110 GREEK PHILOSOPHY. 



having originated the theory. " Still," he adds, " it seems our 

 duty even to slay our own flesh and blood," an allusion to such 

 cases as those of Iphigenia, Polyxena, and Macaria, " where the 

 cause of truth is at stake, especially as we are philosophers ; where 

 we love both parties, it is a sacred duty to prefer the truth." The 

 delicacy which prompted such a preface as this would surely have 

 restrained its author from such coarseness as is attributed to him in 

 ^Elian's story. 



The way in which Xenocrates is mixed up with this affair is not to 

 be overlooked. He is represented as the vindicator of his master's 

 honour, and the punisher of the insolence and vanity of his rival. But 

 we shall see presently this same Xenocrates in the character of Aris- 

 totle's travelling companion during the three eventful years of his life 

 which immediately followed the death of Plato, consequently at no 

 long period after the alleged insult took place and was revenged ; a 

 circumstance which certainly is very far from harmonizing with that 

 conduct of the two philosophers towards each other which ^Elian's 

 narrative represents. 



We must not forget either that Aristotle, although probably pos- 

 sessed of considerable wealth, and perhaps also of some influence from 

 his Macedonian connexions, was still only a METIC, or resident alien. 

 How sensitive the pride of the Athenian citizen was to any appearance 

 of pretension on the part of these, is notorious. 1 In certain public 

 festivals duties of an inferior, not to say menial, character were assigned 

 to them. 2 They could hold no land ; they could not intermarry with 

 citizens, nor even maintain a civil action in their own persons, but were 

 obliged for this purpose to employ a citizen as their patron or sponsor 

 (TrpooTcir^g). 3 Plato, on the contrary, was of one of the most illustrious 

 families in Athens, and, if we may judge by the anecdotes of his con- 

 nexion with Chabrias and Timotheus, possessed friends among the 

 most influential public characters of the day. 4 It is scarcely credible, 

 therefore, even had all better motives been wanting, that fear of making 

 a powerful enemy should not have restrained Aristotle from behaving 

 to his master in the way which has been described. 

 Uncongeni- It is not difficult to imagine how such stories grew up. There is a 

 os*> marked contrast observable in the modes of thought of the two 

 philosophers, sueh a difference indeed as seems incompatible with con- 

 geniality, although quite consistent with the highest mutual admira- 



1 Eurip. Suppl. 892. 



s xsy rou$ (ttrotxouvTus %ivous, 



old' lt^to'TYt? ruv Xoyuv, ohv 

 fAKXiffT &v ilvt orifAOTri; <r$ xal e'voj. 



Aristoph. Acharn. 58. rous y&p [AITOIXOVS a/xjuoct T&IY a.<r<ruv "jJiyu^ which, after 

 all, was doubtless meant and taken as a compliment. 



2 They were the o-xcttpwipogot, ffxtotdntyogoi, and vfyHttybgot. 



3 See the authorities collected by Schoemann. Jus Publicum Grsecum, p. 190. 



4 Diog. Laert. Vit. Plat. sec. 1, 23; ^Elian, Var. Hist. ii. 18. 



