¹ See Chroust, A.-H., “Aristotle Enters the Academy,” Classical Folia, XIX, no. 1 (1965), 21–29Google Scholar.

² Vita Aristotelis, Marciana (subsequently cited as VM) 5; Vita Aristotelis Vulgata (VV) 4; Vita Aristotelis Latina (VL) 5; An-Nadim, Ibn, Kittib al-Fihrist (subsequently cited as I VA) 4Google Scholar; Usaibia, Ibn Abi, Uyun al-Anba fi Tabaqat al-Attiba (subsequently cited as IV VA) 3Google Scholar.

³ IV VA 3.

⁴ This is brought out, for instance, in VM 4: VV 3; VL 4; Al-Mubashir, (or Mubassir), Kitab Mukhtar al-Hikam wa-Mahasin al-Kilam (subsequently cited as II VA) 3–4Google Scholar. II VA also relates that Nicomachus, the father of Aristotle, personally handed over the latter to a “school of poets, orators, and schoolmasters” in Athens, and that he did so when Aristotle was only 8 years old. This account, reported in II VA 3, is probably a later invention or, perhaps, the result of some confusion. See Chroust, A.-H., op. cit., pp. 21–22Google Scholar.

⁵ Diogenes Laertius V. 2; VM 1–2; VV 1–2; VL 1–2; I VA 1; II Vita Aristotelis Syriaca (author unknown), Cod. Vat. Syriacus 158 (subsequently cited as II VS) 1; II VA 2; Al-Qifti Gamaladdin al Qadi al-Akram, Tabaqat al Hukama (subsequently cited as III VA); IV VA 2; Vita Aristotelis Hesychii (subsequently cited as VH) 1; Suda, Nicomachus.

⁶ See Chroust, A.-H., “The Genealogy of Aristotle,” Classical Folia, XIX, no. 2 (1965), 139–146Google Scholar; Epiphanius, , De Graecis Sectis Exc, in Diels, H., Doxographi Graeci (Berlin, 1879), p. 592Google Scholar, reports that, according to some authors, Aristotle was a Macedonian, and according to others a Thracian, that is, a “barbarian” or “semi-barbarian.”

⁷ See VM 3; VV 2; VL 3; IV VA 3.

⁸ See Chroust, A.-H., op. cit. supra, note 6, pp. 144–145Google Scholar. See also notes 1–3, supra. According to Philochorus (VM 10; VL 10), Aristotle went to Athens during the latter part of Nausigenes' archonship (368/67 B.C.), that is, during the first year of the 103rd Olympiad or, to be more exact, during the (late) spring of the year 367 B.C. According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Apollodorus ?), I Epistola ad Ammaeum 5, he arrived in Athens during the early part of Polycelus' archonship (367/66 B.C.), that is, in the second year of the 103rd Olympiad or in the summer or fall of 367 B.C. On the whole, the dating of Philochorus has been accepted. Since, according to Philochorus, Aristotle was born in 384 B.C. (in the first year of the 99th Olympiad, that is, during the early part of Diotrephes' archonship (384/83 B.C.) or, to be more exact in the summer or early fall of 384 B.C., he arrived in Athens before he had turned seventeen, provided we accepted the dating of Philochorus.

⁹ VM 3; VV 2; VL, 3; IV VA 3. These Vitae insist that at the time he went to Athens in 367 B.C. he was “orphaned.”

¹⁰ This might well have been the “advice” given by the Delphic oracle. See notes 2 and 7, supra.

¹¹ See Chroust, A.-H., “Aristotle Leaves the Academy,” Greece and Rome, XIV, no. 1 (1967), 39–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹² Eusebius, , Praeparatio Evangelica, XV. 2. 5Google Scholar (Eubulides), likewise reports that at the time of Plato's death Aristotle was no longer in Athens.

¹³ It might be argued that II Vita Aristotelis Syriaca is a badly garbled account, or a confused combination, of two wholly unrelated incidents in the life of Aristotle: Aristotle's indictment in 323 B.C. for alleged impiety, and his sojourn with Hermias of Atarneus (348/47 – 345/44 B.C.), commonly called Aristotle's sojourn in Assos. When the author of II VS 3 reports that Aristotle went to a place “near the Hellespont,” he might be alluding to Assos (or Atarneus) which is “near the Hellespont.” See Chroust, , “Aristotle's Flight from Athens in the Year 323 B.C.,” Historia, XV, no. 2 (1966), 185–192Google Scholar. Diogenes Laertius V. 2, on the other hand, might refer to the story, circulated by some of Aristotle's detractors, that in order to annoy or offend Plato, Aristotle left the Academy while Plato was still alive, and founded his own independent school in the Lyceum. See VM 9, and ibid., 25–29; VV 6–11; VL 9, and ibid., 25–29; Eusebius, , op. cit., XV. 2. 3Google Scholar; Aelian, , Varia Historia IV. 9Google Scholar; Helladius, in Phocion, Bibliotheca 533 b 13 (ed. I. Bekker).

¹⁴ On the occasion of the heated debates over the issue of whether Athens should enter into a military alliance with threatened Olynthus, Demosthenes delivered his Olynthiac Orations which were animated by the same violent anti-Macedonian spirit as his Philippics.

¹⁵ In his Philippics and, especially, in his Olynthiacs.

¹⁶ Shortly before his death, Aristotle is said to have written a letter to Antipater in which he pointed out that “in Athens things which are proper for a citizen are not proper for an alien”; and that “it is dangerous [for an alien] to live in Athens.” See VM 42; VV 20; VL 42; Elias, (olim David), Comment. in Porphyrii Isagogen et in Aristotelis Categorias (prooem.), in Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, XVIII, part 1 (ed. Busse, A., Berlin, , 1900), 123, lines 15 ff.Google Scholar In his Oration Against the Philosophers, delivered in 306 in support of Sophocles' motion to have all alien (“subversive”) philosophers expelled from Athens, Demochares accuses Aristotle of having betrayed Stagira, his native city, to the Macedonians (in 349 B.C.); and with having denounced to King Philip the wealthiest citizens of Olynthus (in 348 B.C.), who on account of their commercial connections with Athens were probably pro-Athenian and, hence, in favor of a defensive alliance with that city. See Diogenes Laertius V. 38; Athenaeus, , Deipnosophistae XIII. 610EF,Google Scholar and ibid., XI. 509B; Pseudo-Plutarch, Vita Decem Oratorum (Moralia 850B ff.); Eusebius, , op. cit., XV. 2, 6Google Scholar; Pollux IX. 42. See also Eusebius, , op. cit., XV. 2. 11Google Scholar; von Wilamowite-Moellendorff, U., Antigonos von Karystos (Berlin, 1881), p. 192Google Scholar, and ibid., p. 270; I. Düring, Herodicus the Cratetean (Stockholm, 1941), pp. 149–151Google Scholar.

¹⁷ See note 16, supra.

¹⁸ Socrates, too, might have been the victim of “political entanglements and animosities.” It is not unreasonable to conjecture that Socrates' trial and condemnation in 399 B.C. was basically an incident in the bitter and protracted struggles between the “democratic” and the “oligarchic-aristocratic” factions in Athens. See Ghroust, A.-H., Socrates: Man and Myth—The Two Socratic Apologies of Xenophon (London-Notre Dame, 1957), pp. 164 ff., and 189 ff.Google Scholar Socrates had, or was suspected of having, close ties with some of the muchdespised Thirty Tyrants, especially, Critias and Charmides.

¹⁹ See A.-H. Chroust, op. cit. supra, note 11.

²⁰ This might be the ultimate meaning of VM 15, W 15, and VL 15, where we are told that Aristotle “did much work for King Philip.”

²¹ Proxenus is said to have been a native of Atarneus. See VM 3; VV 2; VL 3.

²² See Demosthenes, , Fourth Philippic (Oratio X. 32)Google Scholar.

²³ See text, infra.

²⁴ This might be inferred from Demosthenes, Fourth Philippic (Oratio X. 32), where we are told that “the agent [Hermias of Atarneus], who was privy to all of Philip's schemes against the King of Persia, has been captured, and the King [of Persia] will hear of all these plots … from the lips of the very man who planned and carried them out. …” Demosthenes refers here to the capture of Hermias by Mentor in 341/40 B.C., and to the possibility that under torture Hermias would divulge the secret negotiations which had been carried on between him and Philip of Macedonia through the mediation of Aristotle. See also Didymus, Areius, In Demosthenis Orationes Comments (ed. Diels, H. and Schubart, W., Berlin, 1904), col. 5, 64 ff.Google Scholar; Diodorus Siculus XVI. 52. 5; Polyaenus VI. 48; Pseudo-Aristotle, , Oeconomicus II. 11. 38Google Scholar; Wormell, D. E. W., “The Literary Tradition Concerning Hermias of Atarneus,” Yale Classical Studies, V (1935), 57–92Google Scholar; Jaeger, W., Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of His Development (Oxford, 1948), pp. 117–120Google Scholar.

²⁵ Diogenes Laertius V. 27 (no. 144): “Letters to Mentor, in one book.”

²⁶ See Diogenes Laertius V. 6: “This man [scil., Hermias], in violation of the hallowed laws of the Immortals, was unrighteously slain … by treachery with the aid of one [scil., Mentor] in whom he had put his trust.” See also Didymus, Areius, op. cit. supra, note 24, col. 6, 36Google Scholar.

²⁷ This might be the ultimate meaning of Hermias' last message to his friends in which he insists that he had done nothing “unworthy of philosophy [that he had not betrayed his friends or their secrets to the Persians].” See Didymus, Areius, op. cit., col 6, 13 ffGoogle Scholar.

²⁸ See note 24, supra.

²⁹ See Didymus, Areius, op. cit., col. 5, 51Google Scholar.

³⁰ See, for instance, VM 16, and ibid., 27; VV 16; VL 16; I VA 9; II VA 25, and ibid., 36; IV VA 25. All the biographers of Aristotle are quite emphatic in their praise of his many “public services.” See also Eusebius, , op. cit., XV. 2. 11Google Scholar.

³¹ With the exception of Diogenes Laertius V. 2 (which in all likelihood is derived from Hermippus who wishes to stress the stupid ingratitude of Athens and of the Platonic Academy towards Aristotle, their great benefactor), no other biographer mentions this diplomatic mission of Aristotle (on behalf of Athens?), although several Vitae Aristotelis refer to the many valuable services he had rendered the city of Athens (and other cities or countries). See, for instance, IV VA 17 ff.; Diodorus Siculus XVI. 77, and ibid., XVI. 84. See also infra.

³² See Demosthenes, , Fourth Philippic (Ortio X. 32)Google Scholar, cited supra, note 24.

³³ This might be the ultimate meaning of Eubulides' statement that at one time Aristotle “offended Philip.” See Eusebius, , op. cit. XV. 2. 3Google Scholar, and ibid., XV. 2. 5, where we are informed that Aristotle “fell out with Philip.” Although betrayed by Philip, Hermias, even when subjected to torture, apparently did not betray Philip to the Persians. See note 26, supra. This loyalty of Hermias, it might be contended, prompted Aristotle to bestow many posthumous honors upon him.

³⁴ VM 24; VV 23; VL 24; I VA 10–11; II VA 19, and ibid., 24–25; IV VA 6, and ibid., 22–23; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, I Epistola ad Ammaeum 5; Apollodorus, , Chronicle, in Diogenes Laertius V. 10Google Scholar.

³⁵ Diogenes Laertius V. 4, relates that “when he [scil., Aristotle] thought he had stayed long enough with Alexander, he departed for Athens.” Similar views can be found in VM 24; VV 23; VL 24; I VA 10; II VA 19, and ibid., 24–25; IV VA 6, and ibid., 22–23. Although these Vitae state that Alexander's departure for Asia was the prime reason for Aristotle's return to Athens, they also imply that he wanted to return there in order to dedicate himself to further study as well as to the teaching of philosophy.

³⁶ Plutarch, , Alexander 8Google Scholar.

³⁷ Dionysius of Halicarnassus, loc. cit. supra, note 34.

³⁸ See Chroust, A.-H., “Aristotle Returns to Athens in the Year 335 B.C.,” Laval Thélogique et Philosophique, XXIII, no. 2 (1967), 244–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁹ Prompted by wishful thinking, in 335 B.C. Demosthenes actually produced a man who allegedly had witnessed the death of Alexander. The same Demosthenes assured the Athenians that they had nothing to fear from so young and inexperienced a boy as Alexander. See Aeschines, , Contra Ctesiphontem 160Google Scholar; Diodorus Siculus XVII. 3; Plutarch, , Alexander 11Google Scholar; Plutarch, , Phocion 16Google Scholar; Plutarch, , Demosthenes 23Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ See I VA 9; IV VA 16. Similarly, II VA 36; IV VA 25. Diogenes Laertius V. 26, lists letters of Aristotle addressed to Philip, Alexander, Antipater (in nine books), Mentor, Olympias, Hephaestus and others. See also VH 10 (no. 137); VM 16, and ibid., 27; VV. 16; VL 16.

⁴¹ IV VA 15; Eusebius, , op. cit., XV. 2. 1Google Scholar.

⁴² II VA 28; I VA 7–8; IV VA 15; and ibid., 23; 46; VV 21; VL 15, and ibid., 23; 49.

⁴³ IV VA 16, and ibid., 17–18; II VA 20, VM 16; VL 16.

⁴⁴ IV VA 16; II VA 25; VM 16, and ibid., 20; VL 16, and ibid., 20; Diogenes Laertius V. 2. It is also interesting to note that IV VA 12 relates that Aristotle “tried his hand at governing cities” (was engaged in political activities) until he reached the age of 30.

⁴⁵ IV VA 17–18; I VA 11; II VA 25; VM 20; VL 20.

⁴⁶ IV VA 17–18.

⁴⁷ It will be noted that the text found in Ibn Abi Usaibia (IV VA 17–18) follows rather closely the traditional pattern and style of Greek honorific decrees or inscriptions. This fact in itself lends considerable support to the assumption that the whole report might be based on historical truth. See Drerup, E., “Ein Attisches Proxeniendekret für Aristoteles,” Mittheilungen des Kaiserlichen Deutschen Archeologischen Instituts, XXIII (Athens, 1898), 369–381Google Scholar; Chroust, A.-H., op. cit. supra, note 38, especially, p. 250, note 4, and p. 251Google Scholar. Diogenes Laertius VII. 10–12, reproduces the honorific inscription which the Athenians dedicated to Zeno, the Stoic, although Zeno, like Aristotle, was an alien.

⁴⁸ See A.-H. Chroust, op. cit. supra, note 38.

⁴⁹ See A.-H. Chroust, op. cit. supra, note 13.

⁵⁰ Diogenes Laertius V. 5–6.

⁵¹ Athenaeus, , op. cit., XV. 696AGoogle Scholar. VM 41, VV 19, VL 43, II VA 20, and IV VA 7, report that Eurymedon had charged Aristotle with impiety.

⁵² Athenaeus, , op. cit., XV. 696A–696E (frag. 675, Rose)Google Scholar. Athenaeus' source is probably Hermippus. See ibid., XV, 696EF. See also Diogenes Laertius V. 7–8; Lucian, , Eunuchus 9 (frag. 675, Rose)Google Scholar; Himerius, , Oratio VI. 6–7Google Scholar. For the hymn or paean, see also Didymus, Areius, op. cit. supra, note 24, col. 6, 22 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁵³ II VA 20–21.

⁵⁴ IV VA 7–10.

⁵⁵ See also Origen, , Contra Celsum I. 380Google Scholar (Migne, , Patrol. Graec., II, 781 b)Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ This account seems to recast some of the events which, according to the testimony of Plato, Xenophon and others allegedly transpired during the indictment and trial of Socrates in 399 B.C.

⁵⁷ II. VA 20.

⁵⁸ II VA 21.

⁵⁹ Ibn Abi Usaibia (IV VA 8–9) in substance restates II VA 21, adding, however, an important bit of information: apparently no one interfered with Aristotle's voluntary departure from Athens. See also Eusebius, , op. cit., XV. 2. 8Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ See Chroust, A.-H., op. cit. supra, note 17, pp. 164 ff.,Google Scholar and ibid., 189 ff.

⁶¹ The story that Aristotle composed a speech in his defense (see Diogenes Laertius V. 9, who quotes Favorinus) is probably spurious. This is stressed in IV VA 10. See also Athenaeus, , op. cit., 697ABGoogle Scholar; Aelian, , Varia Historia VIII. 12Google Scholar; Origen, loc. cit. supra, note 55; VH 10 (no. 189), where a Defense Against the Charge of Impiety, Addressed to Eurymedon, and allegedly written by Aristotle, is listed among the spurious works of Aristotle. But, like in the case of Socrates, there might have existed a Defence (or Apology) of Aristotle, composed by some unknown author or authors.

⁶² IV VA 8–9. See also note 59, supra. Apparently, Aristotle was also permitted, or somehow managed, to take with him all of his moveable property (which must have been considerable), as well as his many servants. See infra. Hence, his departure from Athens must have heen a rather leisurely affair.

⁶³ In the case of Socrates, too, the Athenians seem to have hoped that he would leave the city voluntarily, and thus relieve them of the unpleasant and always risky task of a formal trial. It is also held that after the trial the Athenians would have preferred to see Socrates escape from prison and flee to some other city, thus relieving them of the duty of executing him. This is indicated, for instance, by Plato's Crito, unfortunately not a very reliable source.

⁶⁴ II VA 20.

⁶⁵ Eurymedon, we are told, was the highest religious official connected with the Eleusinian mysteries. From this it might be inferred that some of the charges brought against Aristotle in 323 B.C. were, in some way, also related to the story that, according to Lycon Pythagoraeus (Eusebius, , op. cit., XV. 2. 8)Google Scholar, Aristotle had sacrificed to his wife, Pythias, after her death, “as the Athenians sacrifice to the Eleusinian Demeter”; or, according to the author (Aristippus ?) of Aristippus or On the Luxury of the Ancients (Diogenes Laertius V. 4), that he had done so while Pythias was still alive. Accordingly, Aristotle would have been guilty of blasphemy. However, neither Lycon Pythagoraeus nor the author of the Aristippus are reliable reporters, although they are dedicated detractors of Aristotle.

⁶⁶ See, for instance, VM 20; VL 20; I VA 25; IVA 17–18.

⁶⁷ See VM 12, and ibid., 42; VV 6; VL 12. These reports stress the fact that Aristotle was an “alien” in Athens and, hence, lived there by mere sufferance, having no influence or power whatever.

⁶⁸ This fact is stressed many times not only by Aristotle's biographers, but also by a number of ancient historians and authors. In his last will and testament, which was drafted probably in 323/22 B.C., Aristotle named Antipater his chief executor or administrator (or trustee). See Diogenes Laertius V. 11, and ibid., 13, and the corresponding provisions in the Arabic versions of this will. See Ghroust, A.-H., “Aristotle's Last Will and Testament,” Wiener Studien, LXXX (vol. I, Neue Folge, 1967), 90–114Google Scholar; Chroust, A.-H., “Estate Planning in Hellenic Antiquity: The Last Will and Testament of Aristotle,” Notre Dame Lawyer, XLV, no. 4 (1970), 629–662Google Scholar, especially, p. 639, and pp. 648–649.

⁶⁹ Eusebius, , op. cit. XV. 2. 11Google Scholar (Aristocles) maintains that Aristotle was envied and hated (by the Athenians?) because of “his friendship with kings.” This remark may refer to Aristotle's close connections with King Philip, Alexander, and with Antipater and Hermias.

⁷⁰ Demochares, the nephew of Demosthenes, in 306 B.C. justified and supported the decree of Sophocles (see Diogenes Laertius V. 38) which called for the expulsion from Athens of all foreign, that is, “subversive” philosophers. At the same time, Demochares denounced Aristotle in particular. Among other charges, he accused Aristotle of having sent many letters (intelligence reports?) to Antipater, that some of these “letters” had been intercepted by the Athenians and that the content of these “letters” was found to be detrimental to the political interests of Athens. See note 16, supra.

⁷¹ Antipater had been denounced for alleged disloyalty to Alexander by Olympias, the mother of Alexander. Alexander, who had become increasingly suspicious of his own lieutenants and generals, and whose temper as well as general disposition was steadily worsening during the last years of his life, saw himself surrounded and betrayed by a host of alleged conspirators, traitors and enemies.

⁷² It is quite possible that in his Oration Against the Philosophers, Demochares also revived, and magnified, some of the accusations made against Aristotle by the anti-Macedonian partisans in Athens in the year 323 B.C., and probably during the years 335/34–323 B.C. See notes 16 and 70, supra, and note 77, infra.

⁷³ IV VA 17–21. See also A.-H. Chroust, op. cit. supra, note 38.

⁷⁴ The technical phraseology of the honorific inscription for Aristotle, mentioned in IV VA 18–19, is very close to the traditional wording of Athenian decrees of proxenia. See note 47, supra.

⁷⁵ IV VA 20.

⁷⁶ Together with other prominent anti-Macedonian leaders in Athens, Himeraeus was executed by Antipater after the battle of Crannon and the reoccupation of Athens by the Macedonians in the fall of 322 B.C. See Plutarch, , Demosthenes 28Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ Eusebius, , op. cit., XV. 2. 6Google Scholar. See also notes 16, 70, and 72, supra.

⁷⁸ See Plato (?), Sixth Epistle, passim; Chroust, A.-H., “Plato's Academy: The First Organized School of Political Science in Antiquity,” Review of Politics, XXIX (1967), 25–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁹ See notes 20–30, supra, and the corresponding texts. Beloch, K. J., Griechische Geschichte, II, part 1 (Berlin-Leipzig, 1922), 537Google Scholar, note 3, remarks that Aristotle might have been Philip's political agent or emissary in Atarneus. Jaeger, W., Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of His Development (Oxford, 1948), pp. 120–121Google Scholar, suggests the possibility that Aristotle might have been a political agent representing Macedonian political interests in Atarneus. It is also reasonable to assume that upon his return to Macedonia in 343/42 B.C., Aristotle continued to recommend Hermias to Philip as a useful and reliable ally. See D. E. W. Wormell, op. cit. supra, note 24, passim.

⁸⁰ See Didymus, Areius, op. cit., col. 6, 50 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁸¹ See Arrian II. 14. 2. See also note 32, supra, and the corresponding text.

⁸² See Didymus, Areius, op. cit., col. 6, 13 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁸³ See also Demosthenes, , Fourth Philippic 32 (Oratio X. 32),Google Scholar and note 27, supra.

⁸⁴ Didymus, Areius, op. cit., col. 6, 50 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁵ See, for instance, Aristotle, , Nicomachean Ethics 1145 a 21Google Scholar, and ibid., 1149 a 10.

⁸⁶ It has been claimed, however, that Aristotle was probably not the (chief) preceptor of Alexander. See Chroust, A.-H., “Was Aristotle Actually the Preceptor of Alexander the Great?” Classical Folia, XVIII, no. 1 (1964), 26–33Google Scholar.

⁸⁷ Plutarch, , Alexander 9Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ When Philip married Cleopatra, he declared that the first-born male issue of this marriage would succeed him to the throne of Macedonia. See Plutarch, , Alexander 9Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ See notes 32–33, supra. There exists a further explanation for Philip's desertion of Hermias. In a letter addressed to Philip, usually dated between 343 and 341 B.C., Theopompus of Chios, the implacable foe of Hermias, points out that the latter had a very bad reputation among the Greeks for being a treacherous and untrustworthy scoundrel. See Didymus, Areius, op. cit., col. 5, 21 ffGoogle Scholar. It is possible that Philip paid heed to Theopompus' incriminating statements concerning Hermias. See also Wormell, D. E. W., op. cit. supra, note 24, p. 71Google Scholar. Theopompus, a Chian, harbored an unrelenting hatred for Hermias, probably for the following reason: Eubulus, the “predecessor” of Hermias, had wrested Atarneus from the control of Chios; and Hermias had failed to support the oligarchic faction of Chios, to which Theopompus and his father belonged, against the democrats. The victory of the democrats over the oligarchs forced Theopompus and his father, Damasistratus, to go into exile.

⁹⁰ It is certainly significant that Chalcis, a city on the island of Euboea and the place to which Aristotle retired in the year 323 B.C., at the time was philo-Macedonian. Admittedly, Aristotle had a house in Chalcis (which he had inherited from his maternal ancestors), but he also had a house in Stagira (which he had inherited from his father). Moreover, Stagira had been rebuilt by King Philip. See note 93, infra. Chalcis, however, was much closer to Athens than Stagira. This fact might lend support to the assumption that after his flight from Athens in 323 B.C., Aristotle still entertained hopes of returning there at some future time.

⁹¹ See notes 40–48, supra.

⁹² Düring, I., Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, LXIII, no. 2 (Göteborg, 1957)Google Scholar, passim, and other scholars, at times are inclined to disregard or “play down” these reports by calling them mere fabrications invented by some encomiastic biographers of Aristotle.

⁹³ According to Chrysostom, Dio, Oratio XLVII. 9–10Google Scholar, Aristotle maintained in his old age that his only truly meritorious achievements had been his many political and diplomatic activities that, among other beneficial results, had led to the restoration of Stagira which had been destroyed by Philip in 349 B.C. This statement calls to mind Goethe, Faust, part II, at the end, where the old Faust admits that the only true joy he had ever experienced in his life was the realization that he had aided his people by making them happy and contented.

⁹⁴ See, in general, A.-H. Chroust, op. cit. supra, note 78, passim.