slavery in plato

8/13/2019 Slavery in Plato

1/17

Philosophical Review

Slavery in Plato's ThoughtAuthor(s): Gregory VlastosSource: The Philosophical Review, Vol. 50, No. 3 (May, 1941), pp. 289-304Published by: Duke University Press on behalf of Philosophical ReviewStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2180538Accessed: 27/07/2010 17:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Duke University Pressand Philosophical Revieware collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to The Philosophical Review.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2180538?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dukehttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dukehttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2180538?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/17

SLAVERY IN PLATO'S THOUGHT'I. SLAVERY IN PLATO S POLITICAL THEORY

A ORMAL discussionf slavery s nowhere o be foundnPlato. We must reconstructis views from few casualstatements. hemost mportantfthese s a similentheLaws(720), wherePlato contrasts he freephysician n attendanceupon freemen ith he slave healer fslaves. The freemedicalman"investigateshe origin nd the nature f thedisease;2 eenters ntocommunity ith he patient nd withhis friends."He is essentially teacher, uta teacherwho also learnsfromthe sick.He givesno autocratic rders, ut educatesthe pa-tient ntohealth.Slaves,,on he otherhand, are incapableofsuch reasonable ntercourse.he slavedoctor's isit s hurried.He "neither ives servant ny rational ccount logos)ofhiscomplaint, orasks him for ny; he givesan orderbased onempirical eliefdoxa)withthe air of exact knowledge,n theinsolentmanner f a tyrant,hen umpsoff o the next ilingservant."3 lsewhereLaws 773e),discussingheproper reat-ment fslaves,Platosumsup the matternthesewords: Onemustpunish laves ustly,notspoiling hembyadmonitionsthough heywere freemen."4 nd in another ontext: Wellthen, houldtheydiscern his,but be unableto give anyra-tional demonstrationf it?-Impossible. The state of mindyoudescribes thatofa slave" (Laws 966b).

It is clearfrom uchpassages hatPlato thinks fthe lave'sconditions a deficiencyf reason.He has doxa,butno logos.He can have truebelief, ut cannotknowthetruth f hisbe-lief.'He can learnby experienceempeiria) nd external re-scriptionepitaxes). ut he can neither ivenorfollow rationalaccount.He is thereforeusceptibleo persuasion."his is notI Read insubstancet a meeting f heAmericanhilosophical ssociation,December 9392 7 2d: Car'Apx7'js iCaT& 4ibatv.3Cf.also Gorg. oIa, where cientific edicines definedn similar erms,contrasting he knowledgeof the natural cause (ri)v4botv, rip atrcad and theabilityto give a rational account (logos)with rptqj ical yretpla.4Even Aristotle hinks hatthis s going oofar:Pot. i260b 6-8.6 See Tm 5ie 3 and 4.6Atbaxivs. reLo,Tm 5e 2. Peithosusually ranslatedpersuasion", andI shallfollow hisusagehere.But"influence"r"suggestion" ouldbe a bet-ter endering.eithomeans implyhangingnother'smind. t putsno strings

289


3/17

290 THE PHILOSOPHICAL REVIEW [VOL. L.evidence of reason, but the reverse. Nous is "unmoved bypersuasion" (Tm 5ie 4). The weakness of doxa, even of truedoxa, is that it can be changed.7 Only knowledge is stable(monimos),for he who knows has directcontact with the im-mutable Forms.8 This is what the slave lacks. His experiencecannot yield true knowledge.9 n all matters of truthhe is,therefore, nconditionally ubject to his intellectual superiors.Now it is an axiom of Plato's political theorythat the onlyone fit to rule is he who possesses logos.'0The good rulermustrule for the good of the state. He can onlydo this if he knowsthe form f the Good, and thenuses the necessary"persuasionand coercion" to order the state accordingly." Thus govern-ment s good forthe governed,'2 ut does not requiretheircon-on the way this is done. "Persuasion", as ordinarilyused in English, ties onedown to some kind of intellectual,or, at least, rhetorical,process. You cannotpersuade withoutsome kind of argument, thoughit may be fallacious argu-ment. But Plato can write3tcaoKXXovs rE7reretowevovsoto-0os Laws 804d) withoutstraining heword. Cf. &3paOwbs retOlEquoted in Rep. 39oe). In Greek usagepeithooften tands for "bribe".7 Meno 98a. Plato's educational system aspires to dye the rightbeliefs ntothe soul likefast colors into wool. But even fastcolors fade. The ultimateguar-antee of the stabilityof the state is not in the early precautions to make theguardians' good convictions proofagainst persuasion,oblivion, beguilementofpleasure and pressure of fear (Rep. 413bc); it is the guardians' eventual ac-quaintance with the unalterable Good.8 E.g., Rep. 532a. "Direct" means here "through reason without the media-tionofthe enses".9 It maybe asked: Whatofthe lave-boyntheMeno? ocrates onfidentlyasserts 85e) thatwhattheboyhas done nthis nstance e could do "in thewhole fgeometrynd inall otheressons".Butwhathas he done n this n-stance? ocratesmakes achsuccessive oint oplain hat nly half-witouldmiss t. Platonever uggested hatslaves are stupid.He only aysthat theylack ogos r nous nd cannot pprehendheForms.One may ack ogos etbea paragon of empiric acuteness (e.g.,Rep. 5i 6c; and 5 ga Trv X yogJvwvVroz'qpLWvpbv, oo/xwv e, 's AptgbRAvf3XkMret qvxAptov. . .). At the end of the encoun-ter the slave-boy has not discovered the Form "square", "diameter", etc.Socrates ives hepieces f he puzzle nd keepsproddingnd correctingntiltheboy has fittedhemproperlyogether. he boythenhas theanswer othisparticularroblem,utnograsp f heunderlyingeneralruth. e knowsthe true olution, utnotwhy tis true.

Nevertheless shouldnot conclude hatPlato thinks hat thisslave-boycould not discover he Forms.This point s leftundetermined.ut, iftheslave-boy ouldmaster heForms, henheought ottobea slave. na "true"(i.e., Platonic) tatehe wouldbea philosopher,ndthereforet the op,notthebottom,fthe ocialpyramid.10E.g., Laws g68a: The highestmagistratemustbe able to give rationalaccount logos) f ll that dmits f rational ccount".Otherwisee cannotbe a "fit uler fthe whole tate,butonly servant o other ulers".11Rep.si 8b-e. The phraseretOo ac 1a occurs ftenntheLaws.12E.g., Socrates' rgumentgainstThrasymachusnthe Republic,, main-taininghatgovernmentsfor hebenefitf thegoverned.


4/17

No. 3.] SLAVERY IN PLATO'S THOUGHT 29Isent.'3A democraticallymindedtheorist ike Protagoras'4holdsthat all menhave a sense of "reverenceand justice"; that theyall share in the "political art"."15Plato denies thisflatly:"Doesit seem at all possible that a multitude n a state could everacquire this [sc.political] science?-By no means" (Polit. 292e,Fowler's tr.). Hence anything ike a contracttheory f thestatestrikesPlato as a perniciouserror.'6How can menwho do notknow the nature of justice establish a just state by commonagreement?The onlyway to get justice is to recognizethefactthat "some men are bynaturefitted o embracephilosophy ndlead in thestate,whileothersare unfit o embraceit and mustfollowthe leader" (Rep. 474c; cf. Laws 69ob).It followsthat the absence of self-determination,o strikingin the case oftheslave, is normal n Platonic society. The fullyenlightened ristocrats re a smallminority fthewholepopula-tion (e.g.,Pouit. 292e). All the restare in somedegreedouloi inPlato's sense oftheword: they ack logos; they do notknow theGood, and cannotknowtheirowngood or the good of the state:

13Potit. 93a, 2962-297b. Thispoint s all the moreremarkableecause tcontrastsharply ith he onceptionfgovernment hich nderliesheCrito.There ocrates hinksnd actsas a responsible emberf free epublic.t isbecause hehas himselfonsentedo the awsthatthey rebinding ponhim:lrapcp TaS twaVOKcas Te Kal opuoXowylas (52d); VOt*Kas nds irpbs Jpas irapacla3s (54c).However,twouldnotbe mpossibleo find casuistic econciliationfpoliticalobligationhatrestsuponconsentwithpolitical uthorityhat s above con-sent.Plato's point, suppose,wouldbethatthegoodruler's ommandsmustbe obeyed, onsent rnoconsent; hough fhissubjectsknew heGoodas heknows t (a hypothesis hichwould abolishthe distinctionetween ubjectandrulerntheRepublicndthePoliticus),heywouldgladlygivetheir on-sent.14 It issignificanthatPericlesntrustedimwith heframingfthe onsti-tution fThourioi.15Prot. 22c, d. It issuggestiveocompare rotagoras'mythwith hemyth fthePoliticusandtheomparableassagen aws73bff. n the ormerhe ettingisman's truggleorelf-preservation:rometheus'giftffirendHermes' iftf"reverencend ustice"put ntoman'shands he woweapons hat nablehimto succeed.Plato'saristocraticounterblasthanges hesettingo as to ab-stract ntirely romheprinciple fhuman elf-reliancendself-help.t harksbackto theage of Cronoswhere here snostruggle ithnature Iravra ah6-

aTra ytyyeoOca& ToSs &vapcOProos, PoWt. 27id; &,s4b-0ov& TE Kac abr6/.aTa Prava JFe,Laws,7I 3c),and whereman's ocial ife sdirectly nder hecareofdivine e-ings the"divine hepherd" f hePoliticus, he "daemons" ftheLaws).Herereverencend justice Laws, 7I3e) are notthecondition,ut theproduct,fgoodgovernment;ndgoodgovernment eansnotself-governmentutgov-ernment fthe nferiory thesuperior, fthemortal y thedivine.16Rep.359a,Laws8894:that ustice ests nagreementsmentioneds partofa dangerous iew,destructivefmoralityndreligion. et the dea of awas aVVOJKoas sowidespreadhat t nvaded ven he houghtf tsopponents:e.g., lato himselfCrito 2d,54c, ited bove)andAristotlesee Bonitz,ndex,729b 53).


5/17

292 THE PHILQSOPHICAL REVIEW [VOL. L.their only chance of doing the good is to obey implicitly hecommands of their superiors.Thus Plato speaks currently fsubjection to the reasonable disciplineof rulers,human anddivine, laws, parents, and elders as servitude (douleuein,dou-leia).17 This usage is not without precedent. But Plato goesfurthern this direction hanany earlierwriter. t had been theproud boast of Aeschylusforhisfellow-countrymen:They can-not be called the slaves of any man" (Pers. 242). It is hard tofind an instance in fifth-centuryiterature where douleia isused, as Plato uses it, in the sense of virtuous, amicable, andcheerfulubmission o constituted uthority,without ny ofthegrim associations of duresse and dishonor. Yet Plato's genialextensionofthe wordto cover an honorable and even fortunateestate is amply justified by the premisesof his own thought:The manual laborer, for example, is "weak by nature in theprinciple fthe best". Left to himself, e could not rule himself,but would be ruledbyhisappetites.Whathappier olutioncouldthere be than servitude to one who is strong n the principleofthe best, "so that we may all be equals and friends o far aspossible, all governedby the same principle"?"When Plato speaks so innocentlyof the artisans of the Re-public as the "slaves" ofthe philosophers, e certainlydoes notmean to be taken literally.19 e neither means to degrade allartisans to the evelofbondmen,norto raisethesocial statusof

17Laws 698bc, 00a, 7oIb, 7I5d, 762e,839c,89oa. For someof theserefer-ences, nd formuch lse n thispaper, am ndebted o G. R. Morrow's PlatoandGreek lavery",Mind,April, 939.18 Rep. 59ocd. Jowett lurs hepointby translatingservant"fordoulos,much as King James' translatorsften render servant" for doulos:e.g.,Matthew o: 27,Mark O:44,Gal.4: I, Eph. 6: 5.Lindsay's ranslations moreexact.) This passagehas never eceived he ttentiont deserves. osanquet stheonly xception know.He seesthat this sthe ssential asisofAristotle'sexplanation.. of slavery", nd accepts t in principle:Plato's general c-count fthe piritual elation f ociety o inferiorr mmatureminds,ndinsomedegree o all minds,s unimpeachable"CompanionoPlato'sRepublic,dloc.). I suppose hat n terms fBosanquet'spolitical heoryhephilosopherwould xpress he "realwill"ofthedoulos.Hegel s more ophisticatednthispoint.See hisstricture n Platonicphilosophy: the principle fsubjectivefreedom oes notreceive ts due" (PhilosophyfRight,r.byDyde,par. i85note. Cf.M. B. Foster,ThePolitical hilosophiesfPlato and Hegel,Ch. iii).But it ssignificanthatHegel doesnotcriticize lato forhisdenialoftheob-jective reedom f the working lasses. Hegel's own political heorywouldhardly ntitle im o make his riticism.19Asmistaken,or xample, y W. L. Newman,ThePolitics fAristotle,,I09- I0, ina valuablereferenceothispassage, uggestinghat hiswas"per-haps the source romwhichAristotleerived istheory fnatural lavery".


6/17

No. 3.] SLAVERY IN PLATO'S THOUGHT 293the slave to that of the free aborer. There is not the slightestindication, ither n the Republic,20r anywhere lse, that Platomeans to obliterate or relax in any way that distinction.Thevery opposite is the case. ProfessorMorrow's admirable recentstudyhas shown that Plato's law ofslavery s notmorebut lessliberal than currentAttic aw; and in one important espect essliberal than any known slave legislationof classical antiquity.2'Then what is the point of speaking so freely f all sorts and con-ditions of political subordinates as douloi? The point is notpractical, but theoretical. t underlinesthe fact that, in prin-ciple, there s no differencen Plato's political theorybetweenthe relationof a master to his slave and of a sovereignto hissubjects; or, as Aristotle put this Platonic doctrine: that"mastership (despoteia), statesmanship (politike)and kingship(basilike) are the same thing".22In otherwords,Plato uses one and the same principle o inter-pret (and justify) political authority nd the master'srighttogovern the slave, political obligation and the slave's duty toobey his master. His conception of all government archerarchein) is of a piece with his conception of the government fslaves. Is this saying too much?One thinksof any numberofimportant qualifications.23 et substantiallythe statement istrue. One need onlyrefer o thePoliticus for the explicitstate-ment that there is no other difference etween the art ofslaveownerdespots&,259b 7) and king (basilikos,259C 2) thanthe size of theirrespectiveestablishments.Whatever be the refinementsf such a theory, t appears atonce as a radicaldenial ofdemocracy. t could no moreaccountfor the facts of democratic government n Athens, than thecontract theoristscould account for the fact of slavery. The

20 See Rep. 469bc. For barbarian laves ntheRepublicee 47ib andcf.with469b.) t iswhen ristocracyeteriorateshatthe free roducersreenslavedin the iteral ense 547c).21 "Plato and Greek Slavery", Mind, April, I939. See pp. i94-198, and es-peciallyp. i96. For a moredetaileddiscussion ee the same author's lato'sLaw of Slavery Universityf llinoisPress, 939).22Pol. I 253b i8; I252a, 8.That this sPlato'sview sclear from olit.2sgbc.23 It would be superfluouso detail thesehere.Theyare obvious to anyreader f heRepublicnd theLaws, nd I shouldnotwish o belittle hem. eeespecially ep. 547c.All I am suggestingere s that Plato uses one and thesame principleo interpretand justify) uthoritynthe case ofbothmasterandstatesman ndobediencenthe caseofboth laveand subject.


7/17

294 THE PHILOSOPHICAL REVIEW [VOL. L.contract theoristsgeneralized the governmentof the state bythedemosforthe demos.They verged ntoidealismat thepointwhere they would substitute "man" for "citizen of Athens";at that point they did not know what to do withslavery,andplayed with the subversive view that slavery was unnatural.24Plato, generalizing the government of slave by master, wasforced into the opposite conclusion that democracy was un-natural. Plato idealized the institution f slavery; the contracttheoriststhe institutionof democracy.Their conflictingdeal-ism mirrored he real contradiction n Athenian society: a freepolitical community hat restedon a slave economy.

II. SLAVERY IN PLATO S COSMOLOGYCan we detectany higherovertonesofthe master-slaverela-tion?Can we trace t inwholesofa differentrder thanpoliticalsociety: in thehuman microcosm nd the physicalmacrocosm?

One's attention s drawn in this directionby Plato's frequentreferences o the body as the "slave" of the soul. That this isno mere figureof speech, but is meant to convey a seriousphilosophical truth, s clear from three considerations. (i) Itstands as a formalpremise n a metaphysicalargumentfortheimmortality f the soul in the Phaedo.25 ii) It is written ntothephysiology f theTimaeus.26iii) It determines eading ideas24 Contract ouldonlybe thethinnestfdisguisesor orce, n which laveryso obviously ested seePoi. i255a 5ff.). o base slavery n agreement as tosuggest heviewthatthis greement as unnaturalnd slavery nvalid.Howmany of the contract heorists hared this view?We do not know. n thePoliticsI 253b i) Aristotle oesnotnamehisopponents hoflatlymaintainedthat laverys conventionalnd contraryonature. ee Gorg. 84abforCal-licles' view that "natural ustice" may be violatedby slavery.Antiphon,hesophist, ndercutshedistinctionetween oble nd low birth, etween reekand barbarian ~redbace rairra'racrres'V1oicos ire kace' (Diels, B, 44, Fr. B,col. 2). The same principle ouldundercut lavery.Alcidamas, he pupil ndsuccessor f Gorgias, s said to have declared: God left ll menfree;nature

made no onea slave" (Schol. n Rhet. 373b, 8). Anda fragmentfPhilemon,thecomic oet ed. Meineke, r. 39), runs: Though nebe a slave,he has thesame flesh; By natureno one was everborn slave."2' 7ge-8oa. t isthenecessaryink n the nalogy fthe oul to the "divine"and ofthe bodyto the "mortal": in the order f nature" he body and themortal re both he slaves f their espective asters,he soul and thedivine.26 In the head, whosespherical orm opies theshape of the universe,splaced "the divinest nd holiest art" 452a),whichs "lord eo-Iroro0v) ofallthat s in us" (44d). The restofthe body smadeto serve 4 Kac rirv rToactarap~3ooav beriopeocav acdr4): it is a vehicle (6xrnlka)for the head, supplementingthe soul's two "divinerevolutions"44d) with he"six wanderingmotions"(44d8; cf. 43b). The "mortal"part of the soul is housed part "for fearofpolluting hedivine art" 69d); theneckwas built s "an isthmus nd boun-darytokeepthetwoapart" (69e).


8/17

No. 3.] SLAVERY IN PLATO'S THOUGHT 295in Plato's ethics.27 ach of thesemattersdeservesdetailed dis-cussion. But to keep thispaper withinreasonable limits, pro-ceed at onceto Plato's applicationof theslave-metaphor eyondanthropology o cosmology tself.Let us begin with the scene in the Phaedo wherethe PlatonicSocrates explains that he turned away fromIonian physics,because it did not use the rightmethod. The right method,suggested by Anaxagoras' nous,but, alas, not followedby thisunregenerate onian, is defined n the following erms: "If youwish to find he cause of anything . ,you mustfindout thisabout it: How it is best for t to exist or be acted upon or actin any other way" (97cd). Thus a scientific xplanation of theshape and position of the earth must prove that it has thatparticular shape and position because these are "best" for it(97e).To back this unusual view ofscientificmethod the PlatonicSocrates resorts o an analogy: What is the cause ofmy presencein this prison? t is notbones and sinews thatkeep mehere,butmy decision that this s forthe best (99b). Physiology s not the"real" cause (Iro rtoz'vr43Vlrt), ut onlyan indispensablecondi-tion (E'KElhOhivevB r6o 'lruwvK hipwor' d'lt a'ltov, 99c). Withoutapologythis argument s transferredromthe human organismto the universe t large.The reasoningtakes it forgrantedthatteleology nd mechanism re related n the world-order s mindto body in man himself.But since the relation of mindto bodyhas already been conceived as analogous to that of master toslave, it would followthat the relation of teleologyto mechan-ism can also be so conceived: that the mechanical cause, mis-takenly accepted by the Ionians as the "ruling" cause, isactually onlya "slave" cause. This, ofcourse, s so faronlyaninference.But ifwe follow the developmentof Plato's thought

27 In the beginningfLawsv, the wholerationale f virtue s reduced othese erms: A man'sownnature onsistsnvariablyftwokinds f lements:the trongernd better re ordly3eair6oovra) theweaker nd worse re slaves(6oiXa); whereforenemust verhonour he ordly bove the lavish lementsin one's nature" 726).That s, honor he oul bovethebody nd tspleasuresand passions. n theRepublicntemperances described s insubordinationfthe appetites gainst heorder freason. t is "a meddlesomenessnd inter-ferencend rebellion fone partofthe oul against hewhole o gain rule owhich t has no right; hatpart ndeedwhosenaturessuch hat t ought obeslave, while he other houldneverbe slave, butruler" following indsay'stranslationf444b, xcept fter he semicolon, herehe takes rotobrov'ros4baet to refer o T4>Myipnstead ofpukpovs tL6s).Similar expression n 442ab.


9/17

296 THE PHILOSOPHICAL REVIEW [VOL. L.in the later dialogues we shall find hat this s exactly the direc-tion in which t moves.

Physical variables, like hot and cold, dry and moist, whichplay such an importantrole in early Ionian thought, ppear inthe Philebus under the categoryof the measureless.28 ackingin order, this realm of being would be full ofhybris nd evil(26b), were measure not imposed upon t29by a creative agent.30This is the ause (ro a'lrtfv,6e): the very categorythat Socratesmissed in the Jonians.It is the orderingnous of Anaxagorasnow taken in good earnest and assigned to its proper place as"king of heaven and earth" (28c). The other principleis itsslave: "slave to the cause (boLoueioV a1tlr) for the purpose ofgeneration" (27a).In the Timaeus the whole account of man and the worldturnson a clear-cutdistinction etweentwo kindsofcauses:(i) the "primary"cause, which s "intelligent", divine", andproductive f all that s "fairand good" 31(2) The "secondary" cause, which s "necessary", irrational,fortuitous nd disorderly.32The modern reader must find something baffling bout thisblend ofnecessitywith chance in the secondarycause. For usthe very idea of necessity mplies necessaryorder.33 ow con-ceive ofnecessarydisorderwithoutself-contradiction?34

28 25d: To A&retpovpposite of rT 7reparoet6ksnd of rT 9,ggerpoV Kcal o1bgerpov(26a 6, 7).29 Note theforce f hir' rtoots (30c 5).30rT 3,gtovpyo'VV (27b),ra rotoVV (27a), e rol) rOtOVVTOs Obaos (26e).3ras rTlsgpopovos Obaews alTLlas rp&Tas (46d), 6oTaL yerT&VOV KaXWV Kal &ya&ov511MOVpTOL 46e), Td Sta vov (47e), TO'GtoV (68e).32 aV&'yKfl (48a), e r'fs 6,V&PKfS0K-t&S (56c), Td AvayKcalov68e), Ta S AVAPKfWS(47e); Toat /LovwdoE~atc povh-ews TOTvXcv ATraKTov ktepya&tovaTc (46e). Cf.with hislast Phil. 28d 6, 7.B3 n the nsuing iscussion am not peakingfPlato's concept fnecessityas a whole. am excludingrom hediscussionogicalnecessity.ike everyoneelse, Plato identifies hiswith rationalorder.He uses constantly V&ycn,&va'yKaTov,tc.to mark he ogencynd evidence f deductiveonclusione.g.,Gorg. 75a-c; Phaedogie; Phil. 40c; Tm53c).This kindof ananke s at theother xtreme rom heanankeof the secondary ause. Logicalnecessitysexplicitlypposed o verisimilitudeTheait. 62e), whileverisimilitudes thecharacteristic oodofall discourse boutthe materialworld Tm 29c; and53d KalT TrPver' AV&YKfS eLK6TraX6yov). This bifurcationf nanke intoformalorder nd material isordersconservedyAristotle. isview sterselytatedand acutelydiscussed y D. M. Balme in the Class. Quarterly,ct., I939:"Anankedoesnot govern equences: here s no transeuntausalitynherentin the material", . I30.34In Plato'sCosmologyi62 ff.)F. M. Cornfordhrowsome ight n thisproblem. e points ut that o Plato, s toAristotle,hance oes notmean he


10/17

No. 3.] SLAVERY IN PLATO'S THOUGHT 297I can thinkof one clue: "The ideas of douleia and ananke",writes George Thomson, "are almost inseparable in Greek,

the wordananke being constantlyused to denoteboth thestateof slaveryas such,and also thetorture o whichthe slaves weresubjected."3"No one, so far as I know, has ever thoughtofinterpreting he ananke of the Timaeus on the pattern ofslavery.Yet Plato speaks ofmaterial necessity s a "servant"(v7r-iperoiv'W,6c 7; v'rqpeTovoaas,8e 4) who,he also tellsus, is"incapable of any logosor nous about anything" (46d 4). Butthis, as we have seen, is the defining oncept of the slave: aservantdestituteof logos.Here, I think, s the explanationweneed.The idea of "disorderlynecessity"strikesus as a flat self-contradictionbecause we think of necessity in terms of amechanical instrument,whose motions followa strictmechan-ical order;that order s inherent n the instrument,nd we canonly use the instrumentn so far as we respect ts order.Platothinksofnecessity n termsofa "living nstrument",whoseusedoes not seem to depend on our understanding f its own in-trinsic rder,but rather n our ability to "persuade" it to followour own purpose. In this case the orderdoes not seem to be inthe instrument ut in us. This is the very mage that occurstoAristotlewhenhe pictures heteleologicalorderof theuniverse:"But it is as in a house,wherethe freemen re least at liberty oact at random,but all things r most things re alreadyorderedforthem,while the slaves and the beasts do littlefor the com-mon good, for the most part live at random".36 he slave doesnot share of his own accord the orderof the common ife.Leftto himselfhe would "wander" off nto disorder.37 rder,whichopposite fnecessity,uttheopposite fpurpose. hus a "necessaryccident"means o both nyunintended,utunavoidable,ircumstancenvolved n theexecution f a plan.This doesexplain he element f compulsionn ananke.But it doesnotexplain heelement fdisorder.36TheORESTEIA ofAeschylus,I, 345, Cambridge,938). Theassociationof he wowords ollows aturallyrom heir bviousmeaning. ristotleefinesananke inthe senseof compulsion: iv yap 9wAev pX2iv,iv irapa riv 6pguivj krodlov6oav KLWOVoavc,V&?yKfV XkYO0teVNic. Eth. I224b I I) ; while thecommonview of douleia, as Aristotle reportsit, is rTc r'vj (bsflobXErat Pol.I3P7b 3).36Met. O75a i9. Cf.6Tt9TvXevndTrTrKTat ofthispassagewith T TvXcvaTcaKTOV ofTm 46e 5.37 But the lave'sbehaviors notutter isorder.t is only isorderlyromhestandpointf thesuperiorrderntended y themaster.At the priceof n-


11/17

298 THE PHILOSOPHICAL REVIEW [VOL. L.he could not originatehimself,must be imposedupon him,pre-ferably y persuasionor, failing his,by coercion.The Demiurge,being the wisestofmasters,need not resortto coercionat all:he "persuades necessity" (48a 2) and makes it his "willing"slave (56c, 5). The notion of "persuading necessity" and theimplied idea of "compelling necessity" make sense only ifone keeps steadily in mind the slave metaphor. Persuadingthe law ofgravitationdoes not make sense. Persuadinga slavedoes.

To appreciate the importanceof this developmentone mustsee it in historicperspective.The slave metaphoroccursat theverypointwherePlato turnsconsciously way from he cosmo-logy of his predecessors.38rom the verybeginnings f Ionianthoughtrational and immanentnecessityhad been an integralfeatureof the conceptof nature. Recall, for xample,thesayingof Anaximanderthat thingscome into existence nd perish"asit is ordained; fortheymake satisfaction nd reparationto oneanother fortheir njustice accordingto the orderof time."39 oexpress natural necessity this early Milesian borrows wordsfromthe government f man. But that is, of course,no morethan what we muststilldo to-daywhenwe speak ofthe "laws"ofnature.What is important s ratherthe absence of any sug-gestion of a superioragency to issue ordinances and enforcereparations.On the contrary,Anaximanderexcludes the inter-ventionof a superior rderupon the courseof natureby endow-ing nature itselfwith the attributesof divinity: it is infinite,immortal, ndestructible.40hinkersas opposed to one anotherconsistencylato is trueto thisfeature f theslave-metaphor,aintainingthat theprimordialhaoshad crude"traces"of theelegantorder hattheDemiurge was to impress upon it at creation:rivyevkcews rTO2vqfvypatvogkuwvKal 7rvpov/kuJVf Ka Tra's y's TE Kal 6ppos Iuopas 86exoi,.kV, Kal 6Ta &XXa TOrTOts7r&1owvbareratmr&caxovo-avTm 52de). The last clause is particularly mportant,for t recognizesn order f causal implicationeforehechaos hadbeen"in-formedwith hapes nd numbers"53b). Yet Plato can onlyexplain ausalimplicationhroughheForms: .g., henecessaryonnectionetween irendheat, now nd cold (Phaedo o3C ff.).As P. H. DeLacy has recently utit:"Platofinds o causalrelation n thepurely hysicalevel.The Ideas are thecausesofthequalities fphysical bjects, or he qualities fparticularsxistonly n so far s particularsarticipaten Ideas" (Class.Phil.,April, 939).This s partof larger ontradictionn Plato'sthought hich havenoted n"The DisorderlyMotion n the Timaios",p. 76-7, Class. Quarterly,pril,I939.38 See W. H. Heidel, 2reptObTews,Proc.Am. Acad.ofArts ndSciences, an.IgIo.39 Diels,B, i. 40Ibid., , 3.


12/17

No. 3.] SLAVERY IN PLATO'S THOUGHT 299as the Ionian Heraclitus and the Italian Parmenides4'preservethis featureofAnaximander's thought. ome verbal expressionsmay suggesttheopposite. But a closer examination shows howfirmly hey adhere to the notion of autonomous nature. WhenHeraclitus says, forexample, "The sun will not overstep hismeasures (metra) lse the Erinyes,the assistants of Justice,willfindhim out" Justice nd the Erinyesstand forno independententity; they simplyexpressthe inevitability fthe patternthatfire ollowsnits unceasingtransformations,kindled nmeasure(metra),and extinguished n measure".42Likewise when Par-menides writes, "strong ananke keeps it in the bonds of thelimit",43 nanke is neither uperiornor inferior o the inflexiblerationality fexistence,but simply dentical with t.In the atomism of Leucippus and Democritus this trend ofthought comes to full maturity: "Nothing occurs at random,but everything ora reason (ek logou)and by necessity."44 ereis the exact opposite of Plato's doctrine: logos and ananke arecoupled together;material necessity s rational and it excludeschance.45 he inherentmotionof matter which seems to Platothe source of necessary disorder s in the eyes of Democritusthe very meaningofnecessary order.46 nd because it is neces-sary,motion s coeval with matter tself.There is no need for"first ause" to set matter n motion.47 his was the finalblowat the anthropomorphic heory of creation. Its consequences,writesCyril Bailey, "weremomentous. n thesphereofphysical

41This connectionfParmenides ithAnaximander as suggestedo me byWerner aeger's emark: he also calls t [sc.ananke] ike rMoira, bviouslyunderAnaximander'snfluence",aideia,Eng. tr.,p. I74.42Diels,B, 94and 30. Cf.also B, 8o: "strifes ustice".The conflictftheelements "war") itself roduces ts own order. o again in B, 53: "War isfather f ll and king f ll; somehe has madegods nd somemen, ome lavesand somefree."A questionmight rise verB,4I: "thethoughtgnome) hichsteers&KVJ3pvlo-e)ll things hroughll things." s thisgoverninghought nextraneous uperior actor? learlynot, fone compares , 64, "thethunder-bolt thatsteersolaKirt) the course f all things"withB, 66: "Fire nitsad-vance will udgeand convict ll things" Burnet's r. following iels): the"thought" s inherentn thefire;ike "justice" bove, imply notherxpres-sionfor he relentlessrderlinessf fire.43 Diels,B, 30 1.i; cf. 11. 4 and 37.44Ibid., 67 B, 2 (Bailey's tr.).45 Simpl. 330.I4 T6 U Kat&&rep iraXatu X6,yos Avatpw'v iv rbXflv (Physics,i96a, I4) 7rpbs . OLKE elpSo6at.... Dante's reproach,Democrito he 1mondoa casopone"rests na misconception.ee Enriques nd de Santillana, istoirede a PensgeScientifique,II, 40, and CyrilBailey's legant rgumentnGreekAtomistsndEpicurus,4I-3.

47D. L., IX, 45: ris alrias out~2s Ts 'yeveo-ews 7r,&vrwv, V &KV&YKJV XyeL.47 Plutarch, trom., (D. 58I).


13/17

300 THE PHILOSOPHICAL REVIEW [VOL. L.speculation it introducedfor the first ime the possibilityof astrictly cientific onception of the world."48

Why was it that Plato chose to frustrate his possibility nhis cosmology?49t would be presumptuous oattemptto answerthis question withinthe limits of this paper. But the answer,whatever tbe,must reckonwith thisfact: Plato attacks Ionianphysics not only on philosophical,but also on political grounds;so that both the political and the cosmologicalassociations ofslavery came into play in his polemic. The issue is the veryexistenceofa philosophywhichconceives of thegovernment fthe state and thegovernment f theworldas analogous to thegovernment fthe slave. The locusclassicusfor hisattack is thetenth book of the Laws.His opponentsare the "modern scientists" (886d; also 888eff.). He imputes to themnot only mechanisticcosmology,butalso thecontracttheory fthestate.50 he first ivesriseto thesecond,and each to atheism. The basic error s the idea thatphysicalbodies "are moved by the interplayoftheirrespectiveforces, ccordingas theymeet together nd combinefittingly"(889b,Bury's tr.); inotherwords, hatnature s a self-regulatingsystem,and is not governed by the art of a divine mind. Thisimplies that the stars are products of a natural process, notgods, but inanimate material bodies (886de; 889b). It impliesfurther hat legislation like everyotherart) is a late productofthe same process,so that laws are not absolute commands,butman-madeagreements 889c-8goe). Instead ofderiving he aws

48 Op. cit., 22.49 Aristotles often lamedfor mportingeleologyntophysics. he realculprit, f course,s Plato. Aristotle hinks s a Platonistwhenherepudiatesthe ll-but-universalelief fhispredecessorsnnaturalnecessityPhys. 98b2; de part.Anim. 39b2i). It was Plato whohad ed the ttack n the onianmechanists, oisting n themhis own assumption hat materialnecessitys

equivalent o chance, nd thus orcinghem nto he bsurd ositionfdenyingthedefacto rder ftheuniverse ecausetheywillnotgrant he existence ftelelogical rder.This misconceptionhichvitiates he argument orfinalcauses in Phys. i. viii had beenanticipatedn the Philebus 28d-29e) andLawsX.50How easilythispointmaybe missed s clear fromA. E. Taylor'spara-phrase fthispassage in the ntroductiono his translationftheLaws, ii):"Plato's view s that theism s the product ftwo historicalactors,,theor-porealism f the early onianmenof science . ., and the sophistic' heoryofthe purely onventionalnd relative haracterfmoraldistinctions." utthe ext aysnothingbout"twohistorical actors". t isthe amepeople the(ooot &dvpesof 888e) whose osmologysexpoundedn889b-d ndwhose oli-tics s givenn889d-8goa.


14/17

No. 3.] SLAVERY IN PLATO'S THOUGHT 301from he gods, this mpious view derives the godsfrom helaws,and variable laws at that.

To refuteall this Plato maintains that the soul is the firstcause of all physicalmotions. His elaborate argumentneed notbe examined here. We need only notethat thepointof histhesisis to prove that the soul, being "older" than thebody,has theright to "rule" the body." And what he means by the soul's"rule" is clear from parallel passage in the Timaeus (34c): soulis despotis; it rules the body as master rules slave. If he canprove this, Plato feels he has destroyed onian materialism.Hecan thenhave everything is ownway: that soul or souls directevery bodily motion (896de); that the stars have soul or soulsand are divine (898d-899b); and that,in short,"all things refullofgods" (899b). Thus cosmology upportsreligion y estab-lishing he existenceof ts gods.52And the link betweenreligiouscosmologyand political religion s the slave-metaphor.III. PLATO AND ARISTOTLEAny discussionofPlato's views on slavery nvitescomparisonwith the most famous text of antiquityon this topic: the firstbook of the Politics. Aristotle's polemic is mainly directedagainst those who hold that slavery s contrary o nature." Theword "nature" is used here in at least three senses: a moral,abiological, and a cosmologicalone. The first tates the demon-

strandumof Aristotle's argument; the latter two decide thedemonstration. o prove:that slavery s natural, n the sense ofbeing good and just:54good forthemaster,to whom it providesa necessary nstrument I253b 23 ff.);good also for the slave,55whose intellectualdeficiencys supplemented by the master'ssuperiorreason.6 This is provedfirst y the contention hat the51E.g., 892a: [tpvxh]bs v rp&rotpOLSaTn Ut&TCoJV, 9inipo-Oezv w&J'Twv yevolue'vnv,whence t is assumedbya simple onjunctionxat) that t rules verybodilychange. he inferenceromuperior geto theright o rule s madeexplicitnTm34c.52The "godsaccording o the aws": 885b,89oab, 904a. Serious onfusionresults hen his imitations notrecognized.awsx does not ven ttemptoprove he xistence f heDemiurge, ho snevermentionedmong heofficialdivinities.53 rapad sov rcd eo-r66etv,253b 20.54 #rXtOVJKitX icaLOv, I254a i8.

4so LaiXOL ots PAVrL6 (TTLV ApXEGOaL TanjJv rt1vaipxhv, I 245b i 9.56 I252a 3V; cf.Nic. Eth. ii6ia 35-b .


15/17

302 THE PHILOSOPHICAL REVIEW [VOL. L.difference f master and slave, commensuratewith that of souland body or of man and beast (I254b I7), is a congenitalone:"some things re marked out from hemomentofbirth to ruleor to be ruled" (I254a 23). This is the part ofAristotle's rgu-ment that has given greatest offenceto posterityand thusattracted widest attention. Yet no less important n Aristotle'seyes is themetaphysical anctionofslavery. The differencee-tweenmasterand slave, he holds, is natural because it followsa patternthat pervades all nature: "because in everycompositething,where a pluralityof parts, whethercontinuousor dis-crete, is combined to make a single common whole, there isalways founda ruling nd a subject factor, nd this character-istic of living things s presentin them as an outcomeof thewhole of nature 4K r Sa air~oS 4vTEWS)."57Now letus ask: What is there n thisargument hat Plato toocould nothave said in fullconsistencywith his own ideas aboutslavery? It is, of course, the A B C of exegesis to distinguishbetween what a writerhas actually said and what he couldhave said or ought to have said. That the Platonic dialoguesgive us no equivalent to the first ook ofthe Politicspoints to adifferenceftemperbetweenPlato's and Aristotle'sviewswhichmust not be minimized.Neverthelesswhenwe have made fullallowance forthisdifference, e muststillobservea fact whichhas escaped the notice ofmanymodern nterpretersnd mightmodifytheir conclusionsabout Plato's moral and social phi-losophy: that in every one of these three points Plato wouldhave to agree withhis pupil's argument n defenceof slavery:(i) that slavery is good for the slave (as well as for themaster): better to be ruled by an alien reason, than not to beruledby reason at all (Section I of thispaper);

(2) that thisdifferencen intellectual and social status restson a diversity f nativeendowment:nature s theoriginalfactor57I254a 29-32,Rackham's r.Other assages oo show hatAristotlehinksof lavery ot s an isolated actbut as a special nstance f general elationwhichconnects laverywithhis whole philosophic ystem: .g.,Eud. Eth.I24gb 6 ff., ic.Eth. i6ia 32 ff.The analogy fthemaster-slaveo the oul-body elation nablesus to con-nect t with hemostgeneral attern fAristotelian etaphysics,herelationofformo matter. oul stheform f hebody, nd body hematterf he oul

(de An. 4I 2a i6). And since (v Ainvr aiVa-yKaLOV, r68' o0 9VEKa & ,r4 &yo? (Phys.2ooa 14), the Aristotelianontrast f mechanismo teleologys, as in Plato,analogous to the contrastofslave to master.


16/17

No. 3.] SLAVERY IN PLATO'S THOUGHT 303in differentiating he philosopher from the producer and afortiorifrom he slave 58

(3) that this difference nlyrepeats on the human plane apattern writ large over the cosmos: the master's benevolentreason persuading the slave's irrational force fulfils functionanalogous to that of the Demiurge, persuading towards theGood the irrational acnke of thematerial universe Section IIof thispaper).IV. CONCLUSION

This studydoes not suggestthat Plato deduced his politicaltheory,his psychology,or his cosmology,fromhis concept ofslavery.No such deductionis to be foundin his writings, ndit is profitlesso speculate about the unpublishedadventuresofhis mind.What it does suggest s that his views about slavery,state, man, and the world, all illustrate a single hierarchicpattern; and that the key to the pattern s in his idea of logoswith all the implicationsof a dualist epistemology.59he slavelacks logos; so does the multitude in the state, the body inman, and materialnecessity n the universe.Left to itself eachof these would be disorderly nd vicious in the sense of thatuntranslatablyGreekword,hubris.Order s imposed upon them,by a benevolent superior:master, guardian, mind, demiurge.Each of these rules (archein) n his own domain. The commontitle to authority s the possession of logos. In such an intel-lectual scheme slavery is "natural": in perfectharmony withone's notionsabout the nature of theworldand of man.There is another world-view hat is the antithesisofPlatonicidealism, and would be persecuted in the Platonic utopia asfalse,wicked, mpious, ubversive.8 It is associated with Ionianphysics61and the contract theoryof the state. It is scientificn

58See theuseof dfoLS, ifco, etc. nRep. 370ab, 74e-376c, 28e9, 3IC 7, 90C 3;PoWt.30Ie, 3o9ab, 3ioa; Laws 875c.59 refer o the eparationXCpLOtp6s) oftheForms rom heparticulars. t-temptso explain his wayhavebeenmadebyNatorp,C. Ritter,ndmanyothers. heyarenotconvincing.ee F. M. Cornford,lato'sTheory fKnow-ledge ff., ndPlatoandParmenides 4ff.60 Laws 8gib; 907dff.Cf.Grote'sPlato II, 406 ff.nthe i865 edition. eealso B. Farringdon'science nd Politicsn theAncientWorld, ondon, 939.I owemuch o this timulatingssay.61 Is "Ionian" unnecessarilyestrictive?All themenwho have everyethandledphysicalnvestigation"onstitute hefountain-headfimpious n-reason Laws89ic) denouncedy theAtheniantranger.


17/17

304 THE PHILOSOPHICAL REVIEWtemper,empirical n its theoryofknowledge,democratic n itspolitical sympathies.Plato and others of his class complainedthat democracywas muchtoo lenientwith slaves.82 hey neverwentso far s to chargewhatseems so evident to us to-day:thata consistentdemocratic philosophywould repudiate slaveryaltogether.QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY GREGORY VLASTOSKINGSTON, CANADA

62Rep.536b;"The Old Oligarch", th. ol. 1. o ff.;Aristotle,ol. I3I3b 35,I3igb 28.

slavery in plato

Documents