for example CharetidesOtherwise unknown. of Paros [1259a] and ApollodorusAlso mentioned by Varro and Pliny. of Lemnos have written about both agriculture and fruit-farming, and similarly others also on other topics, so these subjects may be studied from these authors by anybody concerned to do so; but in addition a collection ought also to be madeThe author of the Second Book of the pseudo-Aristotelian Oeconomica seems to have taken the hint. of the scattered accounts of methods that have brought success in business to certain individuals. All these methods are serviceable for those who value wealth-getting, [loeb_subsection_5] for example the plan of ThalesThe founder of Greek philosophy and mathematics, and one of the Seven Sages, 6th-5th cent. B.C. of Miletus, which is a device for the business of getting wealth, but which, though it is attributed to him because of his wisdom, is really of universal application. Thales, so the story goes, because of his poverty was taunted with the uselessness of philosophy; but from his knowledge of astronomy he had observed while it was still winter that there was going to be a large crop of olives, so he raised a small sum of money and paid round deposits for the whole of the olive-presses in Miletus and Chios, which he hired at a low rent as nobody was running him up; and when the season arrived, there was a sudden demand for a number of presses at the same time, and by letting them out on what terms he liked he realized a large sum of money, so proving that it is easy for philosophers to be rich if they choose, but this is not what they care about. [loeb_subsection_6] Thales then is reported to have thus displayed his wisdom, but asa matter of fact this device of taking an opportunity to secure a monopoly is a universal principle of business; hence even some states have recourse to this plan as a method of raising revenue when short of funds: they introduce a monopoly of marketable goods. [loeb_subsection_7] There was a man in Sicily who used a sum of money deposited with him to buy up all the iron from the iron mines, and afterwards when the dealers came from the trading-centers he was the only seller, though he did not greatly raise the price, but all the same he made a profit of a hundred talentsThe talent was about 240 pounds. on his capital of fifty. [loeb_subsection_8] When DionysiusDionysius the elder, tyrant of Syracuse 405-367 B.C. came to know of it he ordered the man to take his money with him but clear out of Syracuse on the spot,cf. Thucydides οἱ δ’ οὐκέτι ἔμειναν ἀλλὰ . . . since he was inventing means of profit detrimental to the tyrant’s own affairs. Yet really this device is the same as the discovery of Thales, for both men alike contrived to secure themselves a monopoly. An acquaintance with these devices is also serviceable for statesmen, for many states need financial aid and modes of revenue like those described, just as a household may, but in greater degree; hence some statesmen even devote their political activity exclusively to finance.
[loeb_section_5] [loeb_subsection_1] And since, as we saw,2 init. the science of household management has three divisions, one the relation of master to slave, of which we have spoken before,3 fin., 4. one the paternal relation, and the third the conjugalThe construction of the sentence is interrupted, and never completed.—for it is a part of the household science to rule over wife and children [loeb_subsection_2] (over both as over freemen, yet not with the same mode of government,
but over the wife to exercise republican government and over the children monarchical); [1259b] for the male is by nature better fitted to command than the female (except in some cases where their union has been formed contrary to nature) and the older and fully developed person than the younger and immature. It is true that in most cases of republican government the ruler and the ruled interchange in turn (for they tend to be on in equal level in their nature and to have no difference at all), although nevertheless during the period when one is ruler and the other ruled they seek to have a distinction by means of insignia and titles and honors, just as Amasis made his speech about the foot-bath Hdt. 1.172. Amasis king of Egypt was despised by his subjects for his low birth, so he had a statue made out of a gold foot-bath and set it up for them to worship, afterwards explaining to them its lowly origin.; but the male stands in this relationship to the female continuously. The rule of the father over the children on the other hand is that of a king; for the male parent is the ruler in virtue both of affection and of seniority, which is characteristic of royal government (and therefore Homer Hom. Il. 1.544. finely designated Zeus by the words father of men and gods, as the king of them all). For though in nature the king must be superior, in race he should be the same as his subjects, and this is the position of the elder in relation to the younger and of the father in relation to the child.
[loeb_subsection_3] It is clear then that household management takes more interest in the human members of the household than in its inanimate property, andin the excellence of these than in that of its property, which we style riches, and more in that of its free members than in that of slaves.
First of all then as to slaves the difficulty might be raised, does a slave possess any other excellence, besides his merits as a tool and a servant, more valuable than these, for instance temperance, have the courage, justice and any of the other moral virtues, or has he no excellence beside his bodily service? For either way there is difficulty; if slaves do possess moral virtue, wherein will they differ from freemen? or if they do not, this is strange, as they are human beings and participate in reason. [loeb_subsection_4] And nearly the same is the question also raised about the woman and the child: have they too virtues, and ought a woman to be temperate, brave and just, and can a child be intemperate or temperate, or not? This point therefore requires general consideration in relation to natural ruler and subject: is virtue the same for ruler and ruled, or different? If it is proper for both to partake in nobility of character, how could it be proper for the one to rule and the other to be ruled unconditionally? we cannot say that the difference is to be one of degree, for ruling and being ruled differ in kind, and difference of degree is not a difference in kind at all. [loeb_subsection_5] Whereas if on the contrary it is proper for the one to have moral nobility but not for the other, this is surprising. For if the ruler is not temperate and just, how will he rule well? And if the ruled, how will he obey well?