"I am certainly of opinion that a great deal has been made, as usual, of a very little matter, namely, that if Aristotle derived any assistance in that kingdom, all the materials were provided for him while Philip was alive, and before Alexander's expedition was undertaken, or in the first years of the expedition. But afterwards, when Alexander had set out, Aristotle returned to Athens, and was engaged in teaching: nor could he have derived any advantage from the resources which Pliny mentions, and the multitude of persons who were instructed to place themselves under his command, for he was not only occupied with other pursuits, but would have been in danger of being destroyed by the fury of the Athenians, on the plea that he was attempting innovations, if he had even ventured to dissect animals, not to say men." In a note he adds these observations:--"Aristobulus, no unworthy companion of Alexander in his expedition, bears testimony, according to Plutarch, that the whole military chest did not contain seventy talents of coin. For the preparation of so arduous an undertaking, however, the same person says, that two hundred talents ought to have been taken for mutual exchange. I remember also to have read in Eustathius's commentary on Homer, a very learned disquisition on the scarcity of money amongst the Macedonians, at the time of Alexander's expedition; but I cannot lay my hands upon the passage." I must confess that I am not influenced by this annotation, nor does the whole of this controversy appear to me to have been properly conducted. For the greatest doubt prevails as to the number of talents which Alexander is said to have paid to Aristotle, to help him in his task; and the report only rests on the authority of a writer who lived centuries after the death of Alexander. To refute this is useless labour, both because its origin is obscure, and also because a sum of money set down in figures might be easily corrupted by transcribers. But the testimony of Aristobulus will give little or no assistance to the opinion of the learned, if we adopt that which is most probable, namely, that Philip, or his son Alexander, gave large sums of money to Aristotle, to enable him to pursue his studies in Natural History, while he lived in Macedon, and was employed in the education of Alexander. The question about the date when Aristotle arranged and published the materials and notes he had collected is quite distinct, and I do not think that it can be precisely ascertained at the present time. The conjecture I have hazarded (light enough, I must confess) does not say much in favour of the story of abundant treasures supplied by Philip, or Alexander, to our philosopher, for the composition of his Natural History. But these persons form a very poor estimate of the study and labour bestowed by Aristotle upon the History of Animals, who imagine that our philosopher had only access to such books as now remain, forgetting those of which time has robbed us.