ARISTOTLE. 1 33 



crashing a political opponent or rather a wise and inoffensive man, 

 whose very impartiality was a tacit censure of the violent party spirit 

 of his time will appear at first sight of the particulars of the charge. 

 Eurymedon the hierophant, assisted by Demophilus, accused him of the Frivolously 

 blasphemy of paying divine honours to mortals. He had composed, it fmpTety. * 

 was said, a paean and offered sacrifices to his father-in-law Hermias, and 

 also honoured the memory of his deceased wife Pythias with libations 

 such as were used in the worship of Ceres. This pcean is the Scolium 

 'Apra TroXvfj-o^f)^ &c., which we have described above (p. 118), and 

 although we cannot tell what the circumstance was which gave rise 

 to the latter half of the charge, we may reasonably presume that it as 

 little justified the interpretation given to it as the ode does. That 

 ignorance and bigotry, stimulated by party hatred, should find matter 

 in- his writings to confirm a charge of impiety founded on such a basis 

 was to be expected ; and he is related to have said to his friends, in 

 allusion to the fate of Socrates, " Let us leave Athens, and not give 

 the Athenians a second opportunity of committing sacrilege against 

 philosophy." He was too well acquainted with the character of " the 

 many-headed monster " to consider the absurdity of a charge as a suffi- 

 cient guarantee for security under such circumstances, and he retired 

 with his property to Chalcis in Eubcea, 1 where at that time Mace- 

 docian influence prevailed. In a letter to Antipater he expresses his 

 regret at leaving his old haunts ; but applies a verse from Homer in a 

 way to intimate that the disposition that prevailed there to vexatious 

 and malignant calumnies was incorrigible. 2 It is not improbable that 

 his new asylum had before this time afforded him an occasional retreat 

 from the noise and bustle of Athens. 3 Now, however, he owed to it 

 a greater obligation. He was out of the reach of his enemies, and 

 enabled to justify himself in the opinion of all whose judgment was 

 valuable by a written defence of his conduct, 4 and an exposure of the 

 absurdities which the accusation involved. " Was it likely," he asks, Hisjlefence. 

 " that if he had contemplated Hermias in the light of a deity, he should 

 have set up a cenotaph to his memory as to that of a dead man ? 

 Were funeral rites a natural step to apotheosis ?" Arguments like 



p. 696; Origen, c. Celsum, i. p. 51, ed. Spencer; Dernochares, cited by Aristocles 

 (ap. Euseb. Prasp. Ev. xv. 2). 



1 Apollodorus, ap. Diog. Vit. sec. 10. Lycon, the Pythagorean, cited by Aris- 

 tocles (ap. Euseb. Pra&p. Ev. xv. 2), grounds a charge of luxury on the number of 

 culinary utensils which were passed at the custom-house in Chalcis. 



2 Pseudo-Ammon; ^Elian, Var. Hist. iii. 36 (compare xii. 52); Phavorinus 

 (ap. Diog. Vit. sec. 9). 



3 Diog. Vit. Epicuri, sec. 1 ; Strabo, x. p. 325, ed. Tauchnitz. 



4 Athenaeus (p. 697) quotes a passage from this work, to which he gives the title 

 of ouroXoyia atrejSeias, but at the same time mentions a suspicion that it was not 

 genuine. It might very well be written by one of his scholars in his name, and 

 embody his sentiments, just as the Apology of Plato does those of Socrates. This 

 is the more likely, as Aristotle at this time appears to have been in a very weak 

 state of health. It seems to be identical with the \6yos StKovt/cbs mentioned by 

 Phavorinus (ap. Diog. Vit. sec. 9), and to be so called because written in that 

 form, although probably never intended to be recited in court. 



