Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Place of Slavery in the Aristotelian Framework of Law, Reason and Emotion

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Aristotle on Emotions in Law and Politics

Part of the book series: Law and Philosophy Library ((LAPS,volume 121))

  • 934 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, for example, Annas (1995, 2011), Hursthouse (2002), Russell (2009, 2012), Sloate (1995), and Swanton (2005).

  2. 2.

    See, Agamben (1998, 2013, 2016).

  3. 3.

    Edition used: Aristotle (1998).

  4. 4.

    Rosivach (1999). See, also, Schofield (2005) and Lévy (1989).

  5. 5.

    Goldschmidt (1984).

  6. 6.

    Brunschwig (2005).

  7. 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. 8.

    As emphasized by Pellegrin (2013).

  9. 9.

    As emphasized by Deslauriers (2006).

  10. 10.

    Edition used: Aristotle (2000). See on this, Kamtekar (2014). The other aspect of this further development of the study of legislation is the collection and commentary upon the existing Greek constitutions of which only the Aristotelian commentary on the Athenian Constitution survives.

  11. 11.

    See for a more extended delineation of this general science of politics, Schofield and Kraut (2006).

  12. 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. 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. 14.

    Henry and Nielsen (2015), p. 9. Emphasis in original.

  15. 15.

    Leunissen (2015), p. 216, fn. 5.

  16. 16.

    Nielsen (2015), p. 47. The analogy is explicitly drawn by Aristotle, as Nielsen indications, for example, Aristotle (2000) (EN 1137a13–18; 10.9.1180b7–19).

  17. 17.

    Leunissen (2015), p. 217.

  18. 18.

    See, Gottlieb (2009).

  19. 19.

    See, for the further detailed development of this argument, Leunissen (2015), pp. 218–231; and Leunissen (2017).

  20. 20.

    On this, see, Frank (2005), pp. 17–53; Nichols (1992), pp. 13–51; Trott (2014), pp. 16–41 and 175–201.

  21. 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. 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. 23.

    This is based upon the work of Rosivach (1999) and Vlassopoulos (2011).

  24. 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. 25.

    On this question more generally, in relation to the notion of physis, see Ward (2005).

  26. 26.

    For the examination and identification of the opponents of slavery, see Cambiano (1980).

  27. 27.

    Here, following the analysis of Goldschmidt (1984), which is cited and re-presented by Brunschwig (2005). Brunschwig, and cited with approval, by Garver (1994), p. 118, fn. 14. However, the reference to Goldschmidt is absent from Garver’s subsequent book on Aristotle’s Politics (Garver 2014).

  28. 28.

    See, Nagle (2006).

  29. 29.

    See, for example, Ambler (1987), Dobbs (1994), Frank (2004), Garver (1994), Heath (2008), Levin (1997), Preus (1993), Smith (1991), Thornton (2007), and Veloso (2013).

  30. 30.

    Schütrumpf (1993) and Deslauriers (2006).

  31. 31.

    On Aristotle’s critical engagement with Plato, see Cherry (2013) and Mayhew (1997).

  32. 32.

    See, Rosivach (1999).

  33. 33.

    On this, see, Veloso (2011).

  34. 34.

    Deslauriers (2006), pp. 55–57, together with the additional references, p. 58, fn. 19.

  35. 35.

    Ibid., p. 58.

  36. 36.

    Ibid., p. 55.

  37. 37.

    Ibid., p. 60.

  38. 38.

    Ibid., p. 61.

  39. 39.

    Ibid., p. 62.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., pp. 62–63.

  41. 41.

    Ibid., p. 64.

  42. 42.

    Ibid., pp. 64–65.

  43. 43.

    Schütrumpf (1993).

  44. 44.

    Ibid., p. 114.

  45. 45.

    Ibid., p. 115.

  46. 46.

    Plato (2000) Book IX 590c9. Quotation from Schütrumpf (1993), p. 115.

  47. 47.

    Schütrumpf (1993), p. 115.

  48. 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. 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. 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. 51.

    For a discussion of this argumentative use of the question of nature, see Annas (1997).

  52. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. The Highest Poverty. Monastic Rules and Form-of-Life. Translated by Adam Kotsko. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. The Use of Bodies. Translated by Kevin Atell. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambler, Wayne C. 1987. Aristotle on Nature and Politics: The Case of Slavery. Political Theory 15 (3): 390–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Annas, Julia. 1995. The Morality of Happiness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Intelligent Virtue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. 1991. On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Translated by George A. Kennedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1998. Politics. Edited and Translated by C. D. C. Reeve. Indianapolis, IN and Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000. Nicomachean Ethics. Edited and Translated by R. Crisp. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodéüs, Richard. 1993. The Political Dimensions of Aristotle’s Ethics. Translated by Jan E. Garrett. New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunschwig, Jacques. 2005. L’esclavage Chez Aristote. Cahiers Philosophiques Hors Série\September: 9–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cambiano, Giuseppe. 1980. Aristotle and the Anonymous Opponents of Slavery. Slavery & Abolition 8 (1): 22–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherry, Kevin M. 2013. Plato, Aristotle, and the Purpose of Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deslauriers, Marguerite. 2006. The Argument of Aristotle’s ‘Politics’ 1. Phoenix 60 (1/2): 48–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobbs, Darrell. 1994. Natural Right and the Problem of Aristotle’s Defense of Slavery. Journal of Politics 56 (1): 69–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, Jill. 2004. Citizens, Slaves, and Foreigners: Aristotle on Human Nature. American Political Science Review 98 (1): 91–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005. A Democracy of Distinction: Aristotle and the Work of Politics. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garver, Eugene. 1994. Aristotle’s Natural Slaves: Incomplete Praxeis and Incomplete Human Beings. Journal of the History of Philosophy 32 (2): 173–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1995. Aristotle’s Rhetoric: An Art of Character. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Aristotle’s Politics. Living Well and Living Together. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt, Victor. 1984. La Théorie Aristotélicienne D’esclavage et Sa Methode. In Écrits I. Études de Philosophie Ancienne, 63–80. Paris: Vrin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottlieb, Paula. 2009. The Virtue of Aristotle’s Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, Mogens H. 2009. Polis: An Introduction to the Ancient Greek City-State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, Malcolm. 2008. Aristotle on Natural Slavery. Phronesis 53 (3): 243–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hursthouse, Rosalind. 2002. On Virtue Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, Michael. 1997. Natural Subordination, Aristotle On. Philosophy 72 (280): 241–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lévy, Edmond. 1989. La Théorie Aristotélicienne D’esclavage et Ses Contradictions. Mélanges de Pierre Lévêque 3: 197–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayhew, Robert. 1997. Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s Republic. Lanham, MD and Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagle, D. Bernard. 2006. The Household as the Foundation of Aristotle’s Polis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, Mary P. 1992. Citizens and Statesmen: A Study of Aristotle’s Politics. Lanham, MD and Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pangle, Thomas L. 2013. Aristotle’s Teaching in the Politics. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Plato. 2000. In The Republic, ed. G.R.F. Ferrari. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preus, Anthony. 1993. Aristotle on Slavery: Recent Reactions. Philosophical Inquiry 15 (3/4): 33–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapp, Christoph. 2009. The Nature and Goals of Rhetoric. In The Blackwell Companion to Aristotle, ed. Georgios Anagnostopoulos, 579–595. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosivach, Vincent J. 1999. Enslaving ‘Barbaroi’ and the Athenian Ideology of Slavery. Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte 48 (2): 129–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, Daniel C. 2009. Practical Intelligence and the Virtues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Happiness for Humans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schofield, Malcolm, and Richard Kraut. 2006. Aristotle’s Political Ethics. In The Blackwell Guide to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, 305–322. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütrumpf, Eckart. 1993. Aristotle’s Theory of Slavery—A Platonic Dilemma. Ancient Philosophy 13 (1): 111–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloate, Michael. 1995. From Morality to Virtue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanton, Christine. 2005. Virtue Ethics a Pluralistic View. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, Lockwood. 2007. Is Natural Slavery Beneficial? Journal of the History of Philosophy 45 (2): 207–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trott, Ariel M. 2014. Aristotle on the Nature of Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. Aristote, Ses Commentateurs et Les Déficiences Délibératives de L’Esclave et de La Femme. Les Études Philosophiques 107 (4): 513–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vlassopoulos, Kostas. 2011. Greek Slavery: From Domination to Property and Back Again. Journal of Hellenic Studies 131: 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, Julie K. 2005. Aristotle on Physis: Human Nature in the Ethics and Politics. Polis 22 (2): 287–308.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law and Criminology, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK

    Peter Langford

  2. Law School, University of Lancaster, Lancaster, UK

    Ian Bryan

Authors
  1. Peter Langford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ian Bryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Peter Langford or Ian Bryan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Liesbeth Huppes-Cluysenaer

  2. Faculdade de Direito de Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil

    Nuno M.M.S. Coelho

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation