Been trying to get through the Politics by Aristotle. I’m only halfway through and I catch myself shaking my head. It’s hard to believe people take this shit seriously, as I said before he considers slavery natural and proper, but there are a lot ideas just as absurd. I found it very hard to believe, so I started comparing the book I have, intended as an Aristotle ‘reader’ for college students, with the etext version I got from Gutenberg. There are differences, so I’m putting them here in an effort to clarify for myself these differences and determine whether or not I’m getting the concepts as intended. I wouldn’t be surprised if the translation of the hard copy I have is done with something other than objectivity in mind, for one would think that an ‘enlightened’ individual, such as Aristotle is supposed to be, would be above some of the assertions made. Some examples follow…

Hard Copy – The necessary people are either slaves who minister to the wants of individuals, or mechanics and labourers who are the servants of the community. These reflections carried a little further will explain their position; and indeed what has been said already is of itself, when understood, explanation enough.

Etext - Now those who are employed by one person in them are slaves; those who do them for money are mechanics and hired servants: hence it is evident on the least reflection what is their situation, for what I have said is fully explained by appearances.

Quite a difference. Here are some more…

Hard Copy – Since there are many forms of government there must be many varieties of citizens, and especially of citizens who are subjects; so that under some governments the mechanic and the labourer will be citizens, but not in others, as, for example, in so-called aristocracies, if there are any, in which honours are given according to excellence and merit; for no man can practise excellence who is living the life of a mechanic or labourer.

Etext - Since the number of communities is very great, it follows necessarily that there will be many different sorts of citizens, particularly of those who are governed by others, so that in one state it may be necessary to admit mechanics and hired servants to be citizens, but in others it may be impossible; as particularly in an aristocracy, where honours are bestowed on virtue and dignity: for it is impossible for one who lives the life of a mechanic or hired servant to acquire the practice of virtue.

Hard Copy – Since, then, it is sometimes thought that the ruler and the ruled must learn different things and not the same, but that the citizen must know and share in them both, the inference is obvious. There is, indeed, the rule of a master, which is concerned with menial offices – the master need not know how to perform these, but may employ others in the execution of them: the other would be degrading; and by the other I mean the power actually to do menial duties, which vary much in character and are executed by various classes of slaves, such, for example, as handicraftsmen, who, as their name signifies, live by the labour of their hands – under these the mechanic is included. Hence in ancient times, and among some nations, the working classes had no share in the government – a privilege which they only acquired under extreme democracy. Certainly the good man and the statesman and the good citizen ought not to lean the crafts of inferiors except for their own occasional use; if they habitually practise them, there will cease to be a distinction between master and slave.

Etext - It appears, then, that both he who commands and he who obeys should each of them learn their separate business: but that the citizen should be master of and take part in both these, as any one may easily perceive; in a family government there is no occasion for the master to know how to perform the necessary offices, but rather to enjoy the labour of others; for to do the other is a servile part. I mean by the other, the common family business of the slave.

There are many sorts of slaves; for their employments are various: of these the handicraftsmen are one, who, as their name imports, get their living by the labour of their hands, and amongst these all mechanics are included; for which reasons such workmen, in some states, were not formerly admitted into any share in the government; till at length democracies were established: it is not therefore proper for any man of honour, or any citizen, or any one who engages in public affairs, to learn these servile employments without they have occasion for them for their own use; for without this was observed the distinction between a master and a slave would be lost.

These next two appear in the same paragraph, and illustrate my point, which is that the two translators have very different opinions about what Aristotle was trying to say, or at least apply their own spin to the piece. While reading the book I noticed a few passages that referred to the leisure time of citizens. The translator of the hard copy I have would have one believe Aristotle was touting maximum leisure for those in power, while the translator of the etext version specifies the same thing, but leisure time to pursue activities that serve the public. So, does Aristotle want maximum leisure time for the well-to-do, or does he prefer citizens with the resources spend their time running things? This is why students of history learn Greek and Latin for themselves, so they can determine for themselves what these ancients really are really trying to say.

Hard Copy - Nothing is more absolutely necessary than to provide that the highest class, not only when in office, but when out of office, should have leisure and not disgrace themselves in any way; and to this his attention should be first directed.

Etext - It must be admitted, that it was a great fault in their legislator not to guard against the constitution's degenerating from an aristocracy; for this is a most necessary thing to provide for at first, that those citizens who have the best abilities should never be obliged to do anything unworthy their character, but be always at leisure to serve the public, not only when in office, but also when private persons;

Hard Copy - That is why they should rule who are able to rule best. And even if the legislator does not care to protect the good from poverty, he should at any rate secure leisure for them when in office.

Etext - It would have been better for the legislature to have passed over the poverty of men of merit, and only to have taken care to have ensured them sufficient leisure, when in office, to attend to public affairs.

What started me thinking about all this was another reference to leisure I came across while reading, the first I think, or the first I noticed anyway.

That in a well-ordered state the citizens should have leisure and not have to provide for their daily wants is generally acknowledged, but there is a difficulty in seeing how this leisure is to be obtained.

I noted it, but kept reading. I had to go back and mark it though, after seeing the other references to leisure. Does he really think the goal is leisure, while others literally slave away actually getting shit done? Is it leisure time we are talking about, or is the concept to free people from everyday personal activities so they can pursue work that is beneficial to all in the state? The other translator says the citizen should be ‘free from servile labor’, which refers to members of a well regulated state. From this we can assume the state is well regulated because those doing the regulating can concentrate on said regulation because they don’t have to put up with stupid shit. This would make more sense, or is what one could expect to come from a person reasoning all this out in a rational way.

Of course all this brings to mind what goes on today. The goal it would seem today, or rather to be considered ‘successful’ one has to maximize their leisure time in such a way that they also have the resources to enjoy it as they see fit. This mindset is what makes people feel justified in accumulating vast amounts of wealth to just such an end. It sounds whiney, but that is what I think about when I see the guy walking his dog around the neighbourhood with a beer gut, one obviously with nothing to do, but perfectly capable of doing something constructive. That is the dream, to set aside money for retirement, and have that retirement come just as early as possible to maximize the time one has to sit on one’s ass. Just before I retired from service someone suggested I take a few months off to do nothing. It was because I ‘earned’ it. The way I see it, one ‘earns’ their keep in this world by doing anything constructive when one is capable, no matter how much their resources enable them to do otherwise. I have people thanking me all the time for my military service, to which I respond that there is no need, because they thank me every month. I will continue to earn it only by being constructive rather than lying around on my fat ass gaining weight and becoming a medical burden on society with heart and breathing problems. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with people enjoying life. But there is a difference between enjoying a well earned vacation and enjoyment leeched out of the world by someone concerned only for their own distractions.