Discourses - Book IV   

when he was taken prisoner, how did he behave to the pirates? Did he
call any of them master? and I do not speak of the name, for I am
not afraid of the word, but of the state of mind by which the word
is produced. How did he reprove them for feeding badly their captives?
How was he sold? Did he seek a master? no; but a slave, And, when he
was sold, how did he behave to his master? Immediately he disputed
with him and said to his master that he ought not to be dressed as
he was, nor shaved in such a manner; and about the children he told
them how he ought to bring them up. And what was strange in this?
for if his master had bought an exercise master, would he have
employed him in the exercises of the palaestra as a servant or as a
master? and so if he had bought a physician or an architect. And so,
in every matter, it is absolutely necessary that he who has skill must
be the superior of him who has not. Whoever, then, generally possesses
the science of life, what else must he be than master? For who is
master of a ship? "The man who governs the helm." Why? Because he
who will not obey him suffers for it. "But a master can give me
stripes." Can he do it, then, without suffering for it?' "So I also
used to think." But because he can not do it without suffering for it,
for this reason it is not in his power: and no man can do what is
unjust without suffering for it. "And what is the penalty for him
who puts his own slave in chains, what do you think that is?" The fact
of putting the slave in chains: and you also will admit this, if you
choose to maintain the truth, that man is not a wild beast, but a tame
animal. For when is a a vine doing badly? When it is in a condition
contrary to its nature. When is a cock? Just the same. Therefore a man
also is so. What then is a man's nature? To bite, to kick, and to
throw into prison and to behead? No; but to do good, to co-operate
with others, to wish them well. At that time, then, he is in a bad
condition, whether you choose to admit it or not, when he is acting
foolishly.
"Socrates, then, did not fare badly?" No; but his judges aid his
accusers did. "Nor did Helvidius at Rome fare badly?" No; but his
murderer did. "How do you mean?" The same as you do when you say
that a cock has not fared badly when he has gained the victory and
been severely wounded; but that the cock has fared badly when he has
been defeated and is unhurt: nor do you call a dog fortunate who
neither pursues game nor labors, but when you see him sweating, when
you see him in pain and panting violently after running. What
paradox do we utter if we say that the evil in everything's that which
is contrary to the nature of the thing? Is that a paradox? for do
you not say this in the case of all other things? Why then in the case
of man only do you think differently, But because we say that the
nature of man is tame and social and faithful, you will not say that
this is a paradox? "It is not." What then is it a paradox to say
that a man is not hurt when he is whipped, or put in chains, or
beheaded? does he not, if he suffers nobly, come off even with
increased advantage and profit? But is he not hurt, who suffers in a
most pitiful and disgraceful way, who in place of a man becomes a
wolf, or viper or wasp?