[15,30] τούτου δὲ σημεῖον σαφέστατον· ἐπὶ γὰρ τῶν ἀλεκτρυόνων καὶ τῶν ἵππων καὶ τῶν κυνῶν διέμεινε τὸ ὄνομα, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἶχε τὸ παλαιόν. ὁ γὰρ ἵππον θεασάμενος θυμοειδῆ καὶ γαῦρον καὶ πρὸς δρόμον εὖ ἔχοντα, οὐ πυθόμενος εἴτε ἐξ Ἀρκαδίας ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ἔτυχεν ὢν εἴτε ἐκ Μηδίας εἴτε Θετταλός, φησὶν εὐγενῆ τὸν ἵππον αὐτὸν κρίνων. ὁμοίως δὲ ὃς ἂν ἔμπειρος ᾖ κυνῶν, ἐὰν κύνα ἴδῃ ταχεῖαν καὶ πρόθυμον καὶ συνετὴν περὶ τὸ ἴχνος, οὐθὲν ἐπιζητεῖ πότερον ἐκ Καρῶν τὸ γένος ἢ Λάκαινα ἢ ἀλλαχόθεν ποθέν, ἀλλά φησι γενναίαν τὴν κύνα· τὸ αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο ἐπ´ ἀλεκτρυόνος καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων. (15,31) οὐκοῦν δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ἐπ´ ἀνθρώπων οὕτως ἔχοι ἄν. ὥστε ὃς ἂν ᾖ πρὸς ἀρετὴν καλῶς γεγονώς, τοῦτον προσήκει γενναῖον λέγεσθαι, κἂν μηθεὶς ἐπίστηται τοὺς γονέας αὐτοῦ μηδὲ τοὺς προγόνους. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐχ οἷόν τε γενναῖον μὲν εἶναί τινα, μὴ εὐγενῆ δὲ τοῦτον, οὐδ´ εὐγενῆ ὄντα μὴ ἐλεύθερον εἶναι· ὥστε καὶ τὸν ἀγεννῆ πᾶσα ἀνάγκη δοῦλον εἶναι. καὶ γὰρ δὴ εἰ τὸ τῆς ἐλευθερίας καὶ τὸ τῆς δουλείας ἔθος ἦν ἐπί τε ἵππων λέγεσθαι καὶ ἀλεκτρυόνων καὶ κυνῶν, οὐκ ἂν ἄλλους μὲν γενναίους εἶναι ἐλέγομεν, ἄλλους δὲ ἐλευθέρους, οὐδὲ ἄλλους μὲν δούλους, ἄλλους δὲ ἀγεννεῖς. (15,32) ὁμοίως δὴ καὶ ἐπ´ ἀνθρώπων οὐκ ἄλλους μὲν εἰκός ἐστι γενναίους καὶ εὐγενεῖς λέγειν, ἄλλους δὲ ἐλευθέρους, ἀλλὰ τοὺς αὐτούς, οὐδὲ ἄλλους μὲν ἀγεννεῖς καὶ ταπεινούς, ἄλλους δὲ δούλους. καὶ οὕτω δὴ ἀποφαίνει ὁ λόγος οὐ τοὺς φιλοσόφους μεταφέροντας τὰ ὀνόματα, ἀλλὰ τοὺς πολλοὺς τῶν ἀνοήτων ἀνθρώπων διὰ τὴν ἀπειρίαν.

[15,30] Of this fact there is the clearest indication: for in the case of cocks and horses and dogs the designation was retained, just as it had been applied to men in olden times. For instance, when one sees a spirited and mettlesome horse that is well built for racing, without stopping first to enquire whether its sire by any chance came from Arcadia or from Media or is Thessalian, he judges the horse on its own merits and says that it is 'well-bred.' And it is the same with any connoisseur of dogs: whenever he sees a dog that is swift and keen and sagacious in following the scent, he does not go on to enquire whether it is of Carian or Spartan or some other breed, but says that it is a 'noble' dog. And it is exactly the same in regard to the cock and the other animals. 31 Therefore it is clear that it would be the same in the case of a man also. And so when a man is well-born in respect (p173) to virtue, it is right to call him 'noble,' even if no one knows his parents or his ancestors either. "But," you will object, "it is impossible for anyone to be 'noble' without being 'well- born' at the same time, or for one who is 'well-born' not to be free; hence we are absolutely obliged to conclude that it is the man of ignoble birth who is a slave. For surely, if it were the custom to use the terms freedom and slavery with reference to horses and cocks and dogs, we should not call some 'noble' and others 'free,' nor say that some were 'slaves ' while others were of 'ignoble' birth or breed. 32 "In the same way, then, when we are speaking of men, it is not reasonable to call some 'noble' and 'well-born,' and others 'free'; but we should make no distinction between the two classes. Nor is it reasonable either to say that some are of ignoble birth and mean, and that others are slaves. "In this way, then, our argument shows that it is not the philosophers who misuse the terms but the common run of ignorant men, because they know nothing about the matter."