[635]. Cf. above, p. [16], n. 6; p. [17], n. 1.
[636]. On the theory of the Sophists, cf. above, pp. [16] f. On the Cynics, cf. infra; also Zeller, op. cit., II, 2, 376; Ar. Pol. 1253b20-23. Barker (op. cit., p. 359), who has a very clear and discriminating criticism of Aristotle’s theory of slavery, also states that slavery had been attacked by the “logic of events”—e.g., the enslavement of Athenians in Sicily, and the freeing of Messenian Helots, during the Theban supremacy, by which Greek freemen had become slaves and Greek slaves had become free. Cf. Pol. 1255a ff., especially 17 f. and 21-23, for the two theories.
[637]. The locus classicus for his theory is Pol. i. 4-7. 1253b14 ff.; 13. 1259b21 ff. For good criticisms, cf. Wallon, Histoire de l’esclavage dans l’antiquité, 2d ed., pp. 372 ff.; and Barker, op. cit., 1. Cf. also Newman, op. cit., I, 143 ff.
[638]. Pol. i. 8. 1256b36; 1253b32.
[639]. Ibid. 33-39. Aristotle would have been satisfied with electricity.
[640]. 1254a8, cited on p. [88], n. 10. This relieves the severity of the doctrine, since it shows that he thinks chiefly of domestic slavery. But in his proposed state, all industry is manned by slaves. Cf. iv (vii). 1330a25-31.
[641]. Pol. 1254a9-13; cf. Eud. Eth. 1241b17-24.
[642]. 1254a13-17.
[643]. Op. cit., p. 362.
[644]. 1254a28-31; 1254b15. As Wallon (op. cit., p. 391) points out, his radical error is a constant confusion of hypothesis with reality.