292 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



book of the " Politics." He says that some held that slavery was 

 against nature. Such persons, whoever they were, must have de- 

 rived their opinions entirely from humane impulse and poetic 

 enthusiasm. Aristotle was not of that tone of mind. He could 

 not find in history any example of a state which had not slavery. 

 When he examined the state in which he lived he easily saw that 

 slavery was of its very essence. He therefore held that slavery 

 was a natural necessity. Such it was in the sense that it was 

 rooted in the nature of the classical state. It is undeniable that 

 the classical state could not have grown up and could not have 

 produced its form of civilization without slavery. It must also 

 be recognized as a fact that no other organization of society has 

 yet shown itself capable of that degree of expansion which the 

 Eoman state developed by means of slavery. The mediaeval state 

 broke down under the first expansive requirement which was 

 made upon it. Whether the modern state, based on natural agents 

 and machinery, is capable of expansion or not, is yet to be proved. 

 There seems to be ample reason to believe that it is, unless the 

 modern world votes not to go on ; but, if the modern world votes 

 to go on and not be afraid, it can only do so by virtue of educa- 

 tion, and then it is subject to the remonstrance of Mr. Karoly at 

 the head of this article, and of others who think like him. To 

 return to the classical state : it remains only to observe that slav- 

 ery was likewise the fate of that state which, having enabled it to 

 grow up to immense power and achievement, also inevitably car- 

 ried it down to ruin and disgrace. It is free to us all to speculate 

 on the question whether every force which makes high expansion 

 possible will not also bring with it its own form of inevitable 

 destruction or decay. Aristotle, therefore, proceeding upon the 

 historical method and upon observation, found that slavery was 

 necessary and expedient within the limits of the age and the form 

 of society he was discussing. 



Fuller expression of the dogma of natural liberty comes only 

 with the Christian era. Dio Chrysostom, at the end of the first 

 century, expresses himself in favor of it, but his declaration is in- 

 cidental and can be taken only as rhetorical.* It is among the 

 Christian writers that it first finds distinct and enthusiastic ex- 

 pression. With them it is rather an inference from fundamental 

 doctrines of the faith than an actual article of the creed, although 

 they quote texts freely in support of it. The doctrines of Chris- 

 tianity are undoubtedly favorable to it, and the inference was 

 direct and easy. Tertullian (fit. c. 200 a. d.), addressing heathen, 

 declares, " We are your brothers by the right of one mother — 

 Nature." f 



It was not confined to Christians, however. It is very probable 



* " Orat.," vii, 138. f " Apologet. ad Gent.," c. 39. 



