and have a common interest, but where it rests merely on law I. 6and force the reverse is true.
The previous remarks are quite enough to show that the7 rule of a master is not a constitutional rule, and therefore that all the different kinds of rule are not, as some affirm, the same with each other[1]. 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 not2 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 a 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 knowledge3 may be carried further, so as to include cookery and similar menial arts. For some duties are of the more neces sary, others of the more honourable sort; as the proverb says, slave before slave, master before master. But all such 4 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 5who 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
