ARISTOTLE. 109 



character on repetition, will not wonder that in the course of the five 

 centuries which intervened between Aristoxenus and ^Elian, the vague 

 statement of the first should have bourgeoned into the circumstantial 

 narrative of the second. 1 Indeed, independently of the vulgar in- Refutation of 

 science with which this story invests the character of Aristotle, a the story ' 

 quality of which there is not a trace in his writings, there is much * 

 about it which may render us extremely suspicious of receiving it. 

 In the first place, other stories of equal authority represent his feelings 

 towards his master as those of ardent admiration and deep respect. 

 His biographer informs us that he dedicated an altar (by which he 

 probably means a cenotaph) to Plato, and put an inscription on it to 

 the purport that Plato " was a man whom it was sacrilege for the 

 bad even to praise." There is certainly not much credit to be 

 attached to the literal truth of this story ; 2 but its character may be 

 considered to indicate the view which the authority followed by the 

 biographer took of Aristotle's sentiments towards his master. Still 

 better evidence exists in the way in which Plato is spoken of in the 

 works of his pupil that have come down to us. His opinions are 

 often controverted, but always with fairness, and never with dis- 

 courtesy. If he is sometimes misapprehended, the misapprehension 

 never appears to be wilful. In one rather remarkable instance there 

 is exhibited a singular tenderness and delicacy towards him. The 

 passage in question is near the commencement of the Nicomachean 

 Ethics. 3 To the doctrine of Ideas or Archetypal Forms, as maintained 

 by Plato, Aristotle was opposed. It became necessary for him, in 

 the treatment of his subject, to discuss the bearing of this doctrine 

 upon it, and he complains that his task is an unwelcome one, from the 

 circumstance of persons to whom he is attached tyiXovg avcipae) 



1 The literary men of the declining period considered it a part of their duty to 

 supply all the details which their readers might desiderate in the more general 

 notices of the classical writers. An amusing instance of this kind of writer is 

 Ptolemy, the son of Hephaestion, whose book is described by Photius (Biblioth. 

 p. 146-153, Bekker), and strongly praised by him for its utility to those who 

 were desirous of voXv/tKfa'u lo-ro^xri. Not to mention the secret history of the 

 death of Hercules, Achilles, and various other celebrated characters, we are in- 

 formed of the name of the Delphian, whom Herodotus abstains from mentioning 

 (i. 51), and of that of the queen of Candaules, which latter it seems was Nysia. 

 The reason of Herodotus abstaining from giving it was, that a., youth, named Ple- 

 sirrhoiis, to whom he was much attached, had fallen in love with a lady of that 

 appellation, and, not succeeding in his suit, had hanged himself. This Ptolemy 

 related in his fifth book. In the third he had informed his readers that this very 

 Plesirrhoiis inherited Herodotus's property, and wrote the preface to his history, 

 the commencement of it, as left by the author, having been with the words Usgo-'iuv 

 01 Xoyioi. He probably knew that the readers for whom he wrote, even if they read 

 both anecdotes, would have forgotten the first by the time they reached the second. 

 Yet the age whose taste could render books of this description popular, was no 

 more recent than that of Hadrian, at whose court ./Elian and Phavorinus lived and 

 wrote. 



8 The phrase in question is also found in an elegy to Eudemus, cited by Olym- 

 piodorus, Comment, ad Platon. Gorgiam. (Bekker, p. 53.) 



8 P. 1096, col. 1, c. 11, ed Bekker. 



