There existed in antiquity several works, partly by contemporaries like the Megaric Eubulides, partly by subsequent Platonists, in which Aristotle was reproached with ingratitude to Plato,[53] servility to the Macedonian power, love of costly display and indulgences, &c. What proportion of truth may lie at the bottom of these charges we do not know enough to determine confidently; but we know that he had many enemies, philosophical as well as political;[54] and controversy on those grounds (then as now) was rarely kept free from personal slander and invective. [Footnote 53: Euseb. Præp. Ev. xv. 2; Diog. La. ii. 109.] [Footnote 54: The remarkable passage of Themistius (Orat. xxiii. p. 346) attests the number and vehemence of these opponents. [Greek: Kêphisodô=rous te kai\ Eu)bouli/das kai\ Timai/ous kai\ Dikaia/rchous, kai\ stra/ton o(/lon tô=n e)pitheme/nôn A)ristote/lei tô=| Stageiri/tê|, po/t' a)\n katale/xaimi eu)petô=s, ô(=n kai\ lo/goi e)xiknou=ntai ei)s to/nde to\n chro/non, diatêrou=ntes tê\n a)pe/chtheian kai\ philoneiki/an?]] The accusation of ingratitude or unbecoming behaviour to Plato is no way proved by any evidence now remaining. It seems to have been suggested to the Platonists mainly, if not wholly, by the direct rivalry of Aristotle in setting up a second philosophical school at Athens, alongside of the Academy; by his independent, self-working, philosophical speculation; and by the often-repeated opposition which he made to some capital doctrines of Plato, especially to the so-called Platonic Ideas.[55] Such opposition was indeed expressed, as far as we can judge, in terms of respectful courtesy, and sometimes even of affectionate regret; examples of which we shall have to notice in going through the Aristotelian writings. Yet some Platonists seem to have thought that direct attack on the master's doctrines was undutiful and ungrateful in the pupil, however unexceptionable the language might be. They also thought, probably, that the critic misrepresented what he sought to refute. Whether Aristotle really believed that he had superior claims to be made Scholarch of the Platonic school at the death of Plato in 347 B.C., or at the death of Speusippus in 339 B.C., is a point which we can neither affirm nor deny. But we can easily understand that the act of setting up a new philosophical school at Athens, though perfectly fair and admissible on his part, was a hostile competition sure both to damage and offend the pre-established school, and likely enough to be resented with unbecoming asperity. Ingratitude towards the great common master Plato, with arrogant claims of superiority over fellow-pupils, were the allegations which this resentment would suggest, and which many Platonists in the Academy would not scruple to advance against their macedonizing rival at the Lykeium.