Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 1.djvu/338

Rh been preserved to us of certain external regulations of his school, e. g., that, after the example of Xenocrates, he created an archon every ten days among his scholars, and laid down certain laws of good breeding for their social meetings (vóuot σUTOTIKol, Diog. Laërt. ii. 130; Athen. v. p. 186, a. e.). Neither of the two schools of philosophy which flourished at the same time in Athens approached, in extent and celebrity, that of Aristotle, from which proceeded a large number of distinguished philosophers, historians, statesmen, and orators. We mention here, beside Callisthenes of Olynthus, who has been already spoken of, only the names of Theophrastus, and his countryman Phanias, of Eresus, the former of whom succeeded Aristotle in the Lyceum as president of the school; Aristoxenus the Tarentine, surnamed povoués; the brothers Eudemus and Pasicrates of Rhodes; Eudemns of Cyprus; Clearchus of Soli; Theodectes of Phaselis; the historians Dicacarchus and Satyrus; the celebrated statesman, orator, and writer, Demetrius Phalereus; the philosopher Ariston of Cos; Philon; Neleus of Scepsis, and many others, of whom an account was given by the Alexandrine grammarian Nicander in his lost work, Περὶ τῶν Αριστοτέλους μαθητών.

During the thirteen years which Aristotle spent at Athens in active exertions amongst such a circle of disciples, he was at the same time occupied with the composition of the greater part of his works. In these labours, as has already been observed, he was assisted by the truly kingly liberality of his former pupil, who not only presented him with 800 talents, an immense sum even for our times, but also, through his vicegerents in the conquered provinces, caused large collections of natural curiosities to be made for him, to which posterity is in- debted for one of his most excellent works, the "History of Animals." (Plin. H. N. viii. 17.)

Meanwhile various causes contributed to throw a cloud over the latter years of the philosopher's life. In the first place, he felt deeply the death of his wife Pythias, who left behind her a daughter of the same name: he lived subsequently with a friend of his wife's, the slave Herpyllis, who bore him a son, Nicomachus, and of whose faithfulness and attachment he makes a grateful and substantial acknowledgement in his will. (Diog. Laërt. v. 1; v. 13.) But a source of still greater grief was an interruption of the friendly relation in which he had hitherto stood to his royal pupil. The occasion of this originated in the opposition raised by the philosopher Callisthenes against the changes in the conduct and policy of Alexander. Aristotle, who had in vain advised Callisthenes not to lose sight of prudence in his behaviour towards the king, disapproved of his conduct altogether, and foresaw its unhappy issue. [.] Still Alexander refrained from any expression of hostility towards his former instructor (a story of this kind in Diog. Laërt. v. 10, has been corrected by Stahr, Aristotelia, p. 133); and although, as Plutarch expressly informs us, their former cordial connexion no longer subsisted undisturbed, yet, as is proved by a remarkable expression (Topicor. iii. 1, 7, ed. Buhle; comp. Albert Heydemann's German translation and explanation of the categories of Aristotle, p. 32, Berlin, 1835), Aristotle never lost. his trust in his royal friend. The story, that Aristotle, irritated by the above-mentioned occurrence, took part in poisoning the king, is altogether un-

ARISTOTELES. founded. Alexander, according to all historical testimony, died a natural death, and no writer mentions the name of Aristotle in connexion with the rumoiir of the poisoning except Pliny. {H. N. XXX. 53.) Nay, even the passage of Pbny has been wrongly understood by the biographers of Aristotle (by Stahr as well, i. p. 13i)); for, far from regarding Aristotle as guilty of such a crime, the Roman naturalist, who everywhere shews that he cherished the deepest respect for Aristotle, says, on the contrary, just the reverse, — that the rumour had been " magna cum infamia Aristotelis ejcco- (/itatum." The movements which commenced in Greece against Macedonia after Alexander's death, b. c. 323, endangered also the peace and security ot Aristotle, who was regarded as a friend of Mace- donia. To bring a political accusation against him was not easy, for Aristotle was so spotless in thia respect, that not even his name is mentioned by Demosthenes, or any other contemporary orator, as implicated in those relations. He was accordingly accused of impiety (do-eget'os) by the hierophant Eurymedon, whose accusation was supported bj' an Athenian of some note, named Demophilus. Such accusations, as the rabulist Euthyphron in Plato remarks, seldom missed their object with the mul- titude. (Plato, Euthyph. p. 3, B., Eo5id§o.a rd Totavra irpos rods iroWovs.) The charge was grounded on his having addressed a hymn to his friend Hermias as to a god, and paid him divine honours in other respects. (Diog. Laert. v. 5 ; Ilgen, Disquidt. de Scd. Foesi, p. 69 ; and the *A7roAo7j'o dae§i[as attributed to Aris- totle, but the authenticity of which was doubted even by the ancients, in Athen. xv. 16, p. 691).) Certain dogmas of the philosopher were also used for the same object. (Origen. c. Cels. i. p. 51, ed. Hoeschel.) Aristotle, however, knew his danger sufficiently well to withdraw from Athens before his trial. He escaped in the be- ginning of B. c. 322 to Chalcis in Euboea, where he had relations on his mother's side, and where the Macedonian influence, which was there predominant, afforded him protection and security. In his will also mention is made of some property which he had in Chalcis. (Diog. Laert. v. 14.) Certain ac- counts (Strabo, x. p. 448 ; Diog. Laqrt. x. 1) even render it exceedingly probable that Aristotle had left Athens and removed to Chalcis before the death of Alexander. A fragment of a letter written by the philosopher to his friend Antipater has been preserved to us, in which he states his reasons for the above-mentioned change of resi- dence, and at the same time, with reference to the unjust execution of Socrates, adds, that he wished to deprive the Athenians of the opportunity of sinning a second time against philosophy. (Comp. Eustath. ad Horn. Od. vii. 120. p. 1573, 12. ed. Rom. 275, 20, Bas. ; Aelian, V. H. iii. 36.) From Chalcis he may have sent forth a defence against the accusation of his enemies. At least antiquity possessed a defence of that kind under his name, the authenticity of which, however, was already doubted by Athenaeus. (Comp. Phavorin. ap. Diog. LatH. I. c, who calls it a ^070$ diKavi- Kos.) However, on his refusing to answer the summons of the Areiopagus, he was deprived of all the rights and honours which had been previously bestowed upon him (Aelian, V. H. xiv. 1), and condemned to death in his absence. Meantime