[1256a]
[1]
But let us follow our normal method and investigate
generally the nature of all kinds of property and the art of getting wealth,
inasmuch as we saw the slave to be one division of property. In the first place
therefore one might raise the question whether the art of getting wealth is the
same as that of household management, or a part of it, or subsidiary to it; and
if subsidiary, whether it is so in the sense in which the art of making shuttles
is subsidiary to the art of weaving or in that in which the art of casting
bronze is subsidiary to the making of statues （for the two are not
subsidiary in the same way, but shuttle-making supplies tools whereas
bronze-founding supplies material—and by material I mean the substance
out of which certain work is produced, for example fleeces are material for a
weaver and bronze for a statuary）. Now it is clear that wealth-getting is not the same art as
household management, for the function of the former is to provide and that of
the latter to use—for what will be the art that will use the contents
of the house if not the art of household management? but whether wealth-getting
is a part of the art of household management, or a different sort of science, is
open to debate. For if it is the function of the getter of wealth to study the
source from which money and property are to be procured, . . .1 But property and riches comprise many divisions; hence first
of all is husbandry a division of the household art, or is it a different kind
of science? and so in general of the superintendence and acquisition of articles
of food. But furthermore, there are
many sorts of food,
[20]
owing to which
both animals and men have many modes of life; for it is impossible to live
without food, so that the differences of food have made the lives of animals
different. Among wild animals some are nomadic and others solitary, according to
whichever habit is advantageous for their supply of food, because some of them
are carnivorous, others graminivorous, and others eat all kinds of food; so that
nature has differentiated their modes of life to suit their facilities and their
predilection for those articles of food. And as different kinds of animals by
nature relish different sorts of food, and not each kind the same, even within
the classes of carnivorous and graminivorous animals their modes of life differ
from one another. And similarly in
the human race also, for there are wide differences of life among mankind. The
idlest men are nomads （for to procure food from domesticated animals
involves no toil or industry, but as it is necessary for the herds to move from
place to place because of the pastures, the people themselves are forced to
follow along with them, as though they were farming a live farm）. Other
men live from hunting, and different people from different kinds of hunting, for
instance some from brigandage,2 others from fishing—these are those that
dwell on the banks of lakes, marshes and rivers or of a sea suitable for
fishing,—and others live on wild birds and animals. But the largest
class of men live from the land and the fruits of cultivation. This then virtually completes the list of
the various modes of life, those at least that have their industry sprung from
themselves and do not procure their food by barter and trade—
Aristotle. Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 21, translated by H. Rackham. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1944.
The Annenberg CPB/Project provided support for entering this text.
Purchase a copy of this text (not necessarily the same edition) from Amazon.com
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.