheless, some men turn every quality or art into a means of
getting wealth; this they conceive to be the end, and to the promotion
of the end they think all things must contribute.
Thus, then, we have considered the art of wealth-getting which is
unnecessary, and why men want it; and also the necessary art of
wealth-getting, which we have seen to be different from the other, and
to be a natural part of the art of managing a household, concerned
with the provision of food, not, however, like the former kind,
unlimited, but having a limit.
And we have found the answer to our original question, Whether the art
of getting wealth is the business of the manager of a household and of
the statesman or not their business? viz., that wealth is presupposed
by them. For as political science does not make men, but takes them
from nature and uses them, so too nature provides them with earth or
sea or the like as a source of food. At this stage begins the duty of
the manager of a household, who has to order the things which nature
supplies; he may be compared to the weaver who has not to make but to
use wool, and to know, too, what sort of wool is good and serviceable
or bad and unserviceable. Were this otherwise, it would be difficult
to see why the art of getting wealth is a part of the management of a
household and the art of medicine not; for surely the members of a
household must have health just as they must have life or any other
necessary. The answer is that as from one point of view the master of
the house and the ruler of the state have to consider about health,
from another point of view not they but the physician; so in one way
the art of household management, in another way the subordinate art,
has to consider about wealth. But, strictly
speaking, as I have already said, the means of life must be provided
beforehand by nature; for the business of nature is to furnish food to
that which is born, and the food of the offspring is always what
remains over of that from which it is produced. Wherefore the art of
getting wealth out of fruits and animals is always natural.
There are two sorts of wealth-getting, as I have said; one is a part
of household management, the other is retail trade: the former
necessary and honorable, while that which consists in exchange is
justly censured; for it is unnatural, and a mode by which men gain
from one another. 
The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason,
is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the
natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange,
but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means
the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money
because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of
getting wealth this is the most unnatural.
Enough has been said about the theory of wealth-getting; we will now
proceed to the practical part. The discussion of such matters is not
unworthy of philosophy, but to be engaged in them practically is
illiberal and irksome.  The useful parts of wealth-getting are, first,
the knowledge of livestock - which are most profitable, and where, and
how - as, for example, what sort of horses or sheep or oxen or any
other animals are most likely to give a return. A man ought to know
which of these pay better than others, and which pay best in
particular places, for some do better in one place and some in
another. Secondly, husbandry, which may be either tillage or planting,
and the keeping of bees and of fish, or fowl, or of any animals which
may be useful to man. These are the divisions of the true or proper
art of wealth-getting and come first. Of the other, which consists in
exchange, the first and most important division is commerce (of which
there are three kinds - the provision of a ship, the conveyance of
goods, exposure for sale- these again differing as they are safer or
more profitable), the second is usury, the third, service for hire - of
this, one kind is employed in the mechanical arts, the other in
unskilled and bodily labor.
 There is still a third sort of wealth
getting intermediate between this and the first or natural mode which
is partly natural, but is also concerned with exchange, viz., the
industries that make their profit from the earth, and from things
growing from the earth which, although they bear no fruit, are
nevertheless profitable; for example, the cutting of timber and all
mining. The art of mining, by which minerals are obtained, itself has
many branches, for there are various kinds of things dug out of the
earth. Of the several divisions of wealth-getting I now speak
generally; a minute consideration of them might be useful in practice,
but it would be tiresome to dwell upon them at greater length now.
Those occupations are most truly arts in which there is the least
element of chance; they are the meanest in which the body is most
deteriorated, the most servile in which there is the greatest use of
the body, and the most illiberal in which there is the least need of
Works have been written upon these subjects by various persons; for
example, by Chares the Parian, and Apollodorus the Lemnian, who have
treated of Tillage and Planting, while others have treated of other
branches; any one who cares for such matters may refer to their
writings. It would be well also to collect the scattered stories of
the ways in which individuals have succeeded in amassing a fortune;
for all this is useful to persons who value the art of getting wealth.
There is the anecdote of Thales the Milesian and his financial device,
which involves a principle of universal application, but is attributed
to him on account of his reputation for wisdom. He was reproached for
his poverty, which was supposed to show that philosophy was of no use.
According to the story, he knew by his skill in the stars while it was
yet winter that there would be a great harvest of olives in the coming
year; so, having a little money, he gave deposits for the use of all
the olive-presses in Chios and Miletus, which he hired at a low price
because no one bid against him. When the harvest-time came, and many
were wanted all at once and of a sudden, he let them out at any rate
which he pleased, and made a quantity of money. Thus he showed the
world that philosophers can easily be rich if they like, but that
their ambition is of another sort. He is supposed to have given a
striking proof of his wisdom, but, as I was saying, his device for
getting wealth is of universal application, and is nothing but the
creation of a monopoly. It is an art often practiced by cities when
they are want of money; they make a monopoly of provisions.
There was a man of Sicily, who, having money deposited with him,
bought up an the iron from the iron mines; afterwards, when the
merchants from their various markets came to buy, he was the only
seller, and without much increasing the price he gained 200 per cent.
Which when Dionysius heard, he told him that he might take away his
money, but that he must not remain at Syracuse, for he thought that
the man had discovered a way of making money which was injurious to
his own interests. He made the same discovery as Thales; they both
contrived to create a monopoly for themselves. And statesmen as well
ought to know these things; for a state is often as much in want of
money and of such devices for obtaining it as a household, or even
more so; hence some public men devote themselves entirely to finance.
Of household management we have seen that there are three parts - one
is the rule of a master over slaves, which has been discussed already,
another of a father, and the third of a husband. A husband and father,
we saw, rules over wife and children, both free, but the rule differs,
the rule over his children being a royal, over his wife a
constitutional rule. 
For although there may be exceptions to the order
of nature, the male is by nature fitter for command than the female,
just as the elder and full-grown is superior to the younger and more
immature. But in most constitutional states the citizens rule and are
ruled by turns, for the idea of a constitutional state implies that
the natures of the citizens are equal, and do not differ at all.
 Nevertheless, when one rules and the other is ruled we endeavor to
create a difference of outward forms and names and titles of respect,
which may be illustrated by the saying of Amasis about his foot-pan.
The relation of the male to the female is of this kind, but there the
inequality is permanent.
 The rule of a father over his children is
royal, for he rules by virtue both of love and of the respect due to
age, exercising a kind of royal power. And therefore Homer has
appropriately called Zeus 'father of Gods and men,' because he is the
king of them all. For a king is the natural superior of his subjects,
but he should be of the same kin or kind with them, and such is the
relation of elder and younger, of father and son.
Thus it is clear that household management attends more to men than to
the acquisition of inanimate things, and to human excellence more than
to the excellence of property which we call wealth, and to the virtue
of freemen more than to the virtue of slaves. A question may indeed be
raised, whether there is any excellence at all in a slave beyond and
higher than merely instrumental and ministerial qualities - whether he
can have the virtues of temperance, courage, justice, and the like; or
whether slaves possess only bodily and ministerial qualities. And,
whichever way we answer the 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 virtue. A similar question may be
raised about women and children, whether they too have virtues: ought
a woman to be temperate and brave and just, and is a child to be
called temperate, and intemperate, or not.
 So in general we may ask
about the natural ruler, and the natural subject, whether they have
the same or different virtues. For if a noble nature is equally
required in both, why should one of them always rule, and the other
always be ruled? Nor can we say that this is a question of degree, for
the difference between ruler and subject is a difference of kind,
which the difference of more and less never is. Yet how strange is the
supposition that the one ought, and that the other ought not, to have
virtue! For if the ruler is intemperate and unjust, how can he rule
well? If the subject, how can he obey well? If he be licentious and
cowardly, he will certainly not do his duty. It is evident, therefore,
that both of them must have a share of virtue, but varying as natural
subjects also vary among themselves. Here the very constitution of the
soul has shown us the way; in it one part naturally rules, and the
other is subject, and the virtue of the ruler we in maintain to be
different from that of the subject; the one being the virtue of the
rational, and the other of the irrational part. Now, it is obvious
that the same principle applies generally, and therefore almost all
things rule and are ruled according to nature. But the kind of rule
differs; the freeman rules over the slave after another manner from
that in which the male rules over the female, or the man over the
child;  although the parts of the soul are present in an of them, they
are present in different degrees. For the slave has no deliberative
faculty at all; the woman has, but it is without authority, and the
child has, but it is immature. So it must necessarily be supposed to
be with the moral virtues also; all should partake of them, but only
in such manner and degree as is required by each for the fulfillment
of his duty.  Hence the ruler ought to have moral virtue in perfection,
for his function, taken absolutely, demands a master artificer, and
rational principle is such an artificer; the subjects, oil the other
hand, require only that measure of virtue which is proper to each of
them. Clearly, then, moral virtue belongs to all of them; but the
temperance of a man and of a woman, or the courage and justice of a
man and of a woman, are not, as Socrates maintained, the same; the
courage of a man is shown in commanding, of a woman in obeying. And
this holds of all other virtues, as will be more clearly seen if we
look at them in detail, for those who say generally that virtue
consists in a good disposition of the soul, or in doing rightly, or
the like, only deceive themselves.
 Far better than such definitions is
their mode of speaking, who, like Gorgias, enumerate the virtues. All
classes must be deemed to have their special attributes; as the poet
says of women,
"Silence is a woman's glory, "
but this is not equally the glory of man. The child is imperfect, and
therefore obviously his virtue is not relative to himself alone, but
to the perfect man and to his teacher, and in like manner the virtue
of the slave is relative to a master. Now we determined that a slave
is useful for the wants of life, and therefore he will obviously
require only so much virtue as will prevent him from failing in his
duty through cowardice or lack of self-control. Some one will ask
whether, if what we are saying is true, virtue will not be required
also in the artisans, for they often fail in their work through the
lack of self control? But is there not a great difference in the two
cases? For the slave shares in his master's life; the artisan is less
closely connected with him, and only attains excellence in proportion
as he becomes a slave. The meaner sort of mechanic has a special and
separate slavery; and whereas the slave exists by nature, not so the
shoemaker or other artisan.
 It is manifest, then, that the master
ought to be the source of such excellence in the slave, and not a mere
possessor of the art of mastership which trains the slave in his
duties. Wherefore they are mistaken who forbid us to converse with
slaves and say that we should employ command only, for slaves stand
even more in need of admonition than children.
So much for this subject; the relations of husband and wife, parent
and child, their several virtues, what in their intercourse with one
another is good, and what is evil, and how we may pursue the good and
good and escape the evil, will have to be discussed when we speak of
the different forms of government. For, inasmuch as every family is a
part of a state, and these relationships are the parts of a family,
and the virtue of the part must have regard to the virtue of the
whole, women and children must be trained by education with an eye to
the constitution, if the virtues of either of them are supposed to
make any difference in the virtues of the state. And they must make a
difference: for the children grow up to be citizens, and half the free
persons in a state are women.
Of these matters, enough has been said; of what remains, let us speak
at another time. Regarding, then, our present inquiry as complete, we
will make a new beginning. And, first, let us examine the various
theories of a perfect state.