---

LESSON I.

In the inquiry into the scriptural views of slavery, by Albert Barnes, Philadelphia, 1846, page 322, we find the following assertion: “No man has a right to assume that when the word d?????, 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 word d?????, 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 no language 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.

---

LESSON II.

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 that d?????, doulos, does not mean slave in 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!—down with 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 of truth; 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 word d?????, 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 of the 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.

---

LESSON III.

The Greek noun d?????, 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 take d??, as theme for d?d??, and ????, or from the radical ???, loo: 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 term d??, dmos, evidently of foreign origin. This latter term was nearly or quite obsolete as early as the days of Alexander, when the word doulos is 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 name d????? originated; d??-????, 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 the parting 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 the doulos was 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, nempe ??,??, ??,??, ?? Primitiva ‘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 ????, Lat. igitur, revera participium est, contracta pro ???, quod neutrum a masculo ??? est, quo modo participium verbi ??, vel e??, pronuntiarunt Iones, quum Attici ??? contraxerint in ????. Apparet itaque, GrÆcum ???? revera pertinere ad nomina participialia. Eadem ratio cernitur quoque in particulis p??, p?, p??, 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 sunt ??e, f??e, ?d??, ???, ??a vel ?a, 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 ab utilitate 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, quÆ ???ata pep???e?a a 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 that d?????, 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 that d?????, 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 more ancient 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.

Therefore d????? could 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, that d????? is 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 word d????? meant 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 word slave does not mean a slave now, but a proud and lofty distinction.

It is a term borrowed from the Schlavonic, where its significance was fame, renown, &c.; but the Schlavonians going into bondage to other nations, upon their inroads on Europe, the term implying fame in 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 language is 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 word doulos, 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.

---

LESSON IV.

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

P. 17.——d?? ?a? ?ta? ??a??s? pa??’ ?sa ??ae pa?? t?? t????, ??a????eta? ta?ta?? ta?? ???a??? d???e?e??, ?a? p???’ ?p???e??, ?a? ?s????e??, ?a? p??e?? ??e?e? t??t?? ?sa ?st? ?ae??.

P. 34. ???? e??st???, ?f?, ?a? t? ???sta ????a, ? p??te??? a?t?? ?at?s??e, ?a? ????a?e, ?a? ?p??e? d?????. ?a?ta p??ta ?e??????, ?a? ?p?????e? ?f’ ?a?t??, ?a? ?e???t??e? ?a?t??, ?ste ??e??a ??? t??t? d???e???s?, ?a?ape? ??t?? ??e????? p??te???.

Æschylus, Prometheus Chained. Line 463:

In his ChoephoroiChoephoroi line 75:

Burney translates this passage thus:

Etenim e domo paterna servilem induxeram sortem, stat juste et injuste, convenienter origini meÆ, eorum qui vi agunt laudare acerbum mentis odium coËrcenti.

Line 133. ???? ?? ??t?d?????—which the same author translates, Et ego quidem pro serva habeor.

Anacreon, Sur l'Amour Esclave:

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

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

Mercury and Maia:

Ut in terris solent, qui malam servitutem serviunt.

Charon sive Contemplantes. Mercury:

?? ?a? ????a, ?s?? p??e?? d?? t??t?, ?a? ?p????a?, ?a? ??st???a, ?a? ?p?????a?, ?a? f????, ?a? des?, ?a? p???? a????, ?a? ?p???a?, ?a? d???e?a??

Nescis enim quot propterea bella existant, et insidiÆ, latrocinia, perjuria, cÆdes, vincula, navigatio longinqua, mercaturÆ, servitutes denique?

Cataplus sive Tyrannus:

Clotho — ????e ????? ??? ????s? a???. ??? ?? ???a??? s?? ??da? ? d????? ??e?, ?a? p??a? d? a?t?? ????e?e?.

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

Megapenthes.—??? ?d??t?? e p???s??, ? ????a, t?? pe??t?? ??a, ??? d?????, ??t? t?? p??a? as?????.

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

Necyomantia, Menippus:

* * * ????????t? te ?a p??te?, as??e??, d?????, sat??pa?, p???te?, p???s??? ?a? et?e?e p?s? t?? tet???????. ?????? d? a?t?? ?a? ??????sae? ?d??te?, ?p?s?? ?sa? t?? ??a???? tete?e?t???t??. ?? de ??e?a??pt??t? ?a? ?pest??f??t?? e? d? ?a? p??s??p??e?, ??a d????p??pe? t?, ?a? ???a?e?t????? ?a? ta?ta, p?? ??e?, a?e?? ??te? ?a? ?pe??pta? pa?? t?? ???;

UnÀ autem omnes puniebantur, reges, servi, satrapÆ, pauperes, divites, mendici; cunctosque poenitebat 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 quidem servilem in modum, atque adulatorie, illi ipsi, qui fuerant quÀm putas graves et superbi aliorum contemtores in hac vita.

Deorum Comitia:

Momus: * * * t???a???? ?? S??fa? ?a? ?? Geta? ta?ta ????te? a?t??, a??? ??? ?a??e?? e?p??te?, a?t?? ?pa?a?at????s?, ?a? ?e??? ?e???t????s??, ??? ?? ??e??s?s?, t?? a?t?? t??p?? ??pe? ?a? ???????, d????? ??, pa?e?e???f?, ??? ??d’ ?p?? d?a?a???.

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. * * * ? ?? ?? pa?? t?? a?t?? ???a? ded???????? Tetta??? ??? ??? ?? ??e??e??? ??????t? ?se???—which Leland translates thus: * * * “or that the Thessalians, who have been so basely, so undeservedly enslaved, would not gladly embrace their freedom.”

P. 70.——?t? ?a?eda??????? ?atad??????????, &c.

Philippic 4th, p. 142.——?te d???e?e?? ????.

P. 148.——e?? d???e?a?, &c.

Idem.——t?? de t?? d????? ?p??es?a? d?p?? ? ???es?a? de?.

Idem, p. 149.——d???? d?, p???a?, ?a? ? t?? s?at?? a???s??? &c.

Idem, p. 158. * * * ?p????p?? d???e?e??.

Idem.——??de ??? ?????? ?t? d???e?e?? e? ?e?? ??t’ ??e??sete.

Idem, p. 159.——?p????et? e?? t?? ??? pa???sa? d???e?a?.

On the Treaty with Alexander, p. 227. * * * ? pe?s?e?ta? ?e d???e?e?? ??t? t?? ????????t??.

Idem, p. 229.——t?? d’ e?? d???e?a? ????t? e, &c.

De Corona, p. 208.——p?te?’ ?? ? pat?? s??, ?????, ?d???e?e pa?’ ??p?? t? p??? t? T?se?? d?d?s???t? ???ata, &c.

Idem.——???’ ?? ? t????a???? F?????, ? ?????? t?? f?ea????? d?????, &c.

Idem, p. 289.——?st’ ??e??e??? ?? d?????, ?a?, &c.

Idem, p. 309.——t??? ?????a? ?atad??????????.

Idem, p. 315.——p??s?e???? ?sfa??? d???e?e??.

Idem, p. 316.——d?’ ?t?? d???e?s??s?? e?t????.

Idem.——? d? ?a? t? pat??d? ?p?? t?? ? ta?t?? ?p?de?? d???e???sa? ?p????s?e?? ??e??se?, ?a? f?e??t??a? ???seta? t?? ??e?? ?a? ta? a?t??a?, ?? ?? d???e???s? t? p??e? f??e?? ?????? t?? ?a??t??.

Idem, p. 343, (in the Epitaph.)——?? ? ????? a????? ???te? d????s????, &c.

Idem, p. 345.——??? d?????? ?p???sa?.

Oratio de Falsa Legatione, vol. ii. p. 37.——???? d???e?e??, ?a? te????a? t? f??, ?a? t??? T?a????, ?a? t??? F???pp?? ??????, [???] ??a??????ta? t??fe??, d????s???? ?at? ??a?, ?a? pa???????? t? ?p?a.

Idem, p. 54.——?a? ??? t??, p??t?? ?? ?f?p????, p???? ?et??a?, d????? ?at?st?se?, ?? t?te s?a??? a?t?? ?a? f???? ???a?e?.

Idem, p. 60.——?st’ ??e???? ? d???e?s?? ?e??e? ?ses?a? t??? ?p? t?? e?????? ??s?te???s??, ??? ?e??.

Idem, p. 78.——?t? ta?ta ?? a?t? s???de? pep?a???a, ?a? d????? ?? t?? ???t?? t??t??.

Idem, p. 95. ??e?e?a S??????.

Idem, p. 97.——?? ??? ?? ta?? p??es? ??????tat??, ?a? p??est??a? t?? ?????? ?????e???, t?? ??t?? p??d?d??te? ??e??e??a?, ?? d?st??e??, a??a??et?? a?t??? ?p????ta? d???e?a?, F???pp?? f???a?, ?a? ?e??a?, ?a? ?ta???a?, ?a? t? t??a??’ ?p???????e???.

Oratio adversus Leptinem, p. 174.——p?? ??? ???? ?a? ?at? t??t? de???tat’ ?? pep????? ? ?a??a? fa?e?? e? ? ???? e?a???se?e t??? ta t??a?ta p???te??????? t?? ??e???? d????? ????da? p???e??? ?ete??? pep??????a?, ???’ e? ?a? d?a t??t?? p???? t?? ??e??? t? d????t?? ?fe????t?, ?a? ta?t’ a?t?a? ?????te? ?e?d?;

Oratio contra Midiam, p. 207.——?a? t?sa?t? ?’ ????sat? ?pe????, ?ste, ??? e?? d????? ????? t??, ????? ?d??e? ?p?? t??t?? ??af??. * * * ?pe?d? d? e??e? ??? ?p?t?de???. ?te p??? d?????, ??’ ???? ??e??a? p?atte?? ?p?ta?e?.

P. 208. ????.—??? t?? ???s? e?? t??a, ? pa?da, ? ???a??a, ? ??d?a, t?? ??e??????, ? t?? d?????, ? pa?????? t? p???s? e?? t??t?? t???, ??af?s?? p??? t??? ?es???ta? ? ????e??? ????a???, ??? ??est??. * * * ????ete, ? ??d?e? ????a???, t?? ???? t?? f??a????p?a?, ?? ??d? t??? d?????? ????es?a? ?????.

P. 209.——??? ??d’ ?s?? ?? t??? ?ata???te? d?????? ?t?s??ta?.

P. 210.——?p?????? ?p?t??pa?? ??? ??sa?, ?a? stefa??f??e?? ??e??????? ?a? d??????, ?a? ?????e?? ?a? ???a?.

Idem, p. 253.——t?pte??, ???? t?? ?p? t?? p?p?? ?a? t?? e??e?? p??fas?? ?a??, ?d??e??, ?? d?????? ???e??? t??? ??e???????.

Oratio adversus Androtionem, p. 293.——?p?? t?? ? t? s?a ????? e?? t? des?t????? ???es?a?, ? ???a ?s???????, ? d?????, ??? ??e??????, ?st?? ???a, &c.

Idem.——?a? ??, e? ?????te s???as?a?, t? d?????, ? ??e??e??? e??a?, d?af??e?, t??t? ???st?? ?? ?????te, ?t? t??? ?? d?????? t? s?a t?? ?d????t?? ?p??t?? ?pe?????? ?st?.

Idem, p. 295.——p?te?’ ??? ??es?e t??t?? ??ast?? ?se??, ?a? p??ee?? a?t?, d?? t?? e?sf??a? t??t??, ? t?? ?? a?t??, ?t?, p??t?? ??????t?? ???, ?? t? d?? d????? ?f?, ?a? ?? d????? e??a?, ?a? p??s??e?? a?t? t? ??t?? ???? ??sf??e?? et? t?? et?????.

Idem, p. 298.——e? ??? ??d?ap?d?? p????, ???? ? t?? ???e?? ?t???? ??????t??, ?????e?te e??a?, ??? ??, ? ??d?e? ????a???, t?? ??e?? ???s?es?e t?? t??t??, ?? ?at? t?? ????a? ????e?, ??? et??????, ????a????, d???, ?p????, ??? ?? ta?? ?????s?a??, ?p? t?? ?at??, d?????? ?a? ?? d????? ?a???, ?a?t?? e?t????, ?a? ?? e?t?????, ???t??.

Idem, p. 299.——??? d’ ?p? ta?? e?sf??a??, ? d??a??? ?s?’ ???sa?, ? s?? p?ste?e??, ???? t??? a?t?? d??????, t?? p????, ?p?t’ ???? t? p??tt??, &c.

Oratio adversus Timocratem, vol. iii. p. 128.——?a? ??? ??e????, ? ??d?e? d??asta?, ?s?? ?? ??e??e??? ?????ta?, ?? t?? ??e??e??a? ????? ????s? t??? desp?ta??, ???? ?s??s? ???sta ?????p?? ?p??t??, ?t? s???sas?? a?t??? d?????sas??.

Idem, p. 133.——e? ??? ? t????s?s?e t??t???, ??? ?? f????? t? p????? t??t??? t??? ??????? d???e???. Idem, p. 141.——?a? ?? e? ?????te s???as?a? pa?’ ??? a?t???, ? ??d?e? d??ata?, t? d?????, ? ??e??e??? e??a? d?af??e?, t??t? e??st?? ?? ?????te, ?t? t??? ?? d?????? t? s?a t?? ?d????t?? ?p??t?? ?pe?????? ?st?, t??? d’ ??e??????? ?stat?? t??t? p??s??e? ?????e??.

Oratio III. adversus Aphobum, p. 242.——?a?t?? ???’ ?? d????? ?????p??, ?a? ? p????????t? p??? t??d’ ??e??e??? e??a?, &c.

Idem, p. 243.——???? ?a? d????? e??a? t?? ?????p?? t? ??t?.

Idem, p. 247.——d??pe? t??? ??????????? d?????? pa?a??, t?? ??e??e??? ????? asa???e??, ?? ??d’ ?s??? pa?ad???a?, &c.

Oratio I. adversus Onetorem, p. 266.——?? ???s?e ta?? t?? ??e?????? a?t???a??, ???? t??? d?????? asa?????te? ??t? ??te?te t?? ????e?a? e??e?? t?? pep?a?????. * * * d????? d? asa??s???t??, ??d??e? p?p?t’ ?????????sa?, ?? ??? ????? t? ?? t?? as???? e?p??.

Oratio in Phormionem, vol. iv. p. 13.——??? d’ ??? ???, * * * ???’ ?? ??sp???, ?a? t?? s????af?? s?? ?e????? ??????? ?a? p??? ???, ?a?, ? t? ???s??? ?ped?d???, ??t?? ???t??, ?a? p??a??? t?s??t?? ?????t?? p?e??, ??t??a ??d??’ ?p???s?, ??te d?????, ??t’ ??e??e???.

Oratorio in PantanÆnetum, p. 80.——t?? ??? p?p?te t? desp?t? ?a???, t?? d????? t? p???ata, ?spe? ??????, ?at???????se?;

Oratio in Macartatum, p.173.——?pa?????e?? d?, pe?? ?? t?? d????? t? desp?t? pe?? d? t?? ??e?????? t??? ta ???at’ ????s??.

Oratio in Stephanum, I. p. 217.——fa??seta? ??? ?? pat???, ?p?? ????? ???f??t??, ??????a d?a????, ???? d????? ?e??as???? t? t?? desp?t??, ?p?? ? d?se? d???? s??p???t??.

Idem, p. 231.——?a? e? ?? p???? ??t?? ??, ?e?? d’ e??p?????te? ?t??????e?, ?a? s???? t? pa?e??, ??a p????, ???, ?? pa?de? ?? ?? t??t?? t?? ??? ???at???? ?d??????t?, ?? t?? d????? t?? t?? desp?t??? * * * ??t?? d’ a? t???a?t??? t?? desp?t?? ? d????? ??et??e?, ?? d?ta p?????? ?a? ?s?t?? ?? t??t?? ?p?de????.

Idem, p.234.——??t?? ??? ??? t????t??, ?p???? t???? ?? ?a? s? ?atas?e??s?? t? ????, s? d????? ?s?a.

Idem, p. 235.——?a? d??a? ?a? ??t???? ?a? ??ete??, ? ?pe??d?t? e ?a? t?? ???at??a?, d?’ ??de?a? t??? ?a?t?? d??????, ?a? t??? t??t?? ???a??? ?p????t??? ?e???????. * * * d????? e? ??e????, d????? d’ ??t?? ??, desp?ta? d' ?e??, desp?t?? d’ ?? ???.

Oratio in Timotheum, p. 312.——? d? ??te a?t???a? pa??s?et?, ???' ?? d????? t?? ??s?????a pa?ad???, ?? t?? s?at?? t?? ??e???? ????? ?e??s?a?, f???e???, ?? ?? a?t???a? pa??s??ta?, ?? ??e?????? ??t??, &c.

Sophocles, Electra, line 814:

This Francklin translates thus: “Left at last, a slave to those whom most on earth I hate.”

Antigone, line 202.——t??? d? d????sa? ??e??.

Francklin thus—“And made you slaves.”

Idem, line 478.

Thus—“’Tis not for slaves to be so haughty.”

Idem, line 517.——?? ??? t? d?????, ???’ ?de?f?? ??et?.

Thus—“He was a brother, not a slave.”

Idem, line 756.——???a???? ?? d???e?a, ? ??t???? e.

Thus—“Think not to make me thus thy scorn and laughter, thou woman’s slave.”

Ajax, line 489.——??? d’ e?? d????.

Thus—“Though now a wretched slave.”

499.——??? pa?d? t? s? d????a? ??e?? t??f??.

Thus—“And thy loved son shall eat the bread of slavery.”

1020.——d????? ?????s?? ??t’ ??e?????? fa?e??.

Francklin thus——“And to slavery doomed.”

1235.——ta?t’ ??? ????e?? e???a p??? d????? ?a??;

Thus——“Shall we be thus insulted by our slaves?”

1289.——? d?????, ? ?? t?? a????? ?t??? ?e???.

Thus——“I am a slave, born of a barbarian mother.”

Oedipus Tyrannus, line 1062——

Thus——“Were I descended from a race of slaves, ’twould not dishonour thee.”

1123.——? d?????, ??? ???t??, ???’ ????? t?afe??.

Thus——“Although I am a slave, yet I was not purchased, but born and reared up in his house.”

1168.——?? d?????, ? ?e???? t?? ???e??? ?e???;

Thus—“Was he the son of a slave; if not, of whom?”

Oedipus Coloneus, line 917—

Francklin thus—“Or didst thou think I valued a desert land, or that my people were a race of slaves?”

TrachiniÆ, line 53.——d???a??, female slaves.

Line 63—

Francklin thus—“This woman, though a slave, hath spoken what would have well become the mouth of freedom’s self to utter.”

257.——??? pa?s? ?a? ???a??? d????se?? ?t?.

Thus—“And bind in slavery his wife and all his race.”

267.——f??e? d?, d????? ??d??? ?? ??e??e??? ?a???t?.

Francklin thus—“And said a slave like him should bend beneath a freeman’s power.”

283.——p???? d? d????.

302.——ta??? de d????? ?????s?? ???.

367.——??d’ ?? te d?????.

467.——?pe?se ??d????se?.

Philoctetes, line 995——

Aristophanes, RanÆ (Batrachoi), line 191——

531.——?? d????? ?? ?a? ???t??.

541.——e? ?a???a? ?? d????? ??.

584.——d????? ?a ?a? ???t?? ??;

632.——????at?? e??a? f?? ?????s?? ????, t??t?? d? d?????.

694.——???t? d????? desp?ta?.

742.——?t?, d????? ??, ?fas?e? e??a? desp?t??.

743.——

949.——???’ ??e?e? ? ???? t’ ??? ?? d????? ??d?? ?tt??.

Aves (Ornithes), line 69.——?s??? ????e d?????.

Line 763—

911.——??pe?ta d?ta d????? ?? ???? ??e??.

Equites (Hyppes), line 44—

Lysistrate, line 330.——d????s?? ?st??????.

Acharnenses, 401—

??’ ? d????? ??t?s? saf?? ?pe????at?.

VespÆ (Sphekes), 517—

Line 602—

?? d???e?a? ??sa? ?fas?e? ??p??es?a? ?p?de??e??.

Line 681—

???’ a?t?? ?? t?? d???e?a? ??? ?p?fa???? ?p???a?e??. ?? ??? e???? d???e?a st??, t??t??? ?? ?pa?ta? ?? ???a??.

ThesmophoriazusÆ, line 537—

564.———??d’ ?? s?, t?? d????? te???s?? ????e?’.

EcclesiazusÆ, line 651.——?? d?????.

Line 721—

Homer, Iliad iii. 407—

Which Pope has paraphrased thus—

Iliad vi. 460—

We should be happy to see the exquisite tenderness of the original transferred into English. We offer:—“This is the wife of Hector, the bravest of the horse-taming Trojans, when our people fought about Ilion. Thus perchance some one will say: and this will be to thee a fresh sorrow, to feel the want of thy husband to ward off the day of slavery.”

Odyssey xiv. 339—

Pope thus—

Odyssey xxii. 421—

Pope thus—

Euripides, Iphigenia in Tauris, line 130—

Line 451.——d???e?a? ???e? de??a?a? pa?s?p????.

Potter thus—“And bid the toils of slavery cease.”

Troades (Trojan Dames), line 140—

“I, an old woman, am led from my home a slave.”

Idem, 159. d???e?a? a?????s??.

“Bemoan their slavery.”

186.——t? p??s?e?a? d???a t????.

“Assigned a slave,” &c.

197.——d???e?s? ??a??.

“An old woman enslaved.”

214.——???’ ??t?s? ?e???a d???a.

“Exposed me a slave to Menelaus.”

Idem, 235—

“We are slaves of the Dorian land, even now.”

284.——f?t? d???e?e??.

“I am enslaved,” &c.

599.——???? d’ ???se d????a ????a.

“Troy yields to the yoke of slavery.”

615.——e?? d????? ??e?.

“Is sunk in slavery.”

661.——d???e?s? d’, &c.

Idem, 678—

“I go by sea to Greece, a prisoner of war, to a yoke of slavery.”

957.——?e???? d? d????? ?st?.

“But is her slave.”

971.——p????? ?d???e??’.

“Harshly enslaved.”

BacchÆ, 366.——??? t? ???? d???e?t???.

803.——t? d???ta; d???e???ta d???e?a?? ?a??;

Potter thus—“What should I do? be to my slaves a slave?”

1028.——?? se ste????, d????? ?? ??, ???’ ??? ???st??s? d?????? s?f??? t? desp?t??.

Potter thus—

Cyclops, 76—

Helena, 283—

Potter thus—

Potter thus—

Line 728—

Potter thus—

We deem this translation defective, because it makes no distinction between the ideas conveyed by the words ??t??? and d?????. True, at this late day, the passage is somewhat obscure. But the speaker was not a slave: he says he was born a ??t???—a character far less elevated than the d?????, yet a freeman, but possessing a greater servility of mind than even the doulos, and his condition often far more abject. The slave possessed the protection of his master; but the latris, with all the destitution and degradation incident to the lowest conditions of the freeman, often coveted the happier condition of the doulos. The idea conveyed by this messenger is literally this: “Although born a latris, I had rather be considered among the home-born slaves, not having the name of freedom, than to have merely the name; for I consider this a good choice between the two evils—the being supposed to have the base mind of the latris, and the being truly called a slave by those near us.” The substance is, he had rather be a doulos than a latris.

That he was not a slave is evident from what follows in the 797th line, where Menelaus calls him emphatically his prospolon, merely an attendant.

1630.——???? desp?t?? ??at?se??, d????? ??;

Potter—“Slave as thou art, wilt thou control thy lord?”

Idem, 1640.

“To home-born slaves, it is glory to die for their masters.”

Ion, line 132.——?e??s? d???a? ???’ ??e??.

“To be a slave to the gods.”

182.——F??? d???e?s?, &c.

327.——t??? t?? ?e?? ??s??e?’, ? d???e??e?.

556.——??pefe??ae? t? d?????.

761.——d???e?a p?st??, &c.

837.——e? d????? t????, &c.

854.——?? ??? t? t??? d?????s??, &c.

855.——t????a? t? d’ ???a p??ta t?? ??e?????? ??de?? ?a???? d?????, ?st?? ?s???? ?.

Potter—

983.——?p?s??? ? f????, ?a? t? d????? ?s?e???.

Potter—“An open murder, and with coward slaves.”

1109.——t? d' ?st??, ? ???d???e;

“What is the matter, my fellow-slave?”

Hercules, 190.——???? ?p??t?? d????? ?st? t?? ?p???.

Potter—

Electra, 110.——d????? ???a????, female slave.

633.——d????? ??? ?d??? t??t?, s?? d? s?f????.

Potter—“Such the slave’s nature, but this favours thee.”

Line 898—

“He is thy slave now.”

Medea, line 54—

“Slaves who are faithful, suffer in the afflictions of their masters.”

Line 65.——?, p??? ?e?e???, ???pte s??d????? s??e?.

“Now by this beard, deceive not by secrecy thy fellow-slave.”

Hecuba, line 234—

Potter thus—

247.——t? d?t’ ??e?a?, d????? ?? ??? t?te;

Potter—“What didst thou say, when thou wast then my slave?”

Idem, 291—

Potter thus—

331.——a?a?? t? d????? ?? ?a??? pef????a?.

“Ah well, how great the evil to have become a slave!”

356.——??? d’ e?? d????.

“But I am now a slave.”

Idem, 365—

“And then, a female stewardess, a slave purchased somewhere, shall defile my bed.”

Idem, 444—

Potter—

495.——a?t? d? d????, ??a??, ?pa??, ?p? ????? ?e?ta?, ???e? f????sa d?st???? ???a.

Potter—

“Herself a slave, old, childless, on the ground She lies, and soils her hoar head in the dust.”

741.——

Potter—

757.——

Potter—

798.——?e?? ?? ??? d????? te ??s?e?e?? ?s??.

Potter—“But we are slaves, but we perchance are weak

809.——t??a???? ?? p?t’, ???? ??? d???? s??e?.

Potter—“Erewhile I was a queen, but now a slave.”

Idem, 864—

Potter—

1252.——

Potter—

PhoenissÆ, line 94.——?? d????, as a slave.

189.——d???e?a? pe??a???.

“To lead in slavery.”

192.——d????s??a? t?a???.

“To suffer slavery.”

205.——F??? d???a. “Slave to Phoebus.”

1606.——???? d???e?sa? t? e—??????, &c.

“Slave to Polybus,” &c.

Orestes, line 221.——?d?? t? d???e?’ ?d?, ???? ??a???a?.

Idem, 715—

937.——? ???a??? d???e?e?? ??e??.

Potter—“Vile slaves to your wives.”

1115.——??d?? t? d????? p??? t? ? d????? ?????.

Such was the reply of Pylades to his friend Orestes, in reference to the Phrygian slave; and we shall close our quotations from this remarkable tragic poet, with an interview between Orestes and one of these Phrygian slaves.

Line 1522—

Orestes. ?????? ?? f?e? t?? ??d??, ?? s’ ?pa????e? ?a???; ? Slave. ??? ????, ??? d????? ? t??, ?deta? t? f?? ????.

Potter—

Orestes. “Fears a slave death, the end of all his ills?

Slave. “To slave or free, sweet is the light of heaven.”

Alcestes, line 638—

Potter—“But, the base offspring of some slave, thy wife stole me, and put me to her breast.”

We find the following in a short notice of the life of Isocrates, by Dionysius of Halicarnassus.

Page 23.——d?d?s?e? d’ ?? ?? ?ess?????? t??? ???et’ ??s??, ???? d?????? ?a? e???s?? ???t????? ?a? ?ataf???? pa?????s? t?? p????.

Also, page 26.——d???e?e? ??? ? d?????a p???a??? t? ???? te ???e??, ?a? t?? ????? ?e?peta? t? ????????.

Idem, 35.——?e?? de ?atad???e?e???, ?a? t??a?t?a t??? t?te p??tt??te?.

Idem, 36.——?a? t?te ?? e? t????e?? p?????e?, t??? ?? ?????? ?a? t??? d?????? ?a?ta? e?se?a???, t??? de p???ta? e?’ ?p??? ???pep??.

Isocrates, (CantabrigigiÆ, 1686,) Orat. ad Demonicum, page 52— ?? d? t??? te?p????, ?? a?s???? ?p?????, t?? ?? ???et?? ???e??, ta?? d?’ ?d??a?? d???e?e??.

Ad Nicoclem, p. 74.——?a? t??t? ???? as?????tat?? ??? ?de?? d???e??? t?? ?d????, ???? ??at?? t?? ?p?????? ????? ? t?? p???t??.

Panegyricus, p. 121.——t?? d? a????? ?? ???????? ?atad????sas?a? t??? ?????a?, ?f’ ??? p??t??? ???te?.

Idem, 133.——?????t? d? t?? e???t?? ?????? d???e?e??, ?ste e?? t?? ?a?t?? pat??da? ????e??.

Idem, 137.——??? d? e?? t?sa?t?? d???e?a? ?a?est?t??.

Idem.——???st?? de t?? ?a???, ?ta? ?p?? a?t?? te d???e?a? ??a??????ta? s?st?ate?es?a?.

Idem.——?at????sa?te? d? ????? e?? t?? ?p????p?? ?????? d???e?s??s??.

Idem, 144.——p??? ?? t?? p??e?? ???e??e???, p??? d? t?? d???e?a? ?e???? t?? pa?’ ??? ???et?? pepa?de?????.

Idem.——?pa?ta d? t?? ?????? d?????s??, ?? ?? t??? ??????te?, t??? d? d???e???te?.

Idem, 150.——S??e??a d? ?ataded????ta?.

Idem, 151.——?? ?p?? t??t?? d???e?e?? ??a??as??a?.

Idem, 153.——d??s?a de t?s??t??? t?? s????? pe?????? a?t??? d???e???ta?.

Orat. ad Philippum, p. 161.——??te?? d? ??e????? t??? t?p??? t??? p???? ?? ?e?????? t?? ???e?? d??a????, ????? d? t?? d???e?e?? e???s????.

Archidamus, p. 235.——??? ?a? t?? t?? d????? pa???s?a? ?p?????ta? fa??es?a?.

De Pace, sive Socialis, page 281.——?a? t?te ?? e? t????e?? p?????e?, t??? ?? ?????? ?a? t??? d?????? ?a?ta? e?se?a???.

Idem, p. 280.——?e?? d? ?atad?????e???.

Idem, p. 306.——? d???e?a? ???? s?t???a? a?t??? a?t?a? ?e??s?a?.

Evagoras, p. 310.——?? ?? d???e?te??.

Idem, p. 320.——t??? ?? f????? ta?? e?e??es?a?? ?p’ a?t? p????e??? t??? d? ?????? t? e?a??????a ?atad?????e???.

Idem, p. 326.——?? d? ?????e? ??t? d???e?a? a?t????a? ?s??? ????a??? d? t?sa?t?? ?p?d?sa?.

Panathenaicus, p. 396.——??? ?? ??e??e??se?? ??????sa? ?ated????sa?t? ????? ? t??? e???ta?.

Idem, p. 400.——?a? t? ? d??a??? t?? ????? ???e?? ????? ? fe????ta? t?? a?t?a? ta?t??, ?d???? ?a?eda??????? d???e?e??.

Idem, p. 412.——t??? d? ?????? ?????a? ?atad????sas?a? p??? ?? t????t?? ??at?sasa? ?ad??? ?? a?t??.

Idem, p. 418.——?atad????sa?????.

Plataicus, p. 459.——?? ?? ??d?? ?tt?? t?? ????????t?? d???e???s??.

Idem.——te d? t?? ????? d???e?a? a?t??? ??????? ?a??st?s?.

Idem, p. 463.——d???e?e??.

Idem, p. 465.——d???e???s??.

Idem, p. 466.——???? p?????? ?? ????? ??e?a s????a??? d???e???ta?, ?????? d? ?p? ??te?a? ???ta?.

Orat. de Permutatione, p. 493.——t?? de t? ???e? t?? s?t???a? a?t?a? ??sa?, d???e?e?? a?t??? ??????.

Idem, p. 494.——t?? d? a????? ?? ????e??? ?atad?????s?a? t??? ?????a?.

Idem, p. 502.——t??? d’ ?????? t?? d???e?a? a?????????.

Idem.——??t? ?a? t?? p??e?? ta?? ?pe?e???sa?? ??s?te?e?? ?e?? ?? ?????p?? ?fa??s???a? ????? ? d???a? ?f???a? ?e????a?.

Idem.——?ste ? t??? ????s?? a?t??? ?e??s?a? t? d???e?a?.

Idem, p. 510.——?e?? d? ?atad?????e???.

Idem, p. 511.——t??? ?? ?????? ?a? t??? d??????.

De Bigis, p. 530.——t??? p???ta? ?de?? d???e???ta?.

EpistolÆ: to Philip, p. 611.——? ????? te t? ?atad????sas?a? t??? ?????a? ???????t?.

To Jason, a freedman, p. 629.——?a? t?? t??? ?d???? ????? t?? pa?? t?? ??a f??????t??, ? t?? pa?? t?? d???e???t??.

---

LESSON V.

But if it shall be objected, that by these writers the word d?????, doulos, and its derivatives are used in a figurative sense, since these writers all exhibit minds deeply excited, or used all language with poetic license; we think such objection unfounded, so far as it alleges that they have used this word in an unusual manner, or have attributed to it any other sense than was attributed to it by all the Greeks.

Nevertheless, we propose now to present this word as it was used by Thucydides, Herodotus, and Xenophon, against whose use no cavil can be made; and we now fear not to assert that their use of this word will be in the most strict accordance with the authors already examined.

Plutarch, who was somewhat disposed to criticize other authors, speaking of Thucydides, expresses the idea that he wrote in such a manner that the reader saw the picture of what he represented. (See his De Gloria Atheniensium.) Plutarch was then clearly of opinion that the language of Thucydides was most appropriately accurate.

We here premise, that we shall not presume to offer our own translation to the extract we propose to make from Thucydides. From the many that have been made, we have selected that of the Rev. Dr. William Smith, of the cathedral of Chester, England, and concerning whom it may be proper to say a word. He translated Longinus with great accuracy and beauty. The Weekly Miscellany of Dec. 8th, 1739, says of this translation, “It justly deserves the notice and thanks of the public.” Father Phillips says, 1756, “A late English translation of the Greek critic, by Mr. Smith, is a credit to the author, and reflects lustre on Longinus himself.” Laudits of this work will fill a volume. In 1753 he translated Thucydides, and was directly created a doctor of divinity,—and we find in his epitaph now in the cathedral of Chester, “as a scholar his reputation is perpetuated by his valuable publications, particularly his correct and eloquent translations of Longinus, Thucydides, and Xenophon.” We have been thus minute that it may be known with what spirit we prepare this work.

The Peloponnesian War, by Thucydides.

Book i. chap. 8. ?? te ?ss??? ?p?e??? t?? t?? ??e?ss???? d???e?a?.

“And the great, who had all needful supplies at hand, reduced less powerful cities into their own subjection.”

At that age of the world, when one city was conquered by another, all were reduced to slavery, unless by the especial favour of the conqueror. In this instance it would have been more literal to our present idiom to have used the term slavery, instead of subjection; because now there has grown up a wide distinction between the mere subjugating and enslaving.

Chap. 16. ????? ?a? ? ?e?s??? as??e?a, ????s?? ?a?e???sa, ?a? ?sa ??t?? ????? p?ta?? p??? ???assa?, ?pest??te?se, ?a? t?? ?? t? ?pe??? p??e?? ?d????se.

“For Cyrus, after he had completed the conquest of Croesus, and all the country which lieth between the river Halys and the sea, invaded them, and enslaved their towns upon the continent.”

Chap. 18. ?e??t? d? ?te? et’ a?t?? a???? ? ??a??? t? e???? st??? ?p? t?? ????da d????s?e??? ???e.

“And in the tenth year after that, the barbarian, with a vast armament, invaded Greece in order to enslave it.”

Chap. 34. ?? ??? ?p? t? d?????, ???’ ?p? t? ????? t??? ?e?p?????? e??a?, ??p?p??ta?.

“They are not sent out to be the slaves, but to be the equals of those who remain behind.”

Chap. 55. ?a? t?? ?e????a??? ??ta??s???? ??, ?? ?sa? d?????, ?p?d??t?.

“Eight hundred of their Corcyrean prisoners, who were slaves, they sold at public sale.”

Chap. 68. ??? d? t? de? a??????e??, ?? t??? ?? ded????????? ?p?te.

“But now, what need can there be of multiplying words, when some you already see enslaved.”

Chap. 69. ?? t?de te ?e? ?p?ste????te? ?? ???? t??? ?p’ ??e???? ded????????? ??e??e??a?, ???? ?a? t??? ?et????? ?d? ???????. ?? ??? ? d????s?e??? ???’ ? d???e??? ?? pa?sa?, pe?????? d?, ?????ste??? a?t? d??.

“Ever since you have connived at liberty overthrown, not only in whatever communities they have proceeded to enslave, but now where even your own confederates are concerned. For not to the men who rivet on the chains of slavery, but to such as, though able, yet neglect to prevent it, ought the sad event with truth to be imputed.”

Chap. 74. ??? ????? ?d? ???? ??? d???e???t??, &c.

“And every state already enslaved,” &c.

Chap. 81. ??t?? e????, ????a???? f????at?, ?te t? ?? d???e?sa?, ?te ?spe? ?pe????? ?atap?a???a? t? p????.

“It is by no means consistent with the spirit of Athenians to be slaves to their soil, or, like unpractised soldiers, to shudder at war.”

Chap. 98. ???t? te a?t? p???? ??a??? pa?? t? ?a?est???? ?d??????.

“This was the first confederate state which was enslaved to gratify their aspiring ambition.”

Chap. 101. ??e?st?? d? t?? ????t?? ??????t? ?? t?? pa?a??? ?ess????? t?te d???????t?? ?p??????? ? ?a? ?ess????? ??????sa? ?? p??te?.

“Most Of the Helots were descendants of the ancient Messenians, then reduced to slavery, and on this account all of them in general were called Messenians.”

Chap. 103. ?? d? t?? ???s??ta?, t?? ?a??t?? e??a? d?????.

“What if any one of them be ever found there, he should be made the slave of whoever apprehended him.”

Chap. 121. ?? ?? ?? e?e???? ??a??? ?p? d???e?a t? a?t?? f????te? ??? ?pe???s??.

“Which rivet slavery on themselves,” &c.

Chap. 122. ?a? t?? ?ssa?, e? ?a? de???? t? ????sa?, ?st? ??? ???? t? f????sa? ? ??t????? d???e?a?.

“Such a triumph, how grating soever the bare mention of it may be to any of your ears, yet be it known, can and is nothing else but plain and open slavery.”

Chap. 124. ?a? t??? ??? ded????????? ?????a?, ??e??e??s?e?.

“And shall immediately recover liberty for those Grecians who are already enslaved.”

Chap. 138. ?a? t?? ????????? ??p?da, ?? ?pet??e? a?t? d????se??.

“As the hope be suggested to him of enslaving Greece.”

Chap. 141. ??? ??? a?t?? d??ata? d????s??.

“The very same tendency to make them slaves.”

Book ii. chap. 61. ?????? ??? f????a t? a?f??d??? ?a? ?p??sd???t??, ?a? t? p?e?st? pa?a???? ??a????.

“Accidents sudden and unforeseen, and so opposite to that event you might reasonably have expected, enslave the mind.”

Chap. 63. ??d? ???sa? pe?? ???? ????, d???e?a? ??t’ ??e??e??a?.

“Think not you have only one point at stake, the alternative of slavery instead of freedom.”

Idem. ??d? ?? ?????s? p??e? ??f??e?, ???’ ?? ?p???? ?sfa??? d???e?e??.

“Slavery is never to be endured by a state that once hath governed. Such a situation can be tolerable only to that which has ever been dependent.”

Chap. 71. St?ate?sa? te ?d??a p?t? ?d???? ep’ a?t???, ?d’ ?p? d???e??.

“That no one should unjustly make war on them, or endeavour to enslave them.”

Idem. ?p? d???e?? t? ?et??a ??ete.

“Are come hither to enslave us,” &c.

Chap. 78. ?a? ????? ??de?? ?? t? te??e?, ??te d?????, ??te ??e??e???.

“Nor was there any other portion within the wall, either slave or free.”

Book iii. chap. 10. ??a??? ??t?? ??e??e?a ??? ?p? ?atad????se? t?? ??????? ????a????.

“We made an alliance with the Athenians—not to enslave the rest of Greece to the Athenians.”

Idem. ?pe?d? d? ????e? a?t??? t?? ?? t?? ??d?? ????a? ?????ta?, t?? d? t?? ?????? d????s?? ?pa???????, ??? ?dee?? ?t? ?e?. ?d??at?? d? ??te? ?a?’ ?? ?e??e???, d?? p?????f?a? ???as?a?, ?? ??a??? ?d??????sa?, p??? ??? ?a? ????.

“But when we perceived that they relaxed in their zeal against the Mede, and were grown earnest in riveting slavery upon allies, we then began to be alarmed. It was impossible, where so many parties were to be consulted, to unite together in one body of defence; and thus all the allies fell into slavery except ourselves and the Chians.”

Chap. 38. ?????? ??te? t?? ?e? ?t?p??, ?pe??pta? d? t?? e????t??.

“Slaves as you are to whatever trifles happen always to be in vogue, and looking down with contempt on tried and experienced methods.”

Chap. 56. ?? ??e??? d? t? ?a???, ?te p?s? d???e?a? ?p?fe?e? ? ??a???, ??de et’ a?t?? ?sa?.

“But at that season, when the barbarians struck at enslaving us all, these Thebans were then the barbarians’ coadjutors.”

Chap. 58. ???? d?, ?a? ???, ?? ? ??e??e????sa? ?? ?????e?, d????sete;

“Will you further enslave the spot on which the Grecians earned their liberty?”

Chap. 63. ???? ??, ?atad?????????? t?? ????da, t??? d?, ??e??e????ta?.

“The Athenians truly have enslaved your country; and the others would regain its freedom.”

Chap. 64. ?pe?e?pete ??? a?t??, ?a? pa?a??te?, ????ated?????s?e ????? ??????ta?, ?a? ?????? t???? t?? ?????s??t??, ? d?e????ete.

“You renounced, you violated first the oaths, which rather concurred to enslave the ÆginetÆ and some other people of the same association, than endeavoured to prevent it.”

Chap. 70. ?p????s?? a?t?? ??t?? ?? ??d?e? e?? d????, ?????te? ????a???? t?? ??????a? ?atad??????.

“And therefore against him the accomplices prefer an accusation, as plotting how to subject Corcyra to Athenian slavery.”

Chap. 71. ???sa?te? d? t??t?, ?a? ????a??sa?te? ?e????a????, e?p?? ?t? ta?ta ?a? ??t?sta e??, ?a? ???st’ ?? d?????e?e? ?p’ ????a???.

“After this bold assassination, they summoned the Corcyreans to assemble immediately, where they justified their proceedings as most highly for the public good, and the only expedient of preventing Athenian slavery.”

Chap. 73. ?? d’ ?ste?a?? ???????sa?t? te ????a, ?a? ?? t??? ?????? pe???pep?? ?f?te???, t??? d?????? pa?a?a????te? te, ?a? ??e??e??a? ?p?s????e???. ?a? t? ?? d?? t?? ???et?? t? p????? pa?e???et? ??a???, t??? d’ ?t????? ?? t?? ?pe???? ?p??????? ??ta??s???.

“The day following they skirmished a little with their missive weapons, and both parties sent out detachments into the field to invite concurrence of the slaves, upon a promise of their freedom. A majority of the slaves came in to the assistance of the people, and the other party got eight hundred auxiliaries from the continent.”

It will be noticed that ???et?? in this passage is also translated slave; but the ???et?? was a slave whose condition was above the mere d?????. In English the word will imply a house-slave. The ???et?? enjoyed a greater portion of his master’s confidence, and consequently was under a less rigorous government. The truth of what Thucydides states is evident to those acquainted with the character: the higher class of slaves ever take sides with their masters in such cases. It is this word St. Paul uses, by which he describes the character of Onesimus in his letter to Philemon. He had acted as Paul’s house-slave at Rome.

Book iv. chap. 86. ???? t???a?t???, ??? ded????????? ?p? ????a???? ??a??s??te?.

“But, on the contrary, are to act in support of you, who are oppressed with Athenian bondage.”

Idem. ??d? ?saf?, t?? ??e??e??a? ????? ?p?f??e??, e?, t? p?t???? pa?e??, t? p???? t??? ???????, ? t? ??ass?? t??? p?s? d????sa??.

“I am convinced that liberty can never be re-established by me, if, disregarding ancient constitutions, I enslave the multitude to the few, or the few to the crowd.”

Chap. 87. ?? d? ?????e? ??a ? ??????ta? ?f’ ??? d???e?a? ?pa??a???a?.

“For the sake of the Grecians, that they may not be obstructed by you in their deliverance from bondage.”

Chap. 92. ?a? p??? t??t??? ?e d?, ?? ?a? ? t??? ?????, ???? ?a? t??? ?p??e? pe????ta? d?????s?a?, p?? ?? ??? ?a? ?t? t? ?s?at?? ?????? ???e??;

“Let me add further, that when men are bent on enslaving, not neighbours only, but such people as are more remote, how can it be judged improper to encounter such, so long as we can find ground whereon to stand?”

Idem. ??? d? ?e??a???, t?? te a?t?? a?e? ??e??e???? ???, ?a? t?? ????? ? d?????s?a? ?d????, ??a????st?? ?p’ a?t?? ??? ?p?as?.

“But from men who were born to vindicate their own country for ever by the dint of arms, and never unjustly to enslave another, that from such men they shall not get away without that struggle which honour enjoins.”

Chap. 114. ??d? ??? ?p? d???e??.

“They had no enslaving views.”

Chap. 118. ??te ??e??e???, ?te d?????.

“Whether they be free men or slaves.”

Book v. chap. 9. ?a? t?de ??? t? ???a, ? ??a???? ?e??????? ??e??e??a? te ?pa??e??, ?a? ?a?eda?????? ??????? ?e???s?a?, ? ????a??? te d??????, ? t? ???sta ??e? ??d?ap?d?s?? ? ?a?at?se?? p????te, ?a? d???e?a? ?a?ep?t??a?, ? p??? e??ete.

“That this very day, if you behave with valour, you are henceforth free, and will gain the honourable title of LacedÆmonian allies; otherwise you must continue to be the slaves of Athenians, where the best that can befall you, if neither sold for slaves nor put to death as rebels, will be a heavier yoke of tyranny than you ever yet have felt, while the liberty of Greece must by you for ever be obstructed.”

Chap. 23. ?? d? ? d???e?a ?pa??st?ta?, ?p?????e?? ????a???? ?a?eda??????? pa?t? s???e?, ?at? t? d??at??.

“That if there happen any insurrection among the Helots, the Athenians march to the succour of the LacedÆmonians with their whole strength, to the full extent of their power.”

In this instance the translator has substituted “Helots” for slaves, because the Helots were the slaves at Sparta, and the usual term by which slaves were designated in LacedÆmonia, Helot and d?????, were synonymous terms there.

Chap. 27. ?? ???, ?pe?d? ?a?eda?????? ??? ?p’ ??a??, ???’ ?p? ?atad????se? t?? ?e??p????s??.

“That since the LacedÆmonians, not in order to serve, but to enslave Peloponnesus,” &c.

Chap. 29. ?? et? ????a??? sf?? ?????ta? ?a?eda?????? d????sas?a?.

“That the LacedÆmonians might strike up a bargain with the Athenians to enslave other states.”

Chap. 69. ?a? ?p?? ????? ?a ?a? d???e?a?.

“Either such on slavery.”

Chap. 86. ?e???????????? ?? t? d??a??, ?a? d?’ a?t? ? ??d??s?, p??e?? ??? f????sa?, pe?s?e?s? d?, d???e?a?.

“Since if, superior in debate, we for that reason refuse submission, our portion must be war and if we allow your plea, from that moment we become your slaves.”

Chap. 92. ?a? p?? ???s??? ?? ??a?? ??? d???e?sa?, ?spe? ?a? ??? ???a?;

“And how can it turn as beneficial for us to become your slaves as it will be for you to be our masters?”

Chap. 100. ?p?? ??a, e? t?sa?t?? ?e ?e?? te, ? pa?s???a? ?????, ?a? ?? d???e???te? ?d?, ?pa??a???a?, t?? pa?a???d??e?s?? p?????ta?, ??? ?e, t??? ?t? ??e???????, p???? ?a??t?? ?a? de???a, ? p?? p?? t?? d???e?sa? ?pe?e??e??.

“If this be, and if you, ye Athenians, can readily embark in so many perils to prevent the desolation of your empire; if states, by you enslaved, can do as much to throw off your yoke, must it not be wretchedly base and cowardly in us, who yet are free, to leave any method, even to the last extremity, untried of averting slavery.”

Book vi. chap. 20. ?p? d? t? pa???t? ? ?????s?? s?a??. ?p? ??? p??e??, ?? ??? ???? a?s????a?, ????e? ???a? e???a?, ?a? ???’ ?p?????? ???????, ??te de???a? eta????, ? ?? ?? ?a??? t?? d???e?a? ?se??? ?? ??? et?stas?? ??????.

“According to the last information I have been able to procure, we are now going to invade a number of powerful cities; cities independent of one another, nor standing in need of public revolutions; which people, who cringe under the yoke of slavery, might easily embrace, in order to render their condition more supportable.”

Chap. 27. ????e?? ?de?? t?? ????e??? ?a? ?st?? ?a? ????? ?a? d?????.

“He should boldly inform the public of it, whether he were a citizen, or a foreigner, or a slave.”

Chap. 76. ?????sa????? ??e??.

“They hold fast riveted the yoke of slavery.”

Idem. ?atad????se??. “By enslaving,” &c.

Chap. 77. ?? ?d??????sa?. “Who will be slaves,” &c.

Chap. 80. ????e?a? “Slave,” &c.

Chap. 82. ??? ????e?e?? fas?? ??ta? ??? S??a???s??? ded????s?a?.

“Whom the Syracusans say we thought proper to enslave, though connected with us by ties of blood.”

Idem. ????e?a? d? a?t?? te ??????t? ??? t? a?t? ?pe?e??e??.

“They made slavery their choice, and in the same miserable fate would have been glad to envelop us.”

Chap. 83. ?a? ?? d????s?e???, ? pa?e?? d? ????? t??t? ????s??te?.

“So far from the view of enslaving them to ourselves, that we are solely intent on preserving them from being enslaved by others.”

Chap. 84. ?? ?????? ??? f?s? d????sa?????.

“Whom, after unjustly enslaving,” &c.

Chap. 88. ???? ?a??s?? e? t?? S??e??a? ???t? a?t??? d????ses?a?.

“Save only the ambition they showed of enslaving Sicily.”

Book vii. chap. 75. ????st?? ??? d? t? d??f???? t??t? t? ???????? st?ate?at? ????et?, ??? ??t? ?? t?? ?????? d????s?????? ??e??.

“For a most cruel turn of fortune this really proved to a Grecian army; who, coming hither to enslave others, were departing now with the sad alternative of fearing to be made slaves themselves.”

Book viii. chap. 15. ??? te t?? ???? ?pt? ?a??, a? a?t??? ???ep????????? t?? ?? t? ?e??a??, ?pa?a???te?, t??? ?? d?????? ?? a?t?? ??e?????sa?, t??? d’ ??e??????? ?at?d?sa?.

“Having, moreover, fetched off the seven vessels belonging to the Chians, which assisted in forming the blockade at PirÆus, they set at liberty the slaves who were on board them, and threw all the freemen into prison.”

Chap. 43. ???? ??? ?a? ??s??? ?p?sa? p???? d???e?e??.

“For thus he might be enabled once more to enslave all the islands.”

Chap. 48. ????e?e?? ?????, &c.

---

Xenophon, Memorabilia, &c.

Book i. chap. 3, § 11. ? t????, ?f? ? S????t??, ?a? t? ?? ??e? pa?e??, ?a??? f???sa?; a?’ ??? ?? a?t??a ??a d????? ?? e??a? ??t’ ??e??????;

“Miserum te, ait Socrates, quid eventurum tibi existimas, si formosum osculeris? annon subitÒ pro libero servus esses?” Leunclavius.

Chap. 5. § 2. ????? d’ ???ate? ?p?t???a?e? ?? ? ?s??ata ? ta?e?a ? ????? ep?stas?a?;

“Et servo intemperanti num vel pecora, vel penum, vel ut operi prÆesset, committeremus?” Leunc.

§ 3. ???? ?? e? ?? ?d? d????? ???at? de?a?e?’ ??, p?? ??? ????? a?t?? ?e f????as?a? t????t?? ?e??s?a?;

“Enimvero si ne servum quidem intemperantem accepturi simus, quÎ non operÆ pretium sit cavere ne quis ipse talis fiat?” Leunc.

§ 5. ? t?? ??? ??, ta?? ?d??a?? d???e???, a?s???? d?ate?e?? ?a? t? s?a ?a? t?? ?????;

“Quis voluptatibus serviens non turpiter tum corpore tum animo affectus sit?” Leunc.

Ibid. ??? ?? d??e?, ?? t?? ??a?, ??e????? ?? ??d?? e??t??? e??a?, ? t??e?? d????? t???t??, d???e???ta d? ta?? t?a?ta?? ?d??a??, ??ete?e?? t??? ?e???, desp?t?? ??a??? t??e??.

“Equidem ita profectÒ statuo, homini libero optandum esse, ut hujusmodi servum non consequatur, atque illi qui voluptatibus ejusmodi servit deos esse obsecrandos ut dominos bonos nanciscatur.” Leunc.

Book ii. chap. 1. § 11. ???’ ??? t??, ?f? ? ???st?pp??, ??d? e?? t?? d???e?a? a? ?a?t?? t?tt?? ???’ e??a? t?? ?? d??e? ??? t??t?? ?d??, ?? pe???a? ad??e??, ??te d?’ ?????, ??te d?? d???e?a?, ???? d?’ ??e??e??a?, ?pe? ???sta p??? e?da????a? ??e?. (12) ???’, e? ??t??, ?f? ? S????t??, ?pe? ??te d?’ ????? ??te d?? d???e?a? ? ?d?? a?t? f??e?, ??t? ?d? d?’ ?????p??, ?s?? ?? t? ??????.

“I surely, says Aristippus, do not place myself in slavery; but my doctrine is, that the condition equally free from the objections of those who govern and of those who are in slavery, is true liberty. But, says Socrates, the condition of which you speak, beyond the influences affecting those who bear rule or those in slavery, can never exist among men; for,” &c. § 12. ?? d?????? ???s?a?—“for safety they desire slavery.”

§ 13. ??? ?? pe?s?s?? ???s?a? d???e?e?? ??t? t?? p??ee?? t??? ??e?tt?s?;

“Donec persuaserint eis servire potiÙs quÀm bellum cum potioribus gerere?”

§ 15. ? d??t? ?a? d????? ?? ??e? t????t?? e??a?, ???? ?de?? desp?t? ??s?te?e??;

“An quÒd talem te servum esse putas, qui nulli domino prosit?”

Chap. 6. § 9. ?a?ep?? d? ?a? d?sa?ta ?at??e??, ?spe? d?????.

“Neque minÙs difficile vinctum retinere tanquam servum.” Leunc.

Chap. 7. § 3 and 4. ?t? ?? ??’, ?f?, ? ?? d?????? t??fe?, ??? d? ??e???????. (4) ?a? p?te???, ?f?, t??? pa?? s?? ??e??????? ??e? e?t???? e??a? ? t??? pa?? ?e????? d??????;

“By Jupiter, (says Aristarchus,) the reason is obvious. He (Ceramon) rears up slaves, while I only employ freemen. Well, then, truly, says (Socrates), which do you esteem the most valuable, your freemen or Ceramon’s slaves?”

Chap. 8. § 4. ?a?ep?? ??, ?f?, ???, ? S???ate?, d???e?a? ?p?e??a??. ?a? ?? ?? ?e ?? ta?? p??es? p??state???te?, ?a? t?? d??s??? ?p?e??e??? ?? d????p?ep?ste??? ??e?a t??t??, ???’ ??e??e???te??? ??????ta?.

“But it is difficult, O Socrates, for me to submit to slavery. But (says Socrates) high political officers, and all those who have charge of public affairs, are not esteemed to be in a slavish employment, but in that which is the most appropriate to the most elevated of freemen.”

Book iii. chap. 12. § 2. ?????? d? d?’ a?t? t??t? ???te? ???s???ta?, ?a? ????te? ?t?? d???e???s? t?? ???p?? ???, ??? ??t? t???s?, t?? ?a?ep?t?t?? d???e?a?.

“Many endure the most burdensome slavery, produced by their having been taken captives in war, and as captives, slaves themselves through the remainder of life.”

Book iv. chap. 2. § 33. ?? d?; t?? ?a?da???, ?f?, ??? ?????a?, ?t? ??f?e?? ?p? ???? d?? t?? s?f?a?, ??a????et? ??e??? d???e?e??, ?a? t?? te pat??d?? ?a ?a? t?? ??e??e??a? ?ste????, ?a? ?p??e???? ?p?d?d??s?e?? et? t?? ???? t?? te pa?da ?p??ese ?a? a?t?? ??? ?d????? s????a?, ???’ ?pe?e??e?? e?? t??? a?????? p???? ??e? ?d???e?e;

“Is it truly so? You have not heard (says Socrates) that DÆdalus, captured, deprived of his liberty, and torn from his country and forced into slavery, on account of his knowledge and wisdom was detained by Minos; and, when afterwards attempting to make his escape with his son, who was slain in the attempt, was not able to save himself, but was seized by the barbarians and again forced into slavery.”

Ibid. ?????? d? p?s??? ??e? d?? s?f?a? ??a?p?st??? p??? as???a ?e?????a?, ?a? ??e? d???e?e??;

“How many others are born and remain creeping, fawning about the king (of Persia); and because he deems them his, he there enslaves them.”

Chap 5. § 5. ????e?a? d? p??a? ?a??st?? ????e?? e??a?; ??? ??, ?f?, t?? pa?? t??? ?a??st??? desp?ta??. ??? ?a??st?? ??a d???e?a? ?? ???ate?? d???e???s??;

Of which Leunclavius gives the following: “Pessimam servitutem. Et quam esse arbitraris? Eam ait, quÆ apud pessimos dominos serviatur. Ergone intemperantes servitutem pessimam serviunt?”

For the benefit of the mere English scholar, we give it thus: “Now, where do you esteem the most degraded slavery? Why, to be sure, says he, when the master is most degraded. It follows then, (says Socrates,) that the slaves of intemperance are the most degraded of slaves.”

In the 30th section of the defence of Socrates before his judges, by Xenophon, we find thus:—

?ste f??, a?t?? ?p? t? d????p?epe? d?at???, ?? ? pat?? a?t? pa?es?e?a?e?, ?? d?ae?e??.

By Leunclavius: “Itaque aio, non permansurum in illo servili vitÆ genere, quod pater ei prÆscripsit.”

We offer: “So that, I said, it is not becoming that his son should remain in an occupation only proper for a slave, in which alone his father educated him.”

---

LESSON VII.

At the close of the 23d chapter of the first book of Xenophon’s CyropÆdia, we find:

?????? d?, ??? ???? f????? ???s?a?, ?a? ?? p??e?? ?a? ?? p?s?e??, t??t??? d?????? ????? ???????te? ? f????? ???s?a?, ?p’ a?t?? t??t?? d???? ?d?sa?.

“There are instances of many, who, when they might have used others as their friends in a mutual intercourse of good offices, and who, choosing to hold them rather as slaves than as friends, have met with revenge and punishment at their hands.” Ashley.

Book iii. § 2. ?a? ?a? ?st??, ?f? ? ?????, ?a??? ??es?a?, ?p?? ? p?t? t?? d????? ????? ?e??ses?a?? ?? d? d? ? p???? ??at??e??, ? ?a? ????? t??? t??p?? d?????e??, ?p??e???? t?? fa???ta? t??? desp?ta? ap?ste?e?? ?a?t??, t??t?? s?, p??t?? e?p?, p?te??? ?? ??a??? ??d?a ?a? ?a?? p??tt??ta t???, ? ?? ?d?????ta, ?? ????, ?????e??; ??????, ?f?, &c.

“It is indeed noble, said Cyrus, to fight, in order not to be made a slave! But if a man be conquered in war, or by other means be reduced to slavery, and be found attempting to throw off his masters, do you yourself first pronounce whether you reward and honour such a one as an honest man, and as one that does noble things, or, if you take him, do you punish him as one that acts unjustly? I punish him, said he.” Ashley.

Ibid. ?? ?, ?? ??’, ?a?t? s????de? ??e??e??a? ?? ?p????sa?, d????? d’ ?? ??dep?p?te ?e??e???.

“Why, by Jupiter, being conscious of himself that, affecting his liberty, he has become by far much more of a slave than ever.”

Ibid. ??e? ??? t?, ?f? ? ????????, ????? ?atad?????s?a? ????????? t?? ?s????? f???;

“Can you, said Tigranes, imagine what brings men into yielding to slavery more effectually than very great fear?”

Ibid. ?a? des?? f???e???, ??t?? ?? ??te s?t?? ???’ ?p??? d??a?ta? t?????e?? d?? t?? f??? ?? d? ?d? ?? f???de?, ?d? d’ ?tt?????, ?d? d? d???e???te?, ?st?? ?te d??a?ta? ?a? ????? t?? e?da????? ?s??e?? te ?a? ?a?e?de??.

“They that are at sea, and dread shipwreck, and they that fear servitude and chains, are neither able to eat nor sleep for fear: but they who are already under banishment, who are already conquered, and already slaves, are often in a condition to eat and sleep better than the fortunate themselves.” Ashley.

Ibid. ??? d’ ??? pat??a, ?f?, ??? p?? d??e?? d?a?e?s?a? t?? ??????, ?? ?? ???? pe?? ?a?t??, ???? ?a? pe?? ???, ?a? pe?? ???a????, ?a? pe?? p??t?? t?? t????? d???e?a? f?e?ta?;

“In what state of mind then, said he, do you take my father to be, he who fears not only for his own life, but that his wife, myself, and all his children will be plunged into slavery?”

Ibid. ???? ? ??’, ?f?, ??? ??e???? ??e???. ???? t??a ??; ?f? ? ????????. ??? e?p??ta, ?? ??a, ?? t?? a?t?? ????? ?? p??a?t? ?ste ? e d???e?e??.

“Truly, said she, I did not look at him. At whom then did you look? said Tigranes. At him who said, that to save me from servitude he would ransom me at the expense of his own life.” Ashley.

Ibid. ?? ????a d???e??? p?????? ?????p?? pe?? t?? ?????t??, p???? ?p??e????e? p??tte??. ??? ??? d? ?a? ???, ??e??e??a? ?? ??a??s?a? ?p??e???sa?, d????? ?? ??dep?p?te ??e????? ?pe? d’ ????e?, saf?? ?p??????a? ???sa?te?, ??? ??afa???e?a ses?s???? ?? ??dep?p?te.

“How few things in futurity are we men able to foresee! and how many projects do we undertake! I have endeavoured upon this occasion to obtain liberty, and I have become more a slave than ever: and, after having been made a captive, and thinking our destruction certain, we now again appear to be in a condition of greater safety and security than ever.” Ashley.

Book iv. chap. 8. ??t??a ??a ??es?e, ?spe? d????? ?p? d?d?as???t?? ?a? e???e???, t??? ?? ??ete???ta? a?t??, t??? d? fe????ta?, t??? d’ ??d? ta?ta f???e?? d??a?????.

“You will see them, like slaves that have run away and are discovered, some supplicating for mercy, some flying, and some without presence of mind enough to do either.” Ashley.

Chap. 18. ?a? d? t?? ???, ?a? ??? ?? ??? e??????? ?a? p??tt?? t? ?a? d?d?s??? fa???ta?, t??t?? ?e?? ?? e?e???t?? ?a? f????, ??? ?? d?????, pe?????e?.

“But, then, if you shall come to us, and shall appear to do any action, or give any information, in friendship and good-will to us, him will we treat as a benefactor and a friend, not as a slave.”

Chap. 23. ??t?? d? ? ????? ??e?pe?? ????e?se?, e? t?? e?? ?? t? ?ss????? ? S???? ? ??a??? st?ate?at? ???? d?????, ? ??d??, ? ?e?s??, ? ?a?t??a???, ? ?a???, ? ???????, ? ???????, ? ??????? p??e? ?e?as????, ??fa??es?a?.

“Cyrus himself ordered them to make proclamation, that whatever slave there might be, either in the Assyrian, Syrian, or Arabian armies, whether he were Mede, Persian, Bactrian, Carian, Cilician, or Greek, or of any other country, forced to serve, that he should appear.” Ashley.

Chap. 24. ????st?? ?? ???, ??? p??? s?, ?a? ???t?? p??sp?pt?, ?a? d?d?? s?? ?a?t?? d????? ?a? s?a???, s? d? t????? a?t??a? ??? ?e??s?a?.

“I bow myself at your feet, a suppliant, and give myself a slave to you, and a confederate in the war.”

Book v. chap. 1. ?a? t????? ???a? ta?? d???a?? e??e t?? ?s??ta.

“And was clothed in the same manner as were her female slaves.”

Ibid. ???’ ???, ?f?, ???a?a ?a? ??a???ta? ?p? ??p?? d?’ ???ta, ?a? d???e???t?? ?e t??? ????????? ?a? ??a ?a??? ??????ta?, p??? ?e ????, t? d???e?e??.

“But I have seen, says he, people in grief and tears when in love, slaves to those with whom they were in love, yet they deemed slavery a very great evil when not in love.”

Chap. 32. ?? ??? ????? t??t’, ?f?, ?t? ?? s? ?? ???? e???? e?, ???? ?a? ?? ??? d????? ?s????te??? ??? ?pa?t?????s? ??, ?a?, &c.

“I am not ignorant, says he, that you are above me, but that my own slaves are above me in power,” &c.

Book vi. chap. 26. ?a? ???? d? d??? e????? t??? ??? ????? ?fe??e??, ?t? e, a?????t?? ?e?????? ?a? ??a??e?e?sa? ?a?t?, ??te e ?? d????? ????se ?e?t?s?a?, ??te ?? ??e????a? ?? ?t?? ???at?? d?ef??a?e d? s?? ?spe? ?de?f?? ???a??a ?a??.

“Then I think we are both under great obligation to Cyrus, who, when I was captured, and chosen and selected particularly for him, thought proper not to receive me as a slave, nor even as a free woman of low standing, but detained me under such restraint as if I had been his brother’s wife.”

Book vii. chap. 20. ?a? p??ta? d? t??? ??p???? t?? ?p??e????? ?e?????? sfe?d???? ?????a?e e?et??, ?????? t??t? t? ?p??? d??????te??? e??a?.

“All those whom he conquered, he compelled to practise with the sling, which he deemed more suitable for slaves.”

Chap. 30. ???? ?a? ?? p?s?? ?????p??? ??d??? ?st??, ?ta? p??e???t?? p???? ???, t?? ????t?? e??a? ?a? t? s?ata t?? ?? t? p??e? ?a? t? ???ata.

“For it is a perpetual law among all men, that when a city is taken from an enemy, both the persons and treasures of the inhabitants belong to the captors.” Ashley.

Ibid. T??p??? ?? ??? ?a? ??????, ?a? s?t?? ?a? p?t??, ?a? p???? ?a? ?p??? ?????? ?a? t??? d?????? etad?d??a?.

“In heat, and in cold, in meat and drink, in work and rest, we necessarily allow our slaves a portion.”

Ibid. ?t?, ?pe? ?e?t?e?a d??????, t??t??? ????s?e?, ?? p?????? ?s?; ?a? t? p??s??e? a?t?? ??ta p?????? p?????a? ??e?a ?? ?a?e?a? ?????? ?????e??;

“When we acquire slaves, we punish them if they are slothful and vicious. But does it become him who is slothful and vicious himself, to punish others for vice and sloth?”

Book viii. chap. 1. ??s??t?? d? d?af??e?? ??? de? t?? d?????, ?s?? ?? ?? d?????, ????te? t??? desp?ta?? ?p??et??s??? ??? d?, e?pe? ?????e? ??e??e??? e??a?, ????ta? de? p??e??, ? t? p?e?st?? ????? fa??eta? e??a?.

“We ought to distinguish ourselves so far from slaves, as that slaves do service to their masters against their wills; and if we desire to be free, we ought willingly to perform what appears to be most excellent and worthy.” Ashley.

Chap. 14. ??? d' a? ?ates?e?a?e? e?? t? d???e?e??, t??t??? ??te e?et?? t?? ??e??e???? p???? ??d??a pa???a, ??te ?p?a ?e?t?s?a? ?p?t?epe?.

“But in the management of slaves,” &c.

Chap. 41. ???????? d’ ?? ??? ?a? t??t? ?ata???sa?, ?t? t??t??, ?? ??? ??? pa?a?e?e??a?, ??d?? t??? d?????? p??st?tt?.

“And I desire likewise that you should observe, that of all these orders that I now give you, I give none to those that are of servile condition.”

Chap. 47. ?a? t??? ?? f????? ?pe?d?? d?’ ??? e?da???a? ?e???????, t??? d? p??e???? ?p’ ??? d???????ta?.

“By my means my friends have been made happy, and my enemies enslaved.”

---

In Xenophon’s Expedition of Cyrus, usually termed the Anabasis, book i. chap. 9, we find—

?ste fa??es?a? t??? ?? ??a????, e?da???est?t??, t??? d? ?a???? d?????? t??t?? ?????? e??a?.

“So that brave men were looked upon as most fortunate, and cowards as deserving to be their slaves.” Spelman.

Ibid. ?a?? ?? ?????, d????? ??t??, ??de?? ?p?e? p??? as???a.

“No one, not even a slave, ever deserted Cyrus to go to the king.”

Book ii. chap. 3. ?????? d? p????? e?p??t?.

“They were attended by a great many slaves.”

Chap. 5. ?et? d? ta?ta t?? a????? t???? ?pp???, d?? t?? ped??? ??a????te?, ?t??? ??t???????e? ?????? ? d???? ? ??e?????, p??ta? ??te????. ? “After this, some of the barbarian horse, scouring the plains, killed all the Greeks they met with, both freemen and slaves.” Spelman.

Ibid. ?a?t?? ??? e??a? f?s??, ?pe?pe? ????? ?sa? t?? ??e???? d?????.

“For, he says, they are his, having belonged to his slave Cyrus.”

Book iii. chap. 1. ??? d?, ??? ??de?? ?? ??de?? p??est??, ?st?ate?sae? d’ ?p’ a?t?? ?? d????? ??t? as????? p???s??te? ?a? ?p??te????te?, e? d??a?e?a, t? ?? ???e?a pa?e??;

“How then will he treat us, who have no support, and who have made war on him, with the design to reduce him from the condition of a king to that of a slave, and, if in our power, to put him to death?”

Book vii. chap. 4. ? d’ e?pe?? ???’ ????e ??a??? ????? ??? d???? ??e??, e? ??t?? d????? ?s??ta? ??t’ ??e??????.

“And then he said, but I think myself sufficiently revenged, if these people, instead of freemen, are to be made slaves.”

Chap. 7. S?? ?? ??? ??at???t??, d???e?a ?p???e? a?t???? ??at?????? d? s??, ??e??e??a.

“For if you conquer, they are slaves,—but if you are conquered, they are free.”

---

Herodotus of Halicarnassus.

WE often find the word d?????, and its various derivatives, in the plain, the simple narrative of this author. His use of the term is as follows:

Book i. chap. 7. ?a?? t??t?? d? ??a??e?da? ?p?t?af???te? ?s??? t?? ????? ?? ?e?p??p???, ?? d????? te t?? ?a?d???? ?e????te? ?a? ??a?????.

“The HeraclidÆ are descended from Hercules and a female slave of Jardanus.”

Chap. 27. ?ae?? ???e??? ??d??? ?? ?a??ss?, ??a ?pe? t?? ?? t? ?pe??? ???????? ??????? t?s??ta? se, t??? s? d????sa? ??e??;

“Can they wish for a better opportunity than to meet the Lydians on the Ocean, to revenge those of the Greeks reduced by you to slavery on the continent?”

Chap. 94. ??d?? ?? d? ?p? ???s?s? ded?????t?.

“Thus the Lydians were enslaved by the Persians.”

Chap. 95. ?a? ?p?s?e??? t?? d????s???? ??e??e????sa?.

“And rejecting slavery, they became free.”

Chap. 114. ? as??e?, ?p? t?? s?? d?????.

“O king! by your slave.”

Chap. 126. ??d??a p???? d????p??p?a ????s?.

“Slavish employment,” &c.

Chap. 129. ?a? ???? ????? ?? a?t?? ??a???a ?pea, ?a? d? ?a? e??et? ?? p??? t? ???t?? de?p???, t? ?? ??e???? sa??? t?? pa?d?? ??????se, ? t? e?? ? ??e???? d????s??? ??t? t?? as??????.

“Among other things, he asked him what was his opinion of that supper, in which he had compelled a father to feed on the flesh of his child; a supper which had reduced him from a monarch to a slave.” Beloe.

Ibid. ?d???tat?? d?, ?t? t?? de?p??? e??e?e? ??d??? ?ated????se.

“(He said that he was) most wicked, on the account of the supper, to enslave the Medes.”

Ibid. ??? d? ??d??? ?? ??a?t???? t??t?? ???ta? d?????? ??t? desp?t??? ?e?????a?, ???sa? d? d?????? ???ta? t? p??? ??d?? ??? ?e?????a? desp?ta?.

“The Medes, who were certainly not accessary to the provocation given, had exchanged situations with their slaves. The Persians, who were formerly the slaves, were now the masters.”

Chap. 170. ?a? ??t? ?pa??a????ta? sf?a? d????s???? e?da????se??.

“And thus, freed from slavery, deem themselves happy.”

Chap. 173. ?a? ?? ?? ?e ???? ?st? d???? s??????s?, ?e??a?a t? t???a ?e???sta?.

“If any free woman marries a slave, the children of such marriage are reputed free.” Beloe.

Chap. 174. ?? ?? ??? ???e? ??d?? ?ap??? ????? ?p?de??e??? ?d??????sa?.

“The Carians made little or no exertion, and were easily enslaved.”

Chap. 210. ?? ??t? ?? d????? ?p???sa? ??e??????? ???sa? e??a?.

“You have raised the Persians from slavery to freedom.” Beloe.

Book ii. chap. 1. ?? d?????? pat?????? ???ta? ?????e.

“He considered them as slaves by right of inheritance.”

Chap. 56. ?pe?ta d???e???sa a?t??? ?d??sas?a? ?p? f??? pef????? ???? ????.

“Although in a state of slavery, she there constructed, under a green spreading beech, a natural little temple to her god.”

Book iii. chap. 125. ?s?? d? ?sa? ?e???? te ?a? d????? t?? ?p?????, ?? ??d?ap?d?? ???? p??e?e??? e??e.

“All the strangers, and their slaves accompanying them, were detained in bondage.” See 1 Tim. i. 10.

Chap. 138. ?a? sfea? d???e???ta? ???a?ta G?????.

“And they being enslaved, Gillus immediately ransomed them,” &c.

Chap. 140. ??? ?te ???s??, ? as??e?, ?te ??????? d?d??, ???’ ??as?s?e??? ?? d?? t?? pat??da S???, t?? ??? ?de?fe?? t?? ??? ???????te?? ?p??a???t?? ?p? ????te? ??e? d????? ??te???, ta?t?? ?? d?? ??e? te f???? ?a? ??a?d?ap?d?s???.

“I would have neither gold nor silver; give me Samos, my country, and deliver it from servitude. Since the death of Polycrates, my brother, whom Oroetes slew, it hath been in the hands of one of our slaves. Give me this, without any effusion of blood, or reducing my countrymen to servitude.” (Beloe.) See 1 Tim. i. 10.

Chap. 153. ?pe?pa? t??s? d?????s? ?de?? f???e?? t? ?e????? ????e?et?.

“He counselled with himself about that which was foretold, that Babylon should not be reduced to slavery until this prodigy should be brought forth.”

Book iv. chap. 1. ?? ??? t?? S?????? ???a??e?, ?? sf? ?? ??d?e? ?p?sa? ?????? p?????, ?f??te?? pa?? t??? d??????.

“For the women, deprived so long of their husbands, had associated with their slaves.” Beloe.

Chap. 2. ???? d? d?????? ?? S???a? p??ta? t?f???s? t?? ???a?t?? e??e?e? t?? p????s? p??e??te? ?de.

“It is a custom with the Scythians, to deprive all the slaves of sight, on the account of the milk, which is their customary drink.” Beloe.

Chap. 3. ?? t??t?? d? ?? sf? t?? d????? ?a? t?? ???a???? ?pet??f? ?e?t??.

“From the union of these slaves with the Scythian women, a numerous progeny was born.” Beloe.

Ibid. ??????s? t??s? ?et????s? a??e??? a?t?? te ???ss??e? ?te???e??? ????e?a.

“In this contest with our slaves, every action diminishes our number.” Beloe.

Ibid. ?a???te? ?? e?s? ??te??? d?????.

“They will be impressed with a sense of their servile condition.” Beloe.

Book v. chap. 35. ? d? t?? d????? t?? p?st?tat?? ?p?????sa? t?? ?efa??? ?st??e ?a? ???e??e ??af??a? t?? t???a?.

“He therefore took one of the most faithful of his slaves, and inscribed what we have mentioned on his skull, being first shaved.” Beloe.

Chap. 49. ????? pa?da? d?????? e??a? ??t’ ?????e??? ??e?d?? ?a? ????? ???st?? ?? a?t??s? ???, ?t? d? t?? ???p?? ???, ?s? p???state t?? ????d??? ??? ?? p??? ?e?? t?? ???e???? ??sas?e ???a? ?? d????s????, ??d?a? ?a???a?.

“The Ionians, who ought to be free, are in a state of servitude; which is not only disgraceful, but also a source of the extremest sorrow to us, as it must be to you, who are so pre-eminent in Greece. I entreat you therefore, by the gods of Greece, to relieve the Ionians from slavery, who are connected with you by the ties of consanguinity.” Beloe.

Book vi. chap. 83. ????? d? ??d??? ??????e ??t? ?ste ?? d????? a?t?? ?s??? p??ta t? p???ata ?????t?? te ?a? d??p??te?, ?? ? ?p??sa? ?? t?? ?p??????? pa?de?, ?pe?ta sfea? ??t?? ??a?t?e??? ?p?s? ?? ???t??? t? ????? ???a???? ????e?e??? d? ?? d????? ??? ?s??? ??????a. t??? ?? d? sf? ?? ????a ?? ????????, ?pe?ta d? ?? t??? d?????? ???e ???? ??t?? ???a?d???, ????? ??? F??a?e?? ?p’ ???ad???? ??t?? t??? d?????? ??????se ?p???s?a? t??s? desp?t?s?.

“Argos, however, was deprived of so many of its citizens, that the slaves usurped the management of affairs, and executed the offices of government; but when the sons of those who had been slain grew up, they obtained possession of the city, and after some contest expelled the slaves, who retired to Tyrinthe, which they seized. They for a time forebore to molest each other, till Cleander, a soothsayer, and an Arcadian of the district of Phigalis, came among the slaves, when he persuaded the slaves to attack their masters.”

Book ix. chap. 48. ?? ????a???s? te t?? p??pe??a? p??e?????? a?t??? te ??t?a d????? t?? ?et???? tass??????.

“We see you delegating to the Athenians the more dangerous attempt of opposing us, and placing yourselves against our slaves.” Beloe.

In the “Libellus de Vit Homeri,” attributed to Herodotus, in the 23d section we find the word s??d????, used to mean a fellow-slave.

---

We now propose to notice the scriptural use of the word d?????, doulos, and its derivatives, not only that its use may be compared with the Greek writers, but that it may be seen, as we believe is true, that its use in these carries with it abundant proof, even in the absence of all other, that “it means a slave,” and “that he to whom it was applied was a slave.”

Whenever a thing is made any part of discourse, it is necessarily placed in a position of commendation, reprehension, or of perfect indifference. One of these conditions must unavoidably attend its mention. A little reflection will enable us to perceive these distinctive positions. For instance, in the sentence, “Lay up treasures in heaven, where moth and rust doth not corrupt, nor thieves break through nor steal,” who does not feel the commendable position of the things, treasure and heaven, and the reverse of moth, rust, and thieves? Let us apply this view to the word servant, selecting only those instances in the Christian Scriptures, where the word is translated from the Greek word d?????, doulos, and means nothing except what we mean by the word slave.

St. Paul commences his epistle to the Romans, to the Philippians, and to Titus, with the appellation of servant. In the two first cases he calls himself the servant and apostle of Christ. In the last instance, he terms himself the servant of God and apostle of Jesus Christ. Peter, in his second epistle, styles himself a servant and apostle: Jude, the servant of Christ. In all these instances the word means slave, and is used commendatively, but figuratively, to signify their entire devotedness to the cause in which they are engaged,—devoted to the cause wholly, as a good slave is to his master. And it may be here remarked, that the professing Christian is indebted to the institution for the lesson of humility and devotedness here plainly taught him, and without which, perhaps, he never could have been taught his duty in these particulars so pertinently and clearly. The humility and devotedness of the Christian are illustrated by this ordinance in John xv. 20: “Remember the words that I said unto you, the servant is not greater than his Lord.”

In the parable of the vineyard, Luke 20 and Matt. 21, the servant (d?????, doulos, slave) is presented in a position evincing, the trustworthiness, devotion, and obedience implied in that character, clearly indicating the idea that these qualities inspire the mind of the proprietor with a confidence surpassed only by that in his son and heir. And it may be well remarked, that the position of the slave is one of great facility for the generating of such confidence in the mind of the master. Between the good slave and the good master there can be no dissimilarity of interest, but not so with the hired man, see Matt. 20; for the very moment those hired in the morning for a penny a day perceived that those who had not laboured the whole day received the same amount of wages, they commenced a quarrel with the proprietor.

This distinctive use of language we think also perceptible in the parable of the prodigal son, Luke xv. 17: “How many hired servants (p?s?? ?s????, posoi misthioi) of my father have bread enough and to spare,” pe??sse???s?? ??t??, perisseuousin arton, an overflowing of bread.

He is not made to say that his father’s slaves had bread enough, but that even his hired men had enough. “Make me as one of thy hired servants,” ?s????, misthion. He does not ask to be received as a son, not even to be accounted as a slave,—he feels unworthy of either. “But the father said to his servants,” d??????, doulous, slaves, “Bring forth the best robe.” Having slaves, it would have been quite out of place to have called one of his ?s????, misthous, hired men. But the elder son “called one of the servants;” nor would it have been natural for him to have called a hired-man, nor yet one of the common slaves, but a confidential servant, whose position in the family would enable him to possess the information required, and so we find the fact by the expression t?? pa?d?? a?t??, ton paidon autou, his young confidential, favourite slave.

But the elder brother said to his father, “Lo, these many years do I serve thee;” the verb used is d???e??, douleuo, and expresses the faithful and devoted service of a good slave, not of a hired man, who would feel no real interest beyond his own personal benefit. And this word is put in the mouth of the angered son, whereby to show more forcibly his sense of his own merits.

While we cast reflection back upon the incidents of this parable, let us suppose the owner of slaves also to employ hired labourers: if from famine or other cause he finds himself unable to supply them all with bread, which would he turn away, his slaves, or hired men? or, if they refused to go, which would he feel disposed to put on small allowance?

Jesus Christ seems to have understood that if there was to be any deficiency of bread, the hired-men might be expected first to feel it. Our Lord and Saviour, in pronouncing this parable, has given us the most explicit assurance that he intimately understood the domestic relations of the slave, and has taught us the lesson by placing him side by side with the hired servant.

From the fact that the good slave was wholly devoted and faithful to his master, the idea was not only applied to Paul, Peter, and Jude, but also to Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, and David, and others, to express these qualities in them towards Jehovah; and we find it so used in the Christian Scriptures: “He hath holpen his servant Israel,” ?s?a?? pa?d?? a?t??, Israel paidos autou, Luke i. 54. It is noticed that with the word “Israel” is associated the same term to mean slave which was applied to the slave called by the elder brother; and the reason seems to be because the name Israel is supposed to be in higher regard than the word Jacob,—the word in apposition should also be expressive of such elevated regard. Therefore, if the word Jacob had been used, the word d????? would have followed it. This word pa??, pais, when applied to a slave, was a word of endearment, and hence was used in the case of the centurion’s servant. And we may here well remark that the case of the centurion is one in point, presenting an instance where slave-holding was brought to the immediate and particular notice of the Saviour, and the record shows his conduct and language upon the occasion.

“For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me, and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, (d????, doulo, slave,) Do this, and he doeth it.

“When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.” Matt. viii. 9, 10.

“And as he was now going down, his servants (d?????, douloi, slaves) met him, and told him, saying, Thy son liveth.” John iv. 51.

---

The Christian Scriptures use the institution of slavery figuratively, in illustration of the Christian character and duty, and also in happy illustration of the providences of God to man.

“Who is that faithful and wise servant, (d?????, doulos, slave,) whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant (d?????, doulos, slave,) whom his lord, when he cometh, shall find so doing. But if that evil servant (d?????, doulos, slave) shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to smite his fellow-servants, (s??d??????, sundoulous, fellow-slaves,) and to eat and drink with the drunken, the lord of that servant (d?????, doulou, slave) shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of.” “For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, (d??????, doulous, slaves,) and delivered unto them his goods.” “His Lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant, (d???e, doule, slave,) thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.” “His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, (d???e, doule, slave,) thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strewed,” &c. “And cast ye the unprofitable servant (d?????, doulon, slave) into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matt. xxiv. 45–50 xxv. 14, 30.

“And he called his servants (d??????, doulous, slaves), and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants (d??????, doulous, slaves) to be called unto him, to whom he had given money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.” “And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant (d???e, doule, slave), because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.” “And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant, (d???e, doule, slave.) Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow.” Luke xix. 13–28.

“Blessed is that servant, (d?????, doulos, slave) whom his lord, when he cometh, shall find so doing. But if that servant (d??????, doulos, slave) say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the men-servants (t??? pa?da?, male-slaves) and maidens, (t?? pa?d?s?a?, female slaves,) and to eat and drink and be drunken; the lord of that servant (d?????, doulou, slave,) will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder.” “And that servant (d?????, slave) which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.” Luke xii. 43–48.

Here is an instance when the most favourite slave, called by the term expressing such favouritism, when supposed to be disobedient, is immediately designated by the term d?????, doulos.

“Blessed are those servants (d?????, douloi, slaves) whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching; and if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants,” (d?????, douloi, slaves.) Luke xii. 37, 38.

“And sent his servant (d?????, doulos, slave) at supper-time,” &c. * * * “So that servant (d?????, doulos, slave) came and showed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry, said to his servant,” (d????, doulo, slave.) “And the servant (d?????, doulos, slave) said, Lord, it is done. And the lord said unto the servant, (d?????, doulon, slave,) Go out into the highway,” &c. Luke xiv. 17–23.

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free, (??e??e??se?, eleutherosei, free.) They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, we were never in bondage (ded???e??ae?, dedouleukamen, slavery) to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin, (d?????, doulos, slave.) And the servant (d?????, doulos, slave) abideth not in the house for ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” John viii. 32–35.

“But which of you, having a servant (d?????, doulon, slave) ploughing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shall eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant (d????, slave) because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants (d?????, slaves): we have done that which was our duty to do.” Luke xvii. 7–10.

In all these instances slavery is made a lesson of instruction, and always in the position commendable.

---

LESSON XI.

The Christian Scriptures recognise the force and application of the command, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s man-servant, nor his maid-servant,” as applicable to slaves at the time of the apostles; and that the act of “coveting,” extended into action, becomes “stealing,” the property named in the command. “Now the end of the command is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: from which some having swerved, have turned aside unto vain jangling; desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully, knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, the ungodly, and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for men-stealers, (??d?ap?d?sta?? andrapodistais, slave-stealers,) for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.” 1 Tim. i. 5–11.

It may be well remembered that the preceding third verse of this chapter beseeches Timothy to still abide at Ephesus, that he may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, &c.

The word andrapodistais, of the original Greek text, here translated men-stealers, means the stealing, or enticing away from the possession and ownership of their masters, their slaves. St. Paul speaks of it as a part of the law,—speaks of the offence as one well known, and as too well known to be a part of the law to require any explanation. When we come to know that that act of the mind called coveting, indulged to action, becomes stealing,—that the crime in action includes the crime in mind,—we may readily perceive what particular law is referred to. Is it difficult to decide that property, which the law forbids us to covet, it also forbids us to steal, even if “thou shalt not steal” had not preceded?

The idea stealing was expressed by the Greeks by the word ???pt?, klepto, but the idea stealing slaves was expressed by the word in the text. The formation is ????, a man, p???, a foot, and signifies the condition of slavery, as a man bound by the foot. A whole class of words of this formation, all including the idea of slavery, were in use by the Greeks, and found in their authors. When used to express the substantive, the idea of slavery is associated with the idea of some change of position or ownership; hence its use in this instance. The thing stolen involves the idea of a change of position, possession, &c. Yet in many instances it may be difficult to perceive this distinction, it rather appearing to have been often used as a synonyme of doulos, both as a verb and substantive.

In the 8th section of the 4th book of the CyropÆdia, Xenophon uses this word to mean a slave, the quality growing out of the imputed change in the condition of the soldier, thus: ?? ? t??t? p???? ????t? ???? ?st??, ???? s?e??f????, ?a? ??est? t? ??????? ?de ???s?a? t??t? ?? ??d?ap?d?. Which Ashley translates, “And as he that does this can no longer be reckoned a man, but a mere bearer of baggage, so any one that will is free to use him as a slave.” The Romans so understood this word. In the translation of Xenophon into Latin by Amelburnus, we find this passage: “Nam qui hoc facit non miles et vir est, sed sarcinarius calo; quem uti mancipium tractare cuivis licet;” nor can it be said that this learned man misunderstood his Greek, for we have before us the critical translations of Oxford and Cambridge, in which the sentence reads, “Nam qui hoc facit, non amplius vir est et miles, sed sarcinarius calo, atque hoc adeÒ uti mancipium licet.” They have made no change as to this word, nor as to the sense of the sentence.

Xenophon uses this word also in the 14th section of the 8th book, to mean slaves, and in the same passage with d?????, the adjective sense existing in the presumed unwillingness in the slaves to seek freedom, on the account of their happiness being probably better secured in a state of slavery to Cyrus than it would be in a state of freedom. We give it entire:

??? d’ a? ?ates?e?a?e? e?? t? d???e?e??, t??t??? ??te e?et?? t?? ??e??e???? p???? ??d??a pa???a, ??te ?p?a ?e?t?s?a? ?p?t?epe?? ?pee?e?t? d’ ?p?? ?p?te ?s?t?? ?te ?p?t?? p?t? ?s???t?, ??e??e???? ??e?a e?et??t??. ?a? ??? ?p?ta? ??a????e? t? ????a t??? ?ppe?s?? e?? t? ped?a, f??es?a? s?t?? e?? ???a? t??t??? ?p?t?epe, t?? d? ??e?????? ??de??. ?a? ?p?te p??e?a e??, ??e? a?t??? p??? t? ?data ?spe? t? ?p?????a. ?a? ?p?te d? ??a e?? ???st??, ???e?e? a?t??? ?st’ ?? f?????? t?, ?? ? ??????e?? ?ste ?a? ??t?? a?t?? ?spe? ?? ???st??, pat??a ??a????, ?t? ?pe??et? a?t?? ?p?? ??a?f?????? ?e? ??d??p?da d?ate???e?.

Which may be translated thus: “But in rearing up his slaves, he never permitted them to practise the employment of the free, nor allowed them the possession of arms, but took care that they would never be without their meat and drink for the sake of the practices of the free; for when with their horses they drove out the wild beasts into the plains, he allowed meat and drink to be carried for the use of these people during the hunt, but not for the free; and when he was upon a march, he led them to water, as he did the beasts of burden; and when the time for dinner came, he waited till they had eaten something, that they might not be distressed with hunger; so that these people, as likewise the more elevated, called him their father; so he was careful, beyond a doubt, that they would always remain his slaves,” ??d??p?da, slaves, i. e. they would have no desire to change their situation.

Amelburnus translates it thus: “Quos autem ad serviendum instruebat, eos nec ad labores ullos liberales excitabat, nec habere arma sinebat: studiosÈque dabat operam, ne unquam liberalium exercitationum causa vel cibo vel potu carerent. Permittebat enim servis, quoties equitibus feras in campos adigerent, ut cibum ad venationem secum sumerent; ingenuorum verÒ nemini. Quando item faciundum erat iter, ad aquas eos, perinde ac jumenta, ducebat. Quum prandii tempus erat, expectabat eos donec aliquid comedissent, ne furcilla sive fames acrior eos affligeret. Quo fiebat ut, non aliter ac optimates, etiam hi Cyrum patrem appellarent, qui curam ipsorum gereret ut semper sine dubio mancipia manerent.”

The Oxford translation, which was published in 1737, has perhaps made the Latin more classical, but has strictly adhered to the same meaning of the words d???e?e?? and ??d??p?da. We give their version also, that the curious may compare, and have no doubt about this matter. It reads thus:

“Quos autem ad serviendum instruebat, eos nec ad se in laboribus ullis liberalibus exercendos excitabat, nec habere arma sinebat. StudiosÈque dabat operam, ne unquam liberalium exercitationum causa vel cibo vel potu carerent. Etenim his permittebat, ut cibum ad venationem secum sumerent, ingenuorum verÒ nemini: quando item faciendum erat iter, ad aquas eos, perinde ac jumenta, ducebat. Et cÙm prandii tempus erat, expectabat eos donec aliquid comedissent ne fames ingens eos invaderet; quo fiebat ut etiam hi, non aliter ac optimates, Cyrum patrem appellarent, qui curam ipsorum gereret ut semper sine dubio mancipia manerent.”

We deem it proper to add a word concerning the use of this term, especially as some, who claim to be learned divines, also claim that Paul by its use totally forbid slavery. See Barnes, on Slavery, p. 355. He says? “‘The law is made for manstealers,’ ??d?ap?d?sta??, 1 Tim. i. 9, 10. The meaning of this word has been before considered. It needs only to be remarked here, that the essential idea of the term is that of converting a freeman into a slave. Thus Passon defines the word ??d?ap?d?s??, andrapodismos: Verwandlung eines freyen Mannes in einen Sklaven, besonders durch Varkauf, Unterjochung, U.S.W.: a changing of a freeman into a slave, especially by traffic, subjection, &c. Now, somehow this ‘conversion of a freeman into a slave,’ the sin forbidden in the passage before us, occurs essentially in the case of every one who ever becomes a slave.”

We know not why Mr. Barnes chose to go to a Dutch dictionary for his quotation, since he might have found the true signification in that of any schoolboy.

But we think it a singular argument that, because andrapodismos means the making or selling a slave, andrapodistais means the exact same thing. The truth is, the essential idea conveyed by this word is slave, slavery, &c. If I wish to say “stealing a slave,” I use one form of it; if “selling a slave,” another, and so on; but the stealing a freeman with the view to make him a slave was not expressed by this word, or any form of it. The Greeks used the term anthropokleptais, but the legal reduction of a man to slavery was quite a different matter. St. Paul’s animadversion comprehended the idea of slavery and stealing,—what? a freeman, or a slave? Had it been a freeman that occupied the objective case, it is presumable that his language would have had some analogy to that used in the Septuagint, Deut. xxiv. 7.

This word, or some form of it, is of most frequent occurrence in the Greek authors. We need quote but a few passages to show their use of the term, whether it included the idea of a freeman, or only that of a slave. Thucydides, Leipsic edition, 1829:

?? d’ ????a??? ??te t???a ?p??????, ??te t? ??f?sa ?a??????, ?p??a????te? ?p’ ???as?a? ?e?a?e?s? t?? ??? t?? ?e???, ?a? t?? ????st??, ?a? ??d?ap?d?? ?p?d???? t?? ?f?sta????.

“But the Athenians listened to none of these demands, nor would revoke the decree, but reproached the Megarians for tilling land that was sacred, land not marked out for culture, and for giving shelter to runaway slaves.”

Vol. ii. p. 138. ?? d? ??e? pe??ep?e?ta?, ta ??d??p?da ????sa?.

“But the vessels came back along the coast, on board of which were the slaves.”

Idem. ?a? t? ??d??p?da ?ped?sa?.

“And here they offered the slaves for sale.”

P. 118. ??d??p?da ???a????—“Hyccarian slaves.”

P. 201. ?a? ??d??p?d?? p???? ? d?? ???ade? ??t??????sa?.

“And more than twenty thousand slaves had deserted.”

P. 314. ?a? s?e?? ?? ?a? ??d??p?da ??pa??? p???s?e???, t??? d? ??e??????? p???? ?at????sa?, ?p’ ??d?? ???e.

“He gave up all the effects and slaves to pillage, and after establishing such as were free people in their old habitations, he went against Abydos.”

The instances of the use of this word are so frequent that we know not whether more of them should not be given; but may we not presume that those who read the language have some knowledge of the matter? and we therefore ask them to relieve us from that burden. We think it no hazard to maintain the fact that ??d?ap?d???, its cognates and derivatives, both nouns and adjectives, are never used in the Greek language unassociated with the idea of slavery. If so, then it follows that the idea stealing, as it existed in the mind of St. Paul, was not associated with the idea “man,” but “slave,” and that he used the term ??d?ap?d?sta??, andrapodistais, to express the idea “slave-stealers.”

---

LESSON XII.

But as the verb ??d?ap?d???, andrapodizo, and its conjugates, are sometimes used to express the action of subjecting to slavery, it is asked, how are we to know whether Paul did not mean such subjugation? It was surely in the compass of the Greek language for Paul so to have used the proper mood and tense of this verb, with other suitable words, and effectually forbid the subjecting of others to slavery. But is it probable he could have consistently done so? Such forbidding would have been forbidding what the law prescribed. It would have been a rebellious teaching against the laws of the land, as well as against the laws delivered to Moses for the civil government of the Israelites. “When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, thou shalt proclaim peace unto it; and it shall be, if it make answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that are found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee,” (????????????wa?abadÛka va abaduka, be slaves to thee—and they shall be slaves to thee.) “But if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: and when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thy hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword. But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take to thyself.” Deut. xx. 10–14.

Such, substantially, was the law of all nations at the very time Paul wrote to Timothy. The verb proposed the making of a slave in a legal manner, reducing to the condition alluded to by the prophet. “Shall the prey be taken from the mighty, or the lawful captive restored?” Isa. xlix. 24. The verb andrapodizo expressed a lawful act. If individuals, without law, had seized upon the others with the view to make them slaves, such act would have been called by a different name. It would not have been a name formed from ???? and p???, (aner and pous,) unaccompanied by explanations. We have an example before us in Deut. xxiv. 7: “If any man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him, then that thief shall die.” Here the individual stolen was not a slave, either by the laws of God or man: and hence we find that the Septuagint uses no word to signify slave. The passage reads thus:

?a? d? ??? ?????p?? ???pt?? ????? ?? t?? ?de?f?? a?t?? t?? ???? ?s?a??, ?a? ?atad??aste?sa? ??t?? ap?d?ta?, ?p??a?e?ta? ? ???pt?? ??e????.

And had St. Paul merely in his mind the idea man-stealing, unconnected with slavery, he would have used analogous language. In the passage in Timothy, he might well have used the term ?????p???epta??, anthropokleptais, which would have expressed the same thing,—an unlawful act, an act forbidden in the passage just quoted,—the act of stealing a freeman, with an intention of making him a slave, contrary to law; and Paul would have probably added this offence, if the Ephesians had been guilty of the crime. But Paul did not use a word even conjugated from ??d?ap?d???, andrapodizo, but a cognate substantive, used almost technically to mean those who stole slaves, not freemen.

The word used by Paul is translated into Latin, in the Vulgate, by the word plagiariis, which also means those who stole slaves. It is formed from plagiger, one born to be whipped, (the Romans were cruel to their slaves,) and areo, to be parched up, to be thirsty, and hence plagiarius, from the notion that he who stole slaves coveted the slave with such intensity that he thirsted for the slave, and appropriated him to himself as a thirsty man does water. It originally was a mere cant word. But it expressed the contempt the Romans entertained for the act of slave-stealing. Hence has come our word plagiary; only used now to mean the act of appropriating the literary property of another, but still retaining, to some extent, the expression of contempt. The learned men who translated the New Testament into Latin well knew that Paul told Timothy that the law was made against those who stole slaves: and so we find it, Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not even covet thy neighbour’s slave. (See Exod. xx. 15, 17; also Deut. v. 19, 20.) Had Paul used the word andrapodizo, or some form of it, and had he really intended to have told Timothy that he or others should no longer, under any circumstances, subject others to slavery, or under the Christian dispensation he should not; that Christianity forbid it; yet he could not have been so shallow as to have added the sentiment that it was against the law, for such addition, such part of his instruction, Timothy would have at once known to be not true; and we trust but few will entertain a position so full of gross consequences. This discourse to Timothy was founded upon the fact that “some had swerved” from the end of the law, and turned to vain jangling, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm,—probably teaching doctrines that led essentially to the crimes here exposed. Paul’s object, in part, was to expose their ignorance and wickedness, to sustain the supremacy of the law, and by his counsel to warn him against a shipwreck of faith, as in the case of Hymeneus and Alexander.

Can it be supposed that under such circumstances he would have undertaken to have repealed a law, or to have asserted that the law prohibited what it sustained? In such case, he would have done the very act himself for which he condemned Hymeneus and Alexander, and have proved himself one of the lawless and disobedient, for whom the law was made.

There is another consideration, which to our mind is of moment in the review of this subject. The religion of Jesus Christ never undertook to meddle with the civil institutions of the law. Its object was to make its devotees happy under and resigned to its adjudications, whatever they may have been, by reason of the greater considerations of a hereafter; nor do we recollect an instance where either Christ or his apostles even suggested any repeal. His kingdom was not of this world, and therefore his followers could not act in reference to the things of this world. Peter in his zeal smote off the ear of the slave of the high-priest, but Christ immediately rebuked the act and restored the injury done. Had Paul intended to have suggested that the subjecting to slavery, as that subject then existed and ever had from the time of Moses, was no longer to be countenanced, then, it seems to us, he would have travelled beyond the mission of an apostle, the precepts of his Master, and out of his kingdom into the problematical questions of civil government.

Paul, in the passage before us, enumerates a class of the breaches of the law which came within the view of Timothy, which breaches of the law he pronounces to be “contrary to sound doctrine,” and “to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust,” having previously notified him “that the law was good if a man use it lawfully.” Now, one of the plain and well-known laws on the subject of slavery was, “Both thy bond-men and thy bond-maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are around about you; of them shall you buy bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and their families that are with you, which they beget in your land, and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession. They shall be your bond-men for ever.”

Under such a state of facts can any thing be conceived more inconsistent, than that Paul should, under such circumstances, design to slip in a word repealing in fact this law, and directly producing all the other ill effects which he so pointedly complained of in others. Whoever can believe such a thing, surely, whatever he may pretend, can have no respect for the character of Paul, nor for his religion.

But the character of Paul remains consistent, his religion unblemished and spotless, and the preaching of Jesus Christ in relation to the matter vindicated and supported, by giving to the word andrapodistais, as here used by Paul, its plain, legitimate, and usual meaning, slave-stealers, persons who steal, or entice away from the possession of their masters, individuals who according to the law are slaves.

---

LESSON XIII.

The inquiry naturally occurs, how happened it that St. Paul found it necessary to instruct and inform Timothy that the law forbid the stealing or enticing away other men’s slaves. By an examination of his writings and letters to the Gentile churches, the fact is plainly proven that there had grown up among them some new doctrines, which his office as apostle made it his duty to reprehend. What these doctrines were we are enabled in some measure to discover, by examining the 7th of the 1st Corinthians, which commences thus: “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me,” disclosing the fact that the Corinthians had written to him for advice and counsel, whom he now answers with instructions against the abolition of marriage, and against the abolition of slavery, &c.

Some of the Gentile churches advocated the doctrine that if a man or a woman of the faith were married to one not of the faith, that such marriage should be abolished; so also, that a slave of the faith should be set free, and especially from his believing master; so also, the believing child should be discharged from the authority of the unbelieving parents. The promulgation of these doctrines filled society with disorder there, and the church with confusion.

In his lesson to Timothy, he complains of the doctrines taught by Hymeneus and Alexander, as blasphemous. Now, in this same lesson, he applies this epithet to these new abolition doctrines, leaving us plainly to infer that these doctrines were also taught by them, and for which he “delivered” them “unto Satan.” And here we have a connecting link between this lesson to Timothy and his whole instruction to the Gentile churches on this subject. But these doctrines, as taught by Hymeneus and Alexander, or others analogous, have found advocates ever since; for folly has never been so foolish nor wickedness so wicked as not to find followers. These new doctrines Paul reprehended in many other places, and touching the subject of our present inquiry, let us examine how he treated the matter during the time of his apostleship.

“Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant, (d?????, doulos, slave,) care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, (d?????, doulos, slave,) is the Lord’s freeman; likewise, also, he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant, (d?????, doulos, slave.) Ye are bought with a price; be ye not the servant (d?????, doulos, slave) of men. Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.” 1 Cor. vii. 20–24. And this is consistent with his introduction to the subject in the 17th verse: “But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk, and so ordain I in all churches.” Compare this with his instruction to Titus: “Exhort servants (d?????, doulous, slaves,) to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things. Not answering again, not purloining, but showing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things. For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.” Titus ii. 9–15.

And to the Colossians: “Servants, (d?????, douloi, slaves,) obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: and whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve (d???e?ete, douleuete, ye slave yourselves to) the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons. Masters, give unto your servants (d??????, doulois, slaves) that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.” Col. iii. 22, 25; iv. 1.

And to the Ephesians: “Servants, (d?????, douloi, slaves,) be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; not with eye-service (?f?a??d???e?a?, ophthalmodouleian, slavery to the eye) as men-pleasers; but as the servants (d?????, douloi, slaves) of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good-will doing service (???e???te?, douleuontes, slaving yourselves) as to the Lord, and not to men; knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond (d?????, doulos, slave) or free (??e??e???, eleutheros, a freeman). And ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master is also in heaven, neither is there respect of persons with him.” Eph. vi. 5–9.

And, finally, to Timothy: “Let as many servants (d?????, douloi, slaves) as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren; but rather do them service, (d???e??t?sa?, do them slave-labour,) because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment, let us be therewith content. But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness. Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses. I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession, that thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Tim. vi. 1–14.

From the arguments here presented to Timothy in support of the doctrine which Paul invariably taught in relation to slavery, we may well suppose he felt a deep interest, even anxiety, to prevent these new doctrines from affecting Timothy’s mind in their favour; and we cannot but notice, that while, with the dignified authority of an apostolic teacher, his instructions are full, distinct, and certain, yet they are accompanied with a courteousness of explanation consolatory even to the slave, the subject of them, and with a solemnity of attestation that fathoms the very foundation of the Christian faith.

---

Jesus Christ announced to the Jews that whosoever committeth sin is the servant (d?????, doulos, slave) of sin; that the servant (d?????, doulos, slave) abideth not in the house for ever, but the son abideth ever, &c.; therefore, if the son make them free, they shall be free indeed, &c. Of the doctrine here inculcated by the Saviour himself, it seems to us St. Paul has given a full and happy illustration; and, by his using the institution of slavery as a principal medium of his illustration, and by referring to facts well-known in the history of the institution of slavery, has not only recognised its existence, but also that it existed in conformity with the ordinances of God: and we deem his illustration not the less valuable, because it explains what is meant by, and how we are to understand, the Christian equality of all in that church. In addition to what we have already read from his writings, we may also notice, “Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid; for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have come by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond (d?????, doulos, slave) nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Gal. iii. 21–29.

“Now I say, that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, (d?????, doulos, slave) though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage (ded????????, dedoulomenoi, a state of slavery) under the elements of the world. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, (d?????, doulos, slave,) but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service (?d???e?sate, edouleusate, did slave yourselves) unto them which by nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?” (d???e?e??, douleuein, to be in slavery.) Gal. iv. 1–9.

“Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons; the one by a bond-maid, (pa?d?s???, paidiskes, a favourite female slave,) and the other by a free-woman. But he who was of the bond-woman (pa?d?s???, paidiskes, a favourite female slave) was born after the flesh, but he of the free-woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai in Arabia, which gendereth to bondage, (d???e?a?, douleian, slavery,) which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage (d???e?e?, douleuei, slavery) with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.” Gal. iv. 21–26.

“Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless, what saith the scripture? Cast out the bond-woman (pa?d?s???, paidisken, favourite female slave) and her son: for the son of the bond-woman (pa?d?s???, paidiskes, favourite female slave) shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond-woman, (pa?d?s???, paidiskes, favourite female slave,) but of the free. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage,” (d???e?a?, douleias, slavery.) Gal. iv. 29–31, v. 1.

In these lessons of Paul we not only find the Greek use of the word “doulos,” but we find also the doctrine that slavery is the quotient of sin. It is true he often uses the word figuratively to illustrate the devotion and obedience of the humble followers of Jesus Christ; but in him who spurns obedience to the laws of God, and rejects the faith of the gospel, the character is fixed and permanent, as is the course of conduct that gives it.

While in this portion of our present Study, we desire to bring to mind the word doulos and its cognates, as used in the ancient Greek Scriptures, with the design that it may be easily compared with its use by the classical authors in that language. We shall be happy if successful in the attempt to present it in such form that the mind may acknowledge the doctrine inculcated to be consistent with the justice of Divine providence and the mercy of a redeeming love; that the deduction shall be evident; that slavery is a creation of Divine justice upon the model of mercy, every way adapted to benefit the most degenerate and wicked races of mankind; and that its whole action manifests the principle, that he whom the Father loveth, him he chasteneth;—and such, indeed, is the object of our entire study.

---

LESSON XV.

From the writings of St. Paul, we deem the deduction clear, that he considered slavery to be a consequent of sin, and plainly set it forth in his address to the Romans. “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. For until (????, achri, as far as—see Iliad, xvii. 599) the law, sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.” Rom. v. 12–24.

“Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants (d??????, doulous, slaves) to obey, his servants (d?????, douloi, slaves) ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants (d?????, douloi, slaves) of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants (?d??????te edoulothete, ye enslaved yourselves) to righteousness unto holiness. For when ye were the servants (d?????es) of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye then, in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. But now, being free from sin, and become servants (d???????te?, doulothentes, slaving yourselves) to God, ye have fruit unto holiness, and in the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death: but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom. vi. 16–23.

“For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage (d???e?a?, douleias, slavery) again to fear, but ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God; and if children, then heirs: heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ: if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon, that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope. Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage (d???e?a?, douleias, slavery) of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now: and not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.” Rom. viii. 14–23. “So then, with the mind I myself serve (d???e??, douleuo, slave myself to) the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.” Rom. vii. 25. “For they that are such serve (d???e???s??, douleuousin, slave themselves to) not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly.” Rom. xvi. 18.

The word “doulos” is used by Peter in a similar manner: “For so is the will of God, that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God,” (d?????, douloi, slaves.) Idem: “While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants, (d?????, douloi, slaves) of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage,” (ded????ta?, dedoulotai, is he enslaved.)

Further instances of the use of the word “doulos” in the original Greek Scriptures will be found as follows:—“But I keep under my body and bring it into subjection, (d???a????, doulagogo, and guide it as in slavery,) lest that by any means when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” 1 Cor. ix. 27. “For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we are Jews or Gentiles, whether we are bond (d?????, douloi, slaves) or free, and have been all made to drink into one spirit.” 1 Cor. xii. 13. “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond (d?????, doulos, slave) nor free.” Col. iii. 11. “As ye also learned of Epaphras, our dear fellow-servant” (s??d????? sundoulou, fellow-slave.) Col. i. 7. “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage (ded????ta?, dedoulotai, is enslaved) in such cases.” 1 Cor. vii. 15. “For ye suffer if a man bring you into bondage,” (?atad?????, katadouloi, reduce you to slavery,) &c. 2 Cor. xi. 20. “For he that in these things serveth (doule?sei, douleusei, shall slave himself to) Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men.” Rom. xiv. 18. “It was said unto her, the elder shall serve (d???e?se?, shall slave himself to) the younger; for it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Rom. ix. 12, 13. “And behold, one of them which were with Jesus, stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant (d?????, doulon, slave) of the high-priest, and smote off his ear.” Matt. xxvi. 51. “And one of them that stood by drew his sword, and smote a servant (d?????, doulon, slave,) of the high-priest, and cut off his ear.” Mark xiv. 47. “And one of them smote a servant (d?????, doulon, slave) of the high-priest, and cut off his right ear.” Luke xxii. 50. “Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and smote the high-priest’s servant (d?????, doulon, slave,) and cut off his right ear. The servant’s (d????, doulo, slave) name was Malchus.” “One of the servants (d?????, doulon, slaves) of the high-priest (being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off) saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?” John xviii. 10, 26. “And the servants (d?????, douloi, slaves) and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals, (for it was cold,) and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them and warmed himself.” John xviii. 18.

There are several instances where the word is used figuratively, as a submissive epithet, as an example of which we cite Acts iv. 29: “And now, Lord, behold their threatenings, and grant unto thy servants (d??????, doulois, slaves) that with all boldness they may speak thy word.” “And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, (d????s??s??, doulosousin, should enslave them,) and entreat them evil four hundred years. And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage (d???e?s?s?, douleusosi, to whom they shall be enslaved) will I judge, said God.” Acts vii. 6, 7. “Not now as a servant (d?????, doulon, slave,) but above a servant, (d?????, doulon, slave,) a brother beloved,” &c. Philem. 16. “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant (d?????, doulon, slave) depart in peace.” Luke ii. 29.

---

LESSON XVI.

The English words servant, to serve, service, servile, servilely, serving, &c. have descended into the language from the Latin word servus, a slave, and these words, when first introduced into the language, as distinctly carried with them the idea of slavery as does now our present term, and will continue to do so wherever the English language and slavery prevail. In no slave-holding country will the word servant be applied to a freeman as a legitimate term of description, but in non-slaveholding communities these words are sometimes used in a somewhat different sense, yet erroneously, because they are then used without adherence to their derivation and analogy. These words, when found in the received translation of the Christian Scriptures, are in the most of instances translated from some Greek word that signified or included the idea slavery. But notwithstanding the obvious error in giving the word servant, &c. as the translation of a word that did not carry with it the idea which was in unison with the original of these words, yet we find some few instances of such error. We give a few examples.

“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.” John xviii. 36.

Here servants is translated from ?p???ta?, huperetai, and signifies a subordinate. In English it sometimes requires attendants, assistants, inferior officers, &c., but never associates with the idea of slavery.

“Peter followed him afar off unto the high-priest’s palace, and he sat with the servants, (?p??et??, attendants, &c.,) and warmed himself at the fire.” Mark xiv. 54. “And the servants (d?????, douloi, slaves) and officers (?p???ta?, huperetai, attendants, inferior officers, &c.) stood there, who had made a fire of coals, (for it was cold,) and they warmed themselves.” John xviii. 18.

That the word here used never conjugates with the idea slavery, we quote it as used in Luke iv. 20, in proof: “And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister,” (?p???t?, huperete, attendant, inferior officer, &c.) Also, Acts xxvi. 16: “But rise and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister (?p???t??, hupereten, attendant, assistant, minister, &c.) and a witness both of those things which thou hast seen and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee.”

Here the requisites of the character required are totally incompatible with the character of the doulos, proving with the greatest certainty that these two words have no analogy whatever. For we may well here remark, that human learning has never arrived at a more nicely distinct and definite perfection in the use of language than is even now manifest in the sayings of Him “who spoke as never man spake.”

Besides, in the case of John xviii. 18, servants, douloi, and officers ?p???ta?, huperetai, being used consecutively and coupled together by a conjunction, is a strong proof that the idea appropriated here severally to these terms could not be expressed by either term alternately by substitution, and that these terms were by no analogy synonymous.

The word servant has also in error been rendered from other terms: see Hebrews iii. 5: “And Moses verily was faithful in all his house as a servant,” (?e??p??, therapon.) We have not in English any single term that fully expresses the idea conveyed by this. It means an associate or companion who is voluntarily under the direction of one whom he takes and acknowledges to be his superior. The old Roman umbra, when applied to an attendant, conveyed the idea more exactly than any one term of ours. Thus, the warrior was called the therapon of Mars, and of the muses and kings of the gods generally. Thus, Menelaus is called the therapon of his chief, &c. &c. (See Iliad, viii. 113, xviii. 244, xix. 143.)

A similar error is occasionally found in the use of the terms to serve, served, service, &c., as if they were legitimately derived from some form of doulos. Thus, Luke ii. 37: “But served God with fasting and prayers night and day,”—“served,” ?at?e???sa, latreuousa, from latreuo. The more appropriate term is “to worship,” &c.

The term was used by the Greeks, “to worship” the gods by sacrifices and offerings. (See Euripides, Electra, 131; Iphagenia in Tauris, 1115.) So in Acts vii. 7: “And after that shall they come forth and serve me in this place,”—“serve,” ?at?e?s??s?, latreusousi. It should have been, “and worship me in this place.” Rom. ix. 4: “And the service of God, and the promises,” ?at?e?a, latreia, worship, &c. So also Heb. ix. 1: “Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service,” ?at?e?a?, latreias, worship. So also Heb. xiii. 10: “We have an altar whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle,”—“serve,” ?at?e???te?, latreuontes, who are worshipping in the, &c. &c.

????????, diakonos, is also sometimes erroneously translated servant, service, to serve, &c. An instance occurs, John ii. 5: “And his mother saith unto the servants,” d?a??????, diakonois, from diakonos: as a verb, it means to minister unto, to wait upon, to manage affairs, to perform some function to another; and hence, in English, we may occasionally require some other term of cognate meaning. From this term our word “deacon” has been legitimately derived. The word is of less elevated import in Greek than therapon (see Aristophanes, Ornithes, line 1322, ?? ?a????? d?a???e??,) but never consorts in the least degree with the idea slavery. “Saith unto” them who ministered, who waited upon the guests, &c. So also John ii. 9: “But the servants which drew the water knew,”—servants, d???????, diakonoi, “they who ministered unto.” See also Rom. xvi. 1: “I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church,” &c., d???????, diakonon, one who ministers unto, &c. So also John xii. 26: “If any man serve,” d?a????, diakone, wait upon, minister unto me. “And where I am there shall my servant be,” d???????, diakonos, one who waits upon, who ministers unto; “him will my Father honour.” It is not always in English easy to select a phrase distinctly the best adapted to express the precise difference between the words diakonos and huperetes, but it may be remarked that the huperetes was of an employment more of public character: hence those who in the ships held certain banks of oars were called by that name; also those of a particular rank in the army, or in civil government; but the word diakonos was used as a term more applicable to domestic, personal, or private life. Keeping this distinction in mind, the same word may often, in English, give the sense of either; yet huperetes will often appear in Greek where diakonos would be ill used. A more correct use of this word than the preceding will be found in Matt. iv. 11: “Then the devil leaveth him, and behold, angels came and ministered unto him,” d????????, diekonoun, ministered unto, attended to.

Matt. xx. 26: “But whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister,” d???????, diakonos, minister, &c. And here is shown the distinction between this word and doulos, a slave; for he proceeds, “And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant,” d?????, doulos, slave. Also, Luke viii. 3: “And Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others which ministered unto him of their substance,” d????????, diekonoun, ministered, &c. We have deemed it proper to notice these inaccuracies in our translation, to prevent the word servant, &c., when used to mean slave, &c., being confounded with its use when given in translation as above; and it may be proper also to notice that the hired labourer, a freeman hired into the employ of another, is never described by any term implying slavery, or even having any analogy with it, as examples will show:

“For the kingdom of heaven is like a man that is a householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers (?s??sas?a? ????ta?, misthosasthai ergatas, to hire labourers) into his vineyard.” “They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us,” (??s??sat?, emisthosato, hath hired.) “So when the evening was come, the Lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, call the labourers and give them their hire,” ?s???, misthon, wages, &c. “And when they had received it, they murmured against the good man of the house.” Matt. xx. 1, 7, 8, 11. “And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants (?s????, misthioi, hired persons) of my father’s have bread,” &c. Luke xv. 17. “But he that is a hireling, (?s??t??, misthotos, a person hired,) and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf, &c. and the wolf catcheth them and scattereth the sheep. The hireling (?s??t??, misthotos, a person hired) fleeth because he is a hireling (?s??t??, misthotos, a person hired,) and careth not for the sheep.” John x. 12, 13. “For the labourer is worthy of his hire,” t?? ?s??? hire, wages, payment, &c. Luke x. 7. “Behold, the hire (? ?s???, payment for being hired) of the labourers (t?? ???at??, ton ergaton, the labourers, not slaves) who have reaped down your fields.” James v. 4.

He who is seeking to obtain a correct view of the truth will perceive the propriety of keeping in mind the distinction between the different characters thus in our version called by the same name, “servants,” and not suffer his mind to be governed, or even influenced, by any bias which has been produced by an incomplete examination of the whole gospel of God.

---