Study VII.

In the inquiry into the scriptural views of slavery, byAlbert Barnes, Philadelphia, 1846, page 322, we find the following assertion: “No man has a right to assume that when the wordδοῦλος,doulos, occurs in the New Testament, it means a slave, or that he to whom it was applied was a slave.”

Our object in our present study is to prove that this assertion is not true; and our object further is to prove that when the wordδοῦλος,doulos, occurs in the New Testament, it means a slave, and that he to whom it was applied, as an appropriate distinctive quality, was a slave.

Suppose some infidel, a monomaniac in the study of infidelity, should put forth the proposition that when the words Jesus Christ occur in the New Testament, no one had the right to assume that they meant the Messiah, the Son of God, the Saviour of the world. We should feel it a needless labour to refute it; a foolish, false assertion often does not merit or require refutation, but the falsity of propositions may not be equally obvious to all, as in the present case.

The premises include the observance of the constitution, idioms, and use of the Greek language.

To him whose mind can flash upon the volume of Greek literature, like the well-read schoolboy upon the pages of Dilworth,—our present study and argument will be unnecessary and useless; but, as unsavoury as it may seem, from the evidence that reaches us, we doubt whether the great mass of those called learned, do not remember and practise their Greek only as the old veterans in sin do the evening and morning prayers of their childhood.

But, however that may be, a great proportion of us know nolanguage but our own, and take on trust what any Magnus Apollo may choose to assume concerning others. The assertions of one man, unaccompanied by evidence, may excite little or no attention; but we have seen the substance of this assertion put forth by the abolition clergy in various small publications, no doubt having great weight in their immediate vicinage.

We fear those who sit under such teaching may grope in deep darkness; and may we humbly pray, that, like the stroke of Jove, the light of the Almighty may reach them from afar.

When the untruthfulness of the lesson taught involves a misconception of the character and laws of God, its direct tendency is to create in the mind an idea of, we may say, an image of God and his laws, as decidedly different from him and his law as is the lesson taught from the truth; and here, perhaps, through all time, has been the commencement of idolatry.

Is it not as much idolatry to worship a false image of the mind, as it would be an image of wood or stone?

You teach thatδοῦλος,doulos, does not meanslavein the word of God; you consequently teach that God disapproves of it, and that his laws forbid it. We say the exact contrary. It is therefore evident that the idea, the image we form in the mind of our God, is quite different from the idea you form in your mind of your God. But God cannot possess a contradiction in quality; therefore the God we worship must be a different God from the God you worship. But there can be but one God; therefore your God is a false God, or our God is a false God. You are an idolater, or we are one.

And shall it be said that our language is too strong?—unnecessarily extreme in its denunciation?—unwarranted by the views, by the language held by the advocates of abolition and the friends of the anti-slavery movements now in action in the Northern sections of our country? Hear the proclamation of Mr. Wright, an eloquent speaker, before the Anti-Slavery Society, as reported in the Boston papers, May 30th, 1850:

“Down with your Bible!—down with your political parties!—downwith your God that sanctions slavery! The God of Moses Stuart, the Andover God, the God of William H. Rogers, which is worshipped in the Winter-street Church, is a monster, composed of oppression, fraud, injustice, pollution, and every crime, in the shape of slavery. To such a God I am an atheist.”

Thus the enemies of Jehovah give rapid proof of their idolatry.

It may be well here to remark, that the doctrine thus strange and astray from truth, may be expected to engraft itself upon such intellects as are led to the conclusion that man possesses within himself an unerring guide between right and wrong,—a doctrine which to us appears deeply fraught with ruin to the individual, and degradation to public morals.

We therefore condemn, most decidedly, the doctrine that man possesses a mental power called “moral sense,” “conscience,” or the “light within us,” which enables him unerringly to decide on right and wrong. You may as well say it will always enable him to discern the truth. Nor do we comprehend how the mind can entertain such a notion, unless the intellect is thus impressible that the mind can believe in the existence of what would be a sister faculty, clairvoyance, or a thousand other such fantasies.

Man possesses no power by which he can know God, only as he has revealed himself by inspiration and by the daily manifestations of his law. We prefer to worship the God of Abraham and Moses, who gave them directions how slaves should be governed, and of whom they should be purchased:—the God of the Bible, in which he has plainly revealed the reason why they are slaves. The history of the human intellect gives proof that among its strong characteristics is a desire, a fondness to search into mystery. While this quality stimulates to inquiry after truth, in well organized minds, it is an important means of man’s improvement and progression. But in the absence of all guides which can direct the path to successful inquiry, or by the substitution of false lights, man has ever gone astray. Here idolatry commences her reign.

The condition of man, from the most exalted instance of mental power, down to the most abject degradation of the African savage, is for ever marked and located by the fact, whether the guides to truth in their influence on him and his race have been universal, or only occasional; whether their influence has been obeyed only at distant periods, or at all times rejected. It is the law of God, man shall not progress to greatness only under the guidance oftruth; under the guidance of falsehood, man degenerates to insignificance, crime, slavery, or to inglorious death.

We do not propose that any man or any race has, without exception, been under the constant influence of those axioms that guide the mind along the thread of truth; but that some men and some races have deviated far more than others, and that the effect of such difference is quite perceptible. Some races have become highly improved, while others only give evidence that they belong to the animal race of men.

Distinctions from this source arose between Cain and Abel; between the sons of Noah, Abraham, and the fire-worshippers of his day; between Jacob and Esau; and between the Israelites and the idolaters of the surrounding Hamitic tribes. This love of searching into mystery without using the aids to find truth, has at all times of the world, when supreme power was the object of contemplation, led men to idolatry, sometimes of the grossest kind; to the belief in mysterious influences, supernatural agencies, of spirits and demons, magic, witchcraft, &c.

To the same order of causes we are to attribute the sentiment entertained by some, that certain portions of Scripture and certain words sometimes contain unknown, hidden, secret, or mysterious meanings or instructions. Such views involve the proposition that such words, when used in the Scripture, have a different meaning than when otherwise used by men, and are to be translated into another language by substituting different ideas than those expressed by such words when used by man in his own oral or written language.

Do they forget that the language of man is the language of God? That revelation is always adapted to the understanding of men? They forget to know this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. It happens that men take their own circumscribed view of the providence of God, as God’s ordinance touching a matter, and if Scripture is in contradiction, then they search for mysterious or unusual meaning, and give it such interpretation as they imagine suits the case.

Hence theologians who deny that slavery is of Divine authority, are led to the necessity of also denying that the Greek wordδοῦλος,doulos, means slave; or that, in its verbal formation, it expresses a cognate action.

The frequency of the use of this word in the copies of the ancient Greek Testament, as left us in the evangelical writings ofthe apostles; the varied manner in which they have applied the term, in figurative illustration, in comparison, in the most simple explanations, as well as in the expression of the primitive idea which they intended to convey by it, would seem to be sufficient proof that whatever such primitive idea may have been, yet that it surely was in exact conformity to the common and received opinion of its signification among those who wrote in and used the Greek language. This is very clear, since it is often used and addressed to the Greeks themselves, insomuch that no temerity has ever yet asserted that this word is of different import when found in the writings of the apostles than when found in the Greek authors generally.

The Greek nounδοῦλος,doulos, which we say means a slave unconditionally, so far as we have been able to examine, took its origin, both phonetically and literally, among the Greeks. Let us takeδοῶ, as theme forδιδώμι, andλοὐω, or from the radicalλοῶ, lŏō: both phonetically and significantly the word is complete. At the most ancient period of the Greeks, it is said they had no slaves, and it is a little remarkable that the word “doulos” is very seldom found in the most ancient of the Greek writers: but other nations more advanced had slaves. The idea, slave, was then expressed by them by the termδμώς,dmos, evidently of foreign origin. This latter term was nearly or quite obsolete as early as the days of Alexander, when the worddoulosis found to have taken its place.

The ancient and Eastern nations were particular in their custom of bathing their bodies and washing their feet, &c. One of the first and most important uses to which the early Greeks seem to have applied slaves, was in these personal purifications; and hence the peculiar nameδοῦλοςoriginated;δου-λούω, one whose office it was to bathe and wash them, a bondman for that particular use.

There is no instance in which Homer has used the word incompatible with such an association. The most affecting, we may say afflicting, circumstance in which he has introduced the word is theparting of Hector and Andromache; when Hector, anticipating his own death, and the probability of her being made a slave to the Greeks, emphatically laments her being compelled to carry water for her master, as if that was a particular employment in which thedouloswas engaged.

But it does not affect the force of our argument, even if it shall be thought that the origin we give the word is doubtful. All we at the present moment propose is, that it is an original Greek term, all of which terms, either remotely or immediately, spring from particles having a significant and phonetic relation with the derivative. Such has been the doctrine of all who have written upon the philology and origin of the Greek language. Valckenaerus (the edition of Venice, published by Coletos) says, p. 8—

“Verba simplicia apud Græcos sunt vel ‘primitiva,’ vel a primitivis per varios flexus ‘derivata.’

“Primitiva verba admodum sunt ‘pauca:’ ‘derivatorum’ numerus est infinitus.

“‘Binæ’ literarum syllabæ verbum primitivum constituunt.

“Verba primitiva, secundum observationem tertiam, dissyllaba sunt vel ‘bilittera,’ vel trilittera, vel quadrilittera.

“Primitiva ‘bilittera,’ per rei naturam, dari possunt in universum (si vel totam linguam perscrutemur) tantum quinque, nempeἄω,ἔω, ὅω,ἴω, ὔωPrimitiva ‘trilittera’ sunt, quæ a ‘vocali,’ ‘quadrilittera’ (pleraque saltem) quæ a ‘consonante,’ incipiunt. Hoc certum est: sed de eo etiamnum addubito, an nonnulla verba ‘quinque’ litteris constantia pro ‘primitivis’ debeant haberi?” &c.

And Lennepius,de Anologia Linguæ Græcæ, (eadem editio,)p. 38:

“Cognita literarum potestate, earumque antiquitate, ad primas linguæ Græcæ origines indagandas progrediendum est. Videndum itaque primo loco, quænam voces pro ‘simplicissimis originibus’ haberi possint, quænam minus? Hoc autem ut rite peragatur, quædam de ‘partibus orationis’ ante sunt monenda.

“Ex viii. partibus quas vulgo statuunt grammatici, ‘Verbum et Nomen’ principem obtinent locum: quum reliquæ omnes facillime ad harum partium alterutram referi possint. Quapropter etiam ‘Aristoteles,’ aliique de veteribus, revera ‘duas’ tantum esse ‘partes orationis’ voluerunt.

“Addunt quidem alii tertiam partem, utriusque, nempe et ‘verbi et nominis, ligamentum,’ sive particulas, quod, nempe, particulæ orationem in unum corpus veluti connectant et devinciant. Sed, qui attentius ‘particularum’ naturam inspexerit, facile animadvertat,omnia fere, quæ ‘particularum’ nomine insigniuntur, si ‘exteriorem formam’ eorumque naturam grammaticam inspiciamus, referenda esse vel ad ‘nomen’ vel ad ‘verbum.’

“Ita verbi gr.: particula᾽ȣ͂ν, Lat. igitur, revera participium est, contracta proἐὸν, quod neutrum a masculoἐὼνest, quo modo participium verbiἐὼ, velεἰμὶ, pronuntiarunt Iones, quum Atticiἐὸνcontraxerint in᾽ȣ͂ν. Apparet itaque, Græcum᾽ȣ͂νrevera pertinere ad nomina participialia. Eadem ratio cernitur quoque in particulisποὶ, πῆ, πȣ͂, quæ ‘adverbia loci’ dicuntur, quorum duo priora proprie ‘dativa antiqua’ sunt, postremum vero genitivus est; quemadmodum similis ratio cernitur in adverbiis quæ dicuntur ‘Loci’ apud Latinos,quò,quà, et similibus.

“Ad ‘verba’ porro referenda suntἄγε, φέρε, ἰδȣ͂, ἲθι, ἔιαvelἔα, et plura alia similia, id quod in aliis clarius, in aliis minus manifesto, apparet. Horum tamen omnium rationem eandem fuisse in prima linguæ Græcæ infantia, non est quod dubitemus.

“Hæc igitur quum revera sic sese habeant, jam porro inquirendum est, utrum verba, an vero nomina, ‘primas’ linguæ Græcæ stirpes nobis subministrent.

“Docet autem ipsa rei natura, si de ‘simplicissimis’ verbis sermo fiat, ‘nomina’ a ‘verbis,’ non verba a nominibus, primum esse formata.

“Quum enim omnes res vocabulis, tanquam nominibus, signatæ, ab usu qui singulis adest, vel quacumque etiam actione, nomina, sua acceperint: clare apparet, sicut ipsam actionem unde res denominata sit, ita etiam verbum, quo actio designetur, præcedere nomini, quod ab actione aliqua rei sit inditum. Atque hoc adeo certum est, non solum in lingua Græca, sed etiam omnibus omnino linguis, ut extra omnem controversiam positum esse videatur: nisi quis delabatur illuc, ut linguas integras, qua late patent, nullo artificio humano accedente, uno temporis articulo hominibus divinitus datas esse, eosque statim caluisse tot myriadas quot in singulis linguis sunt vocabulorum; tametsi res ipsas vocabulis istis designandas plerosque primos homines ignorasse certum est.

“Hoc autem quam sit rationi contrarium, atque ipsi experientiæ, facile apparet, si modo consideremus, ea ratione multa vocabula existere jam debuisse priusquam eorum utilitas inter homines ulla esset, quæque proinde, non nisi vani et inutiles soni, facile et sine ulla jactura dediscenda fuissent.

“Quin imo experientia abunde docet, primum res ipsas inveniri hominum industria, deinde autem inventis nomina imponi, sive abutilitate sive alia qualitate ducta. Ex quo porro apparet, quo plures res ab aliquo populo inveniantur, eo ditiorem et uberiorem eorum linguam fieri, ut adeo mirandum non sit tantam esse linguæ Græcæ copiam et ubertatem, quum exculta ea fuerit a populo ingeniosissimo, cui omnes artes et disciplinæ non tantum primordia sua, sed etiam omnem fere splendorem, debent. Linguas itaque diligenter consideranti, idem quod in artibus, in iis quoque usu venire apparebit: eas nimirum a paucis simplicissimisque initiis profectas, non nisi sensim et progressu temporis ad eam qua postea patuerunt amplitudinem pervenisse. Quum autem hominum natura ita sit comparata, ut primum eas res circumspiciat, quæ necessario ad vitam sustentandam, et cum aliis quibuscum homo societatis vinculo conjunctus est secure agendam, requirantur, dein vero ea excogitat quæ vitam jucundiorem possint reddere, valde verisimile fit vocabula ea in linguis antiquissima esse quibus res designantur ad vitam degendam necessariæ, si recesseris ab iis vocabulis, quæ in antiquissimorum vocabulorum locum deinceps substitute sunt, ut revera hujus generis multæ vocabulorum formæ inveniantur, quæ verborum obsoletorum locum occupaverunt.

“Porro non alienum erit hic observasse non tantum ejusmodi vocabula antiquissima existimari debere, sed etiam ‘ipsas’ significationes verbis subjectas tanto antiquioris usus esse, tantoque magis proprias esse habendas, quanto sunt propiores iis rebus quas corporis sensibus percipimus. Ab iis enim semper servata quadam similitudine ad reliquas quascumque verborum significationes progrediendum est: ut adeo appareat, paucissimas revera esse proprias verborum ‘significationes,’ nec alias esse nisi corporeas, sive eas quibus res sensibus externis expositæ designantur.

“E contrario autem, translatarum significationum copiam immensam, quæ ex propria notione, tanquam ex trunco arboris rami, quaquaversum pateant; manente similitudine inter eas omnes et propriam seu primam stirpis significationem, similiter atque rami, utcumque dispersi, et communem et communis trunci naturam retinent.

“Ex his præterea intelligitur ea verba, quæὄνοματα πεποιήμεναa Græcis vocantur, sic dicta quia a ‘nomine’ vel ‘sono’ formentur, ‘propriam’ eam significationem quæ soni, unde facta sunt, naturam referat. Quorum verborum numerus ingens revera in linguis est, et longe major quam vulgo credi solet. Sed, ut ad propositum redeamus, ex iis quæ supra dicta sunt, clare apparet, simplicissimas origines non posse repeti nisi ab ejusmodi verbis,quibus actiones ipsæ significentur; adeoque a verbis sic proprie dictis.

“Quumque actiones infinitæ, sive nulli certæ personæ adsignatæ, per rei naturam antecedere debeant iis quæ certæ personæ attribuuntur, verba ‘infinitiva’ simplicissima proprie primas linguæ Græcæ origines continere certum est.

“Harum autem plurimæ, quum jam a longissimis temporibus, una cum plerisque notionibus propriis, ex usu ceciderint, ac difficillimaæ sæpe indagatu sint, quo certiores progredi possimus, id semper tenendum est, ne quidquam admittamus quod constanti analogiæ linguæ repugnet; dein etiam, ut ex ipsis linguæ reliquiis, rite inter se comparatis, inquiramus a quo verbo originali vocabulum quodque oriatur: etiam tum, quum minus ipsum verbum originale superstes sit.

“Ubi enim in sequentibus agetur de ‘simplicissimis’ verbis ‘primitivis,’ id non ita accipiendum est quasi ea omnia, sicut etiam multa derivata simpliciora, florente lingua Græcæ, in sermone Graæcorum adhuc exstitisse vellem; sed tantum, in primo linguæ Græcæ ortu, aut exstitisse revera aut saltem existere potuisse. Neque enim, in hoc linguæ Græcæ defectu, æque certo sciri potest, an tanta copia, quantam fingere verborum per linguæ naturam constanti analogiæ ductu liceat, prima linguæ Græcæ ætate reipsa viguerit.”

Our object is here to present the Greek scholar, who may not have reflected on the subject, such suggestions as will lead him to perceive thatδοῦλος,doulos, is an original Greek word, not borrowed; and although he may not agree with us in the derivation of the term, yet that he may readily satisfy himself what is the true derivation. It is true, Scheidius, in his“Animadversiones ad analogiam linguæ Græcæ,”has criticized the views of Lennepius, and has devoted near thirty pages to that which is our quotation from him; and we did fancy, upon its examination, that he had rather established than weakened the argument of Lennepius: in fact we did propose to quote him as authority; but to the most of us long quotations, in a language to us unknown, are quite objectionable. We therefore refer to his work, pp. 246 to 275,apud Paddenburg et filium, 1790, “Traiecti ad Rhenum.”It has been said by some of those who contend thatδοῦλος, when found in the Greek Testament, does not mean slave, that the Greek, like all other languages of modern date, is a compilation from the moreancient ones; and since the Greeks at an early day had no slaves, it is evident, it is good proof that the more ancient tribes, from whom they and their language descended, had none; and in all such early periods of the world men never had words in their language to express things which did not exist among them, of which they could have no idea.

Thereforeδοῦλοςcould not have meant slave,—“an idea of which they had no notion.” Even if this statement were true, we do not perceive how it proves their proposition. To show the futility of such argument, we consent, for the moment, thatδοῦλοςis not an original Greek word, but was borrowed from some other language, in which it meant something distinct from the idea of slave: say, a freeman, if you choose. Language, and all its parts, has ever been found to conform itself to the habits and wants of those who use it. Wherefore we often find a term, which some centuries ago expressed a certain distinct idea, now to express quite a different one. We therefore cannot say, with any propriety, that, because the wordδοῦλοςmeant a “freeman,” at the age of Noah, that it also meant the same thing at the age of Alexander. If it meant a “freeman” at the age of Noah, we are to determine that fact by its use at that period; if otherwise, we should be able to prove that our wordslavedoes not mean a slave now, but a proud and lofty distinction.

It is a term borrowed from the Schlavonic, where its significance wasfame,renown, &c.; but the Schlavonians going into bondage to other nations, upon their inroads on Europe, the term implyingfamein their ancient national distinctions came to signify in succeeding ages the condition of bondage. But although, as we have seen, a language is modified by the habits of those who apply it, yet this liability to change ceases when the language ceases to be the common vehicle of thought. Such substantially has been the case with the ancient Hebrew, since the era of the prophets; and such has, emphatically, been the case with the ancient Greek since the breaking down of the Roman Empire.

And even at the age of the apostles, the Greek had already arrived at the very highest point of its cultivation. No history, no writer gives proof of any subsequent improvement. If, then, we desire with seriousness and truth to determine the significance of any term then in use, the same is alone to be found by an investigation of the Greek literature of that age.

There are two modes by which an idea expressed in one languageis explained in another. Where both languages contain words of synonymous meaning, then the expressing the idea through the medium of the words in another language, is properly what we mean by “translation.” But in many instances, the second language contains no word or words which are synonymes of the term by which the idea is expressed in the language which we wish to translate. In that case we can accomplish the object only by transferring the term expressing the idea from the one language to the other. Example:—When the French exhibited to the natives here a padlock, the natives associated the thing with their idea of the tortoise, from the fancied mechanical resemblance, and with them the name of the one became the name of the other also. But when we exhibited to them a steamboat, they found their language destitute of any word to express their idea of the thing exhibited; consequently, they transferred into their own language the word steamboat, to express the new idea.

With a view to be enabled to come to a truthful decision as to the definiteness of the idea intended to be conveyed by the worddoulos, when used in the writings of the apostles, let us make a suitable inquiry among the Greek authors read and studied at their time, regardless of what may be the result as to the establishment of any peculiar theory or favourite notion. Let a development of the truth be the sole object of the research, careless of what else may stand or fall thereby. And since all have not chosen to burden themselves with the toilsome lesson necessary in a preparation for such examination, we consent that such may pass it by with the same indifference with which they regard the study.

We commence our quotations from the Greek authors with the Cebetis Tabula, from the Gronovius edition, Glasgow, 1747:

P. 17.——διὸ καὶ ὅταν ἀναλώσῃ πανθ’ ὅσα ἔλαβε παρά τῆς τύχης, ἀναγκάζεται ταύταις ταῖς γυναιξὶδουλεύειν, καὶ πάνθ’ ὑπομένειν, καὶ ἀσχημονεῖν, καὶ ποιεῖν ἕνεκεν τούτων ὅσα ἐστὶ βλαβερά.

P. 34.Τοὺς μεγίστους, ἔφη, καὶ τὰ μέγιστα θηρία, ἅ πρότερον αὐτὸν κατήσθιε, καὶ ἐκόλαζε, καὶ ἐποίειδοῦλον. Ταῦταπάντα νενίκηκη, καὶ ἀπέῤῥιψεν ἀφ’ ἑαυτου, καὶ κεκράτηκεν ἑαυτοῦ, ὥστε ἐκεῖνα νῦν τούτῳδουλεύουσι, καθαπερ οὕτος ἐκείνοις πρότερον.

Æschylus, Prometheus Chained. Line 463:

κἄζευξα πρῶτος ἐν ζυγοῖς κνώδαλαζεύγλαισιδουλεύοντα.

κἄζευξα πρῶτος ἐν ζυγοῖς κνώδαλα

ζεύγλαισιδουλεύοντα.

In hisChœ̈phoroiChœphoroiline 75:

ἒκ γαρ οἲκωνπατρῴωνδούλιονἐσᾶγον αἶσαν,δίκαια καὶ μὴ δίκαια,πρέποντ’ ἀρχαῖς βίου,βίᾳ φερομένων αἰνέσαι πικρόν φρενῶνστύγος κρατούσῃ.

ἒκ γαρ οἲκων

πατρῴωνδούλιονἐσᾶγον αἶσαν,

δίκαια καὶ μὴ δίκαια,

πρέποντ’ ἀρχαῖς βίου,

βίᾳ φερομένων αἰνέσαι πικρόν φρενῶν

στύγος κρατούσῃ.

Burney translates this passage thus:

Etenim e domo paterna servilem induxeram sortem,statjuste et injuste, convenienter origini meæ, eorum qui vi agunt laudare acerbum mentis odium coërcenti.

Line 133.κἄγω μὲνἀντίδουλος—which the same author translates,Et ego quidem pro serva habeor.

Anacreon,Sur l'Amour Esclave:

Καὶ νῦν ἡ ΚυθέρειαΖητεῖ, λύτρα φέρουσα,Λύσασθαι τόν Ἔρωτα.Κἄν λύσῃ δέ τις αὐτόν,Οὐκ ἔξεισι, μενεῖ δέ·Δουλεύεινδεδίδακται.

Καὶ νῦν ἡ Κυθέρεια

Ζητεῖ, λύτρα φέρουσα,

Λύσασθαι τόν Ἔρωτα.

Κἄν λύσῃ δέ τις αὐτόν,

Οὐκ ἔξεισι, μενεῖ δέ·

Δουλεύεινδεδίδακται.

Lucian, Dialogues of the Gods—Jove, Æsculapius, and Hercules:

ἐγὼ δε, εἰ καὶ μηδέν ἄλλο, οὔτε ἐδούλευσα ὥσπερ σύ.

Translation:Ego vero, si nihil aliud, neque servivi quemadmodum tu, &c.

Mercury and Maia:

——ὥσπερ οἱ ἐν γῇ κακῶς δουλεύοντες,

Ut in terris solent, qui malam servitutem serviunt.

Charon sive Contemplantes.Mercury:

Οὐ γαρ οἶοθα, ὅσοι πόλεμοι διὰ τοῦτο, καὶ ἐπίβουλαι, καὶ λῃστήρια, καὶ ἐπιορκιαι, καὶ φόνοι, καὶ δεσμὰ, καὶ πλοῦς μακρὸς, καὶ ἐμπορίαι, καὶδουλεῖαι·

Nescis enim quot propterea bella existant, et insidiæ, latrocinia, perjuria, cædes, vincula, navigatio longinqua, mercaturæ, servitutes denique?

Cataplus sive Tyrannus:

Clotho —Ἄκουε μᾶλλον γὰρ ἀνιάσῃ μαθών. Τὴν μὲν γυναῖκά σοι Μίδας ὁδοῦλοςἕξει, καὶ πάλαι δέ αὐτὴν ἐμοίκευεν.

Audi, magis enim iis auditis lugebis: uxorem tuam Midas habebit, servus qui olim adulterio illi cognitus est.

Megapenthes.—Κἄν ἰδιώτην με ποίησον, ὦ Μοῖρα, τῶν πενήτων ἕνα, κᾄνδοῦλον, ἀντί τοῦ πάλαι βασιλέως.

Vel privatum me facito, Parca, pauperum unum, vel servum, pro eo, qui rex nuper fui.

Necyomantia, Menippus:

* * *ἐκολάζοντο τε ἅμα πάντες, βασιλεῖς,δοῦλοι, σατράπαι, πένητες, πλούσιοι καὶ μετέμελε πᾶσι τῶν τετολμημένων. ἐνιους δὲ αὐτων καὶ ἐγνωρισαμεν ιδοντες, ὁποσοι ἦσαν τῶν ἐναγχος τετελευτηκότων. οἱ δε ἐνεκαλύπτοντο καὶ ἀπεστρέφουτο· εἰ δὲ καὶ προσβλέποιεν, μάλαδουλοπρέπεςτι, καὶ κολακεύτικον· καὶ ταῦτα, πῶς οιει, βαρεῖς ὄντες καὶ ὑπερόπται παρὰ τὸν βίον;

Unà autem omnes puniebantur, reges, servi, satrapæ, pauperes, divites, mendici; cunctosque pœnitebat patratorum; nonnullos agnovimus etiam conspicati, eorum de numero scilicet qui nuper vitam finierant; illi vero præ pudore vultus tegebant seseque avertebant; quod si forte respicerent, valde quidemservilemin modum, atque adulatorie, illi ipsi, qui fuerant quàm putas graves et superbi aliorum contemtores in hac vita.

Deorum Comitia:

Momus: * * *τοιγαρουν οἱ Σκυφαι καὶ οἱ Γεται ταυτα ὁρῶντες αὐτῶν, μακρά ἡμῖν χαίρειν εἰπόντες, αὐτοὶ ἀπαθανατίζουσι, καὶ θεοὺς χειροτονοῦσιν, οὕς ἄν ἐθελὴσωσι, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ὅνπερ καὶ Ζάμολξις,δουλοςὤν, παρενεγράφη, οὐκ οἶδ’ ὁπως διαλαθών.

Proinde Scythæ ac Getæe hæc illorum videntes, longum nobis valere jussis, immortalitati se donant, et deos quoscunque voluerint feris suffragiis consalutant, eodem modo quo Zamolxis etiam, servus cum esset, in album nescio quomodo delitescens, irrepsit.

Demosthenes. Leipsic Ed. 1829, in 4 vols. Vol. i.

Olynthiac 2d. * * *ἤ ὡς οἱ παρά τὴν αὑτῶν ἀξίανδεδουλωμένοιΘετταλοὶ υῦν οὐκ ἄν ἐλεύθεροι γένοιντο ἀσμενοι—which Leland translates thus: * * * “or that the Thessalians, who have been so basely, so undeservedlyenslaved, would not gladly embrace their freedom.”

P. 70.——ὅτι Λακεδαιμονίοιςκαταδουλουμένοις, &c.

Philippic 4th, p. 142.——μήτε δουλεύειν ἄλλῳ.

P. 148.——εἰς δούλειαν, &c.

Idem.——τήν δε τῶνδούλωνἀπέχεσθαι δήπου μη γένεσθαι δεῖ.

Idem, p. 149.——δούλῳ δὲ, πληγαὶ, καὶ ὁ τοῦ σώματος αἴκυσμος·&c.

Idem, p. 158. * * *ὑπόλοιπονδουλεύειν.

Idem.——οἶδε γὰρ ἀκριβῶς ὅτιδουλεύεινμεν ὑμεῖς οὔτ’ ἐθελησετε.

Idem, p. 159.——ὑπηγάγετο εἰς τὴν νῦν παροῦσανδουλεὶαν.

On the Treaty with Alexander, p. 227. * * *ἤ πείσθεντας γεδουλεύεινἀντὶ τῶν ἀργυρωνήτων.

Idem, p. 229.——τόν δ’ εἰςδουλείανἄγοντά με, &c.

De Corona, p. 208.——πότερ’ ὡς ὁ πατήρ σου, Τρόμης,ἐδούλευεπαρ’ Ἐλπίᾳ τῷ πρός τῷ Θησείῳ διδάσκοντι γράμματα, &c.

Idem.——ἀλλ’ ὡς ὁ τριηραύλης Φορμίων, ὁ Δίωνος τοῦ φρεαῤῥίουδοῦλος, &c.

Idem, p. 289.——ὥστ’ ἐλεύθερος ἐκδούλου, καὶ, &c.

Idem, p. 309.——τοὺς Ἑλλήναςκαταδουλουμένους.

Idem, p. 315.——προσθεμένην ἀσφαλῶςδουλεύειν.

Idem, p. 316.——δι’ ὅτουδουλεύσουσινεὐτυχῶς.

Idem.——ὁ δὲ καὶ τῇ πατρίδι ὑπέρ τοῦ μὴ ταύτην ἐπιδεῖνδουλεύουσανἀποθνήσκειν ἐθελήσει, καὶ φοβερωτέρας ἡγήσεται τάς ὕβρεις καὶ τας αἰτίμιας, ἅς ἐνδουλευούσῃτῇ πόλει φέρειν ἀνάγκη τοῦ θανάτου.

Idem, p. 343, (in the Epitaph.)——ὡς μὴ ζυγὸν αὐχένι θέντεςδουλοσύνης, &c.

Idem, p. 345.——ἕωςδούλουςἐποίησαν.

Oratio de Falsa Legatione, vol. ii. p. 37.——ἀλλὰδουλεύειν, καὶ τεθνᾶναι τῷ φόβω, καὶ τοὺς Θηβαίους, καὶ τοὺς Φιλίππου ξένους, [ὁὕς] ἀναγκάζονται τρέφειν, διωκισμένοι κατὰ κώμας, καὶ παρῃρημένοι τὰ ὅπλα.

Idem, p. 54.——καὶ γὰρ τοι, πρῶτον μὲν Αμφίπολιν, πόλιν ὑμετέραν,δούληνκατέστησεν, ἣν τότε σύμμαχον αὐτοῦ καὶ φίλην ἒγραψεν.

Idem, p. 60.——ὥστ’ ἐκεῖνος ὁδουλεύσωνἔμελλεν ἔσεσθαι τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς εἰρήνης λυσιτελοῦσιν, οὐχ ὑμεις.

Idem, p. 78.——ὅτι ταῦτα μὲν αὐτῷ συνῄδει πεπραγμένα, καὶδοῦλοςἦν τῶν ῥημάτων τούτων.

Idem, p. 95.Ἐλεγεῖα Σολωνος.

Εἰς δὲ κακήν ταχέως ἤλυθεδουλοσύνην,Ἥ στάσιν ἔμφυλον, πόλεμόν θ’ εὕδοντ’ ἐπεγείρει,Ὅς πολλῶν ἐρατὴν ὤλεσεν ἡλικίην.

Εἰς δὲ κακήν ταχέως ἤλυθεδουλοσύνην,

Ἥ στάσιν ἔμφυλον, πόλεμόν θ’ εὕδοντ’ ἐπεγείρει,

Ὅς πολλῶν ἐρατὴν ὤλεσεν ἡλικίην.

Idem, p. 97.——οἱ γὰρ ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι γνωριμώτατοι, καὶ προεστάναι τῶν κοινῶν ἀξιούμενοι, τὴν ἁυτῶν προδιδόντες ἐλευθερίαν, οἱ δυστυχεῖς, αὐθαίρετον αὑτοις ἐπάγονταιδουλείαν, Φιλίππου φιλίαν, καὶ ξενίαν, καὶ ἑταιρίαν, καὶ τὰ τοιαῦθ’ ὑποκοριζόμενοι.

Oratio adversus Leptinem, p. 174.——πῶς γὰρ οὐχὶ καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο δεινότατ’ ἄν πεπονθὼς ὁ Χαβρίας φανείη εἰ μὴ μόνον εξαρκέσειε τοῖς τα τοιαῦτα πολιτευομένοις τὸν ἐκείνουδοῦλονΛυχίδαν πρόξενον ὑμετερον πεποιηκέναι, ἀλλ’ εἰ καὶ δια τοῦτον πάλιν τῶν ἐκεὶνῳ τι δοθὲντων ἀφελοιντο, χαὶ ταῦτ’ αἰτίαν λέγοντες ψευδῆ;

Oratio contra Midiam, p. 207.——καὶ τοσαύτῃ γ’ ἐχρήσατο ὑπερβολῇ, ὥστε, κᾄν εἰςδοῦλονὑβρίζῃ τις, ὁμοίως ἒδωκεν ὑπὲρ τούτου γραφήν. * * * ἐπειδή δὲ εὕρεν οὐχ ἐπιτήδειον. μητε πρὸςδοῦλον, μηθ’ ὅλως ἐξεῖναι πραττεῖν ἐπέταξεν.

P. 208.Νομος.—Ἐὰν τις ὑβρίσῃ εἴς τινα, ἤ παῖδα, ἤ γύναῦκα, ἤ ἄνδρα, τῶν ἐλευθέρων, ἤ τῶνδοῦλων, ἤ παράνομον τι ποιήσῃ εἴς τούτων τινὰ, γραφέσθω πρός τούς θεσμοθέταςὁ βουλόμενος Ἀθηναῖων, οἷς ἔξεστιν. * * * ἀκούετε, ὤ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοῦ νόμου τῆς φιλανθρωπίας, ὅς οὐδὲ τούςδούλουςὑβρίζεσθαι ἀξιοῖ.

P. 209.——ὅμως οὐδ’ ὅσων ἄν τιμὴν καταθέντεςδούλουςκτήσωνται.

P. 210.——Ἀπόλλωνι ἀποτροπαίῳ βοῦν θῦσαι, καὶ στεφανηφορεῖν ἐλευθέρους καὶδούλους, καὶ ἐλινύειν μίαν ἡμέραν.

Idem, p. 253.——τύπτειν, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐπὶ τῆς πομπῆς καὶ τοῦ μεθύειν πρὸφασιν λαβὼν, ἀδικεῖν, ὡςδούλοιςχρῶμενος τοῖς ἐλευθέροις.

Oratio adversus Androtionem, p. 293.——ὑπέρ τοῦ μή τό σῶμα ἁλούς εἰς τό δεσμωτήριον ἕλκεσθαι, ἤ ἄλλα ἀσχημονοίη, ἃδουλων, οὐκ ἐλευθέρων, ἐστὶν ἔργα, &c.

Idem.——καὶ μὴν, εἰ θέλοιτε σκέψασθαι, τίδοῦλον, ἤ ἐλεύθερον εἶναι, διαφὲρει, τοῦτο μέγιστον ἄν ἕυροιτε, ὅτι τοῖς μὲνδούλοιςτὸ σῶμα τῶν ἁδικημάτων ἁπάντων ὑπεύθυνόν ἐστι.

Idem, p. 295.——πότερ’ οὖν οἴεσθε τούτων ἕκαστον μισεῖν, καὶ πολεμεῖν αὐτῷ, διὰ τὴν εἰσφοραν τύυτην, ἤ τὸν μὲν αὐτῶν, ὅτι, πάντων ἀκουόντων ὑμῶν, ἐν τῷ δήμῳδοῦλονἔφη, καὶ ἐκδούλωνεἴναι, καὶ προσήκειν αὐτῷ τὸ ἕκτον μέρος ἐισφέρειν μετὰ τῶν μετοίκων.

Idem, p. 298.——εἰ γὰρἀνδραπόδωνπόλις, ἀλλὰ μὴ τῶν ἄρχειν ἑτέρων ἀξιούντων, ὡμολογεῖτε εἶναι, ὀυκ ἄν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τὰς ὕβρεις ἠνέσχεσθε τὰς τούτου, ἅς κατὰ τὴν ἀγοραν ὕβριζεν, ὁμοῦ μετοίκους, Ἀθηναίους, δέων, ἀπάγων, βοῶν ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις, ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος,δούλουςκαὶ ἐκδούλωνκαλῶν, ἑαυτοῦ βελτίους, καὶ ἐκ βελτίονων, ἐρωτῶν.

Idem, p. 299.——νῦν δ’ ἐπὶ ταῖς εἰσφοραῖς, ὅ δίκαιον ἔσθ’ ὁρίσας, μὴ σοὶ πιστεύειν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς αὑτῆςδούλοις, τὴν πόλιν, ὁπότ’ ἄλλο τι πράττων, &c.

Oratio adversus Timocratem,vol. iii. p. 128.——καὶ γὰρ ἐκείνων, ὦ ἀνδρες δικασταὶ, ὅσοι ἄν ἐλεῦθεροι γένωνται, οὐ τῆς ἐλευθερίας χάριν ἔχουσι τοῖς δεσπόταις, ἀλλὰ μισοῦσι μάλιστα ἀνθρώπων ἁπάντων, ὅτι συνίσασιν αὐτοῖςδουλούσασιν.

Idem, p. 133.——εἰ οὖν μὴ τιμωρήσησθε τούτους, οὐκ ἄν φθάνοι το πλῆθος τούτοις τοῖς θηρίοιςδουλεῦον.Idem, p. 141.——καὶ μὴν εἰ θέλοιτε σκέψασθαι παρ’ ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς, ὦ ἄνδρες δικαταὶ, τιδοῦλον, ἤ ἐλεύθερον εἶναι διαφέρει, τοῦτο μεγίστον ἄν ἕυροιτε, ὅτι τοῖς μὲνδούλοιςτὸ σῶμα τῶν ἀδικημάτων ἁπάντων ὑπεύθυνον ἐστι, τοῖς δ’ἐλευθέροιςὒστατον τοῦτο προσήκει κολάζειν.

Oratio III. adversus Aphobum, p. 242.——καίτοι ἒιγ’ ἦνδοῦλοςἄνθρωπος, καὶ μὴ προωμολόγητο πρὸς τῦυδ’ ἐλεύθερος εἶναι, &c.

Idem, p. 243.——ἀλλά καὶδοῦλονεἶναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῷ ὄντι.

Idem, p. 247.——διόπερ τοὺς ὁμολογουμένωςδούλουςπαραβὰς, τὸν ἐλεύθερον ἠξίον βασανίζειν, ὅν οὐδ’ ὅσιον παραδοῦναι, &c.

Oratio I. adversus Onetorem, p. 266.——οὐ χρῆσθε ταῖς τῶν ἐλευθέρων μαρτυρίαις, ἀλλὰ τοῦςδούλουςβασανίζοντες οὕτω ζητεῖτε τὴν ἀλήθειαν εὑρεῖν τῶν πεπραγμένων. * * *δούλωνδὲ βασανισθέντων, οὐδένες πώποτ’ ἐξηλέγχθησαν, ὡς οὐκ ἀληθῆ τὰ ἐκ τῆς βασάνου εἶπον.

Oratio in Phormionem, vol. iv. p. 13.——νῦν δ’ οὐκ ἐμοὶ, * * * ἀλλ’ ἐν Βοσπόρῳ, καὶ τῆς συγγραφῆς σοι κειμένης Ἀθηνηοι καὶ πρὸς ἐμὲᾧ, καὶ, ᾧ τὸ χρυσίον ἀπεδίδους, ὄντος θνητοῦ, καὶ πέλαγος τοσοῦτον μέλλοντος πλεῖν, μάρτυρα οὐδέν’ ἐποιήσω, οὔτεδοῦλον, οὔτ’ ἐλεύθερον.

Oratorio in Pantanænetum, p. 80.——τίς γὰρ πωποτε τῷ δεσπότῃ λαχών, τοῦδούλουτὰ πράγματα, ὥσπερ κυρίου, κατηγόρωρησεν;

Oratio in Macartatum, p.173.——ἐπαγγέλλειν δὲ, περὶ μὲν τῶνδοῶλωντῷ δεσπότῃ περὶ δὲ τῶν ἐλευθέρων τοις τα χρήματ’ ἔχουσιν.

Oratio in Stephanum, I. p. 217.——φανήσεται γὰρ οὐ πατρὸς, ὑπὲρ ὑιέων γράφοντος, ἐοικυῖα διαθήκη, ἀλλὰδούλουλελυμασμένον τὰ τῶν δεσποτῶν, ὅπως μή δώσει δίκην σκοποῦντος.

Idem, p. 231.——καὶ εἰ μέν πένης οὗτος ἦν, ἡμεῖς δ’ εὐυποροῦντεςἐτυγχάνομεν, καὶ συνέβη τι παθεῖν, οἷα πολλὰ, ἐμοὶ, οἰ παῖδες ἄν οἰ τούτου τῶν ἐμῶν θυγατέρων ἐδικάζοντο, οἰ τοῦδούλουτῶν του δεσπότου· * * * οὗτος δ’ αὖ τοὐναντίον τόν δεσπότην ὁδοῦλοςἐξετάζει, ὡς δῆτα πονηρὸν καὶ ἄσωτον ἐκ τούτων ἐπιδείξων.

Idem, p.234.——ὄντων γὰρ ἡμῶν τοιωυτων, ὁποίυς τινὰς ἄν καὶ σὺ κατασκευάσῃς τῷ λόγω, σὺδοῦλοςἦσθα.

Idem, p. 235.——καὶ δέομαι καὶ ἀντιβολῶ καὶ ἱκετεύω, μὴ ὑπεριδητέ με καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας, δι’ ἔνδειαν τοῖς ἐμαυτοῦδούλοις, καὶ τοῖς τούτου κόλαξιν ἐπιχάρτους γενομένους. * * *δοῦλοιμεν ἐκεῖνοι,δοῦλοςδ’ ὗυτος ἦν, δεσπόται δ' ὑμεῖς, δεσπότης δ’ ἦν ἐγώ.

Oratio in Timotheum, p. 312.——ὁ δέ οὔτε μαρτυρίαν παρέσχετο, οὔθ' ὡςδοῦλοντοῦ Αἰσχρίωνα παραδοὺς, ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τὸν ἔλεγχον ἠξίου γενέσθαι, φοβούμενος, ἄν μὲν μαρτυρίαν παράσχηται, ὡς ἐλευθέρου ὄντος, &c.

Sophocles, Electra, line 814:

Back to Index Next