ARISTOTLE. 123 



the purpose of systematic instruction. For in the fourth year of this 

 period, 1 we find Philip during an expedition to Byzantium leaving 

 his son sole and absolute regent of the kingdom. Some barbarian 

 subjects having revolted, Alexander undertook an expedition in person 

 against them, and took their city, which he called after his own name, 

 Alexandropolis. From this time he was continually engaged in busi- 

 ness, now leading the decisive charge at Cha3ronea, and now involved 

 in court intrigues against a party who endeavoured to gain Philip's 

 confidence, and induce him to alter the succession. 2 It is clear, there- 

 fore, that all instruction in the stricter sense of the word, must have 

 terminated. Yet that a very considerable influence may have been Aristotle's 

 still exerted by Aristotle upon the mind of Alexander, is not only in o"er e Aiex- 

 itself probable, but is confirmed by the titles of some of his writings ander. 

 Which are now lost. Ammonius, in his division of the works of the 

 philosopher, mentions a certain class 8 as consisting of treatises written 

 for the behoof of particular individuals, and specifies among them those 

 books " which he composed at the request of Alexander of Macedon, 

 that ' On Monarchy,' and ' Instructions on the Mode of establishing 

 Colonies.' " The titles of these works may lead us to conjecture that 

 the distinguishing characteristics of Alexander's subsequent policy, the 

 attempt to fuse into one mass his old subjects and the people he had 

 conquered, the assimilation of their manners, especially by education 

 and intermarriages, the connexion of remote regions by building cities, 

 making roads, and establishing commercial enterprises, may be in no 

 small measure due to the counsels of his preceptor. A modern writer, 

 indeed, has imagined an analogy between this assimilative policy of 

 the conqueror, and the generalizing genius of the philosopher. 4 And 

 there really does seem some ground for this belief, in spite of an ob- 

 servation of Plutarch's, 5 which is at first sight diametrically opposed 

 to it. After speaking of the Stoical notions of an universal republic, 

 he says, that magnificent as the scheme was, it was never realized, 

 but remained a mere speculation of that school of philosophy ; and he 

 adds that Alexander, who nearly realized it, did so in opposition to the 

 advice of Aristotle, who had recommended him to treat the Greeks as 

 a general (//ye^on/cwc), but the barbarians as a master (deo-Trorucwg), 

 the one as friends, the other as instruments. But there is no other 

 authority than Plutarch for this story ; and it seems far from impro- 



1 Plutarch, Vit. sec. 9 ; Diodorus, xvi. 77. See Clinton, Fast. Hell. a. 340, 339. 



2 Plutarch, Vit. sec. 9, 10. 



3 TO, Mooixai. Ammon. Hermeneut. ad Aristot. Categor. p. 7, ed. Aid. The 

 two works alluded to are cited by the anonymous author of the Life printed by 

 Buhle in his edition of Aristotle, pp. 60-67, under the titles vifi /3a<r/>u/j and 

 'AAs'gav^fl;, % vvrl^ aLveixtuv. Diogenes mentions the latter by the same name, and 

 Pseudo-Ammonius the former. The anonymous writer adds a third 



fyev, TJ wig} priro^o; } WS^ITIXOU, by which he probably means the p 

 av^av, which we have. 



4 Joh. von Mueller, Allgemeine Geschichte, i. p. 160. 



5 De Virt. et Fort. Alexandri, p. 329. 



